Hey Adolfo, thanks for this write-up, and thanks for applying! I’d like to comment on some of the points you mentioned and for which I have some level of disagreement. Otherwise, I am generally in support of your other propositions.
I think we should not try to change what is working well. Creation, assignment and resolution of Jira issues is a smooth process that is quite functional for the working group. I hate Jira just as much as anyone else (@pdpinch’s “consistently alienating” description is fitting) but there are arguments in favour of Jira and against Github issues. They were outlined by @nedbat in a previous meeting and I summarized them in writing here: **Task Management.** As a contributor, I would like to manage my Open edX tasks in a publicly visible and accessible space, in order to collaborate and innovate with others. · Issue #174 · openedx/open-edx-proposals · GitHub
IMHO, the strongest argument is that edX employees do not track Github issues, and moving to Github would create yet another barrier between edX and the rest of the community.
Concerning synchronous meetings: it was decided in September that we have more frequent synchronous meetups, not less frequent, in order to reach decisions faster. What we have observed is that it’s much easier to take decisions and assign tasks to people when we meet “face to face”. So whatever decision we end up making, we should be careful that we do not make a step backwards in terms of efficiency.
Of course I fully agree with you with the problem analysis, but I have a different opinion about the solution. I believe that in order to mobilize more people, we need better incentives to contribute. This is the “behaviorist” argument if you wish. One way to incentivize people more is to give them better rewards for their contributions, e.g: by means of publicity.