Contributors Meetup Async Update - Aug 31tst - Sep 12th, 2024

Working Groups Core Contributors
,
1

Core Contributor Update: Aug 31tst - Sep 12th, 2024

Use the jump links below to view the section that interests you:

  1. Working Groups Updates
  2. Events
  3. Projects
  4. Next async update and meetup

1. Working Groups Updates

Working Groups Calendar

1.1. BTR Working Group

Chair: @jalondonot

:paperclip: Latest news

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2024-08-26 BTR Meeting Minutes

  • Redwood retrospective:
  • Thinking ahead: Sumac
    • :scissors: sumac.master ~ 2024-10-09
    • :one: sumac.1 ~ 2024-12-09
    • Alignment with the 2024-2025 Community Release Plan and monthly follow-ups led by the Product WG starting on 08/08
    • Cutoff and release dates
    • We’re considering two options: either 6 weeks before release, on Oct 23, or 7 weeks before release, on Oct 16. The 7-week option is there to account for the week-or-so that it took for the release testing sandbox to come up for Redwood. If Edly can guarantee the testing sandbox can be ready a day before the cutoff, we could aim to a 6-week testing and debugging period.
  • Vacant BTR positions
    • We agreed on guaranteeing a shadowing period for offering some psychological safety to the new members and ensuring a proper knowledge transfer.

:memo: Meeting notes

1.2. Contributor Coordination Working Group

Chair: Jorge Londoño

  • The meeting focused on Obtain feedback & iterate on core sprint checkins & retros · Issue #95 · openedx/wg-coordination, where Cassie presented a document summarizing feedback from core contributors, focusing on six key areas, and suggested a call for proposals. The team discussed the need for a structured approach to address important topics and measure the impact of the proposed solutions.
  • Cassie, Xavier, Jorge, and Ed discussed the planning and execution of a summit. They agreed to set a date for the summit, with the 14th of October being proposed, and decided to allow people to submit proposals, with a deadline set for the week of the 21st of October. The team also discussed the need for a document or proposal format for the summit, with Cassie agreeing to edit the document to clarify that a proposal does not involve funding.
  • Ed suggested migrating all meetings to a new tool for automatic recording and easy sharing of videos, and proposed to finalize the details and then transfer the meetings over, suggesting a connection on Friday or the following week. Ed also suggested having a list of co-hosts for the meeting.

:memo: Meeting notes

1.3. Data Working Group

Chair: @e0d & @blarghmatey

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2024-08-21 Meeting notes

:memo: Meeting notes

1.4. DEPR Working Group

Chair: @feanil

:paperclip: Latest news

:memo: Meeting notes

1.6. Tutor Users’ Group

Chair: Kyle McCormick

:memo: Meeting notes

1.7. Educators Working Group

Chair: @john_curricume

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2024-05-20 Educator WG

:memo: Meeting notes

1.8. Frontend Working Group

Chair: @arbrandes

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2024-08-15 Frontend Working Group Meeting Notes

  • Proposal on Component Prop Overrides: Adam Stankiewicz introduced a proposal aimed at enabling the extension or overriding of component properties without hard-coding vendor-specific attributes in the codebase. The primary motivation was to handle vendor-specific attributes, such as those used by tools like Datadog and Hotjar, more flexibly.
  1. Current Challenges:
  • Hard-coding attributes for specific vendors like Hotjar across the platform is not ideal as not all instances use the same vendors.
  • The proposed solution involves using a hook or higher-order component to apply custom prop types to any component dynamically.
  1. Implementation Details:
  • The proposal includes a configuration schema that allows specifying selectors and corresponding prop overrides.
  • A key part of the discussion was about ensuring that this approach doesn’t unintentionally allow the abuse of this flexibility, such as by overriding important properties like className or style incorrectly.
  1. Concerns Raised:
  • Security: David Joy and others expressed concerns about potential security issues, particularly with handlers like onClick, which could introduce vulnerabilities if misused.
  • Abuse of Flexibility: There were concerns about developers misusing this flexibility to override too many aspects of a component, potentially leading to bloated and hard-to-maintain configurations.
  1. Suggestions:
  • Limiting Scope: It was suggested that the proposal might need to be narrowed down, focusing on specific use cases such as PII masking rather than being too generic.
  • Naming Conventions: The term “selectors” was seen as potentially confusing, and a better naming convention was suggested to clarify the intent and usage.
  1. Next Steps:

  • Adam will refine the proposal based on the feedback, particularly focusing on security concerns and the potential for misuse.

  • A decision on whether to proceed with the current generic approach or to narrow it down will be considered.

  • Meeting Conclusion:

    • The group agreed to take the discussion async and revisit the proposal after further refinement. The meeting concluded with no additional topics raised.

:memo: Meeting notes

1.9. Large Instances Working Group

Chair: @braden & @Felipe

:paperclip: Latest news

eduNext

:memo: Meeting notes

1.10. Marketing Working Group

Chair: Eden Huthmacher

:memo: Meeting notes

1.11. Maintainers

Chair: Feanil

  • Deprecating support in repos that don’t have maintainers:
    • eg. Dropping node 18 support in repos that are not critical and not maintained so that future maintainers can just do the work without having to wait 6-months after
    • This almost sounds like expectations for maintained or unmaintained repos rather than a DEPR issue.
      • But if a repo transitions from unmaintained to maintained, does the new maintainer need to do 6-month warnings for dropping old support.
    • Once all maintained repos have dropped support for something (post 6-month window), it is fair game to drop support in any unmaintained repo.
  • Ubuntu 20.04 vs ubuntu-latest
    • Makes a lot of sense for libraries but maybe we don’t do this for IDAs
    • We should pilot with latest and see how it goes but if it causes a lot of churn we can go back to pinning.
    • Is there a way to know which repos are using c-extension that core python uses.
  • Action items
    • Brian Smith will update the DEPR pilot issue with the exception for unmaintained repos. Something like “Once all maintained repos have dropped support for something (post 6-month window), it is fair game to drop support in any unmaintained repo.” but with examples of when this notification happens.
    • Next Time: Continued discussion on whether we should change the Depr 6-month window approach. Should we have one big ticket for something like Python 3.8 or Node 18 and just start the 6-month clock once all the maintained repos have been updated?
    • Feanil Patel ticket enabling cron CI of master every week so we know when external changes might have broken some repos that are usually not getting updates.

:memo: Meeting notes

1.12. Product Working Group

Chair: Jenna Makowski

:paperclip: Latest news

  • UX/UI Working Group
  • Current Issues:
    • Figma lacks robust support for open-source design systems.
    • The organization owning the Figma file controls its publication.
  • Collaboration for Open edX:
    • Design system changes for Open edX require collaboration between the UX/UI group and the Paragon working group.
    • Ownership and publication authority remain with the organization that owns the Figma file.
  • Question Raised:
    • Who will own the Figma file to make it accessible to the Open edX community?
  • Discussion Points:
    • A consistent ownership model is needed for effective use of the Figma file by the community.
    • Axim can be a potential owner and publisher, but this would require all contributors to have Axim accounts, which may be complex with many users.
    • Alternatives include publishing under an entity like Open edX or a similar organization, ensuring clear management and hosting.
  • Final Decisions Taken:
    1. Ownership and Access Management:
    • Axim will own the Figma file.
    • Access will be managed on a project-by-project basis, with seats adjusted as needed.
    • The Product Delivery Team will handle seat rotation.
    • For cross-organizational projects, the working group may manage access.
    1. Designer Access:
    • Designers working on new or revised components will have temporary access to the Figma file to publish their work.
    • Completed components will be added to the Figma Library and codebase.
    1. Time-Based Access:
    • Access will be granted for the duration of each project.
    • UX/UI leads will maintain access throughout the project period.
  • LTI/Learning Tool WG Meeting

:memo: Meeting notes

1.13. Security Working Group

Chair: Feanil Patel

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2023-07-26 Security WG Meeting

:memo: Meeting notes

1.14. TOC

Chair: Ed Zarecor

:arrow_down: Past meeting notes 2024-08-13 TOC Meeting Summary

  • Open edX’s Current Market Position and Future Potential
    The dialogue opened with concerns about Open edX not achieving a definitive product-market fit which poses a risk to its ecosystem and stakeholders. It was highlighted that expanding the platform’s functionality to cater to residential (on-campus) learning could open new avenues and potentially invigorate its adoption. It would aim to create learning experiences that are more integrated and interactive, providing real-time feedback and support in physical classrooms. However, there was notable deliberation on whether Open edX, in its current architecture, could pivot to meet the demands of residential learning without extensive overhauls or if starting anew with a different product would be more feasible.
  • Concerns and Alternative Suggestions
    Participants expressed concerns about fragmenting the Open edX community with a shift towards a new product. There was also skepticism about whether an entirely new platform was needed or if iterative improvements to Open edX could achieve similar goals. Suggestions were made to further modularize Open edX to allow for easier customization and extension, which could potentially support more interactive and residential learning experiences without starting from scratch.
  • Funding and Resources
    The discussion touched on the need for funding innovative projects that could either extend or complement Open edX to support new forms of learning. It was proposed that small, funded projects could explore innovative educational technologies and tools that could later be integrated into Open edX or stand alone as new products.
  • Conclusion
    The meeting concluded without a consensus on a specific course of action but opened several critical lines of inquiry about the future direction of Open edX. It was agreed that more discussion was necessary, particularly around defining the target customer and market for Open edX and understanding the technical and financial implications of expanding or altering its offerings. The possibility of setting up further discussions or working groups to explore these issues was suggested.
  • Agreed Next Steps:
    • Further Discussions: Organize additional meetings or discussions, possibly involving external experts or stakeholders, to delve deeper into the feasibility and desirability of shifting towards residential learning platforms.
    • Market Analysis: Conduct a thorough market analysis to better understand the needs and expectations of potential markets for Open edX, particularly in the residential learning sector.
    • Technical Review: Assess the technical capabilities and limitations of Open edX in relation to the proposed new features for residential learning, considering both integration into the existing platform and the development of a new product.
    • Community Engagement: Engage more actively with the Open edX community to gather input and feedback on the proposed changes and ensure that any new direction has broad support and meets the needs of current and future users.

:memo: Meeting notes

1.15. Translation Working Group

Chair: Eden Huthmacher

:paperclip: Latest news

  • WG Goal / Formation Recap
    • Discussed origins of the WG, from Open edX conference
      • The exact comment voted on at the conference was: How can we substantially improve the documentation? (25 votes, the most voted topic)
        • there were several cases of people wanting to use Open edX but it was cumbersome to figure out where to start
        • easy access / reference was also an issue (how to find certain things, etc.)
  • Documentation Funding possibility
    • Perhaps Axim would be able to support educator documentation improvements but there are many other segments / groups.
  • Documentation Challenges limit Platform growth
    • Many documentation challenges exist, including helping new people to the platform / ecosystem get started
  • Developers, adopters, educators, etc - lots of different segments and needs
  • Challenges and Roles: Documentators Working Group - Initial Document from the last meeting.

:memo: Meeting notes

2. Events

  • Would anyone like to highlight any past or upcoming events? Let us know in the comments!

3. Projects

Are there any new or ongoing projects you’d like to discuss? Get the conversation started in the comments below.

4. Next async update and meetup

  • Friday September 27th - Async update
  • Tuesday October 1st - Join the meetup here!
  • Details and draft agenda on Confluence

:speech_balloon: Anything to add?

If there’s anything else you’d like to mention, please let us know in the comments below.

2 Likes
2

Core Contributor Check-in: Aug 31st - Sept 13th, 2024

:stopwatch: Core Contributor Hours

There was a total of 298 hours of contributions reported this past sprint with a 30% response rate.

response rate
response rate1370×496 29.1 KB

:notebook_with_decorative_cover: Summary of Responses

Do you need any help? Or is there anything you’d like to collaborate on?

@Cassie

  • Yes! We’re excited to announce an upcoming Summit focused on Enhancing the Core Contributor Experience, and we’d love for you to be a part of it! The summit is dedicated to gathering innovative ideas and actionable proposals aimed at improving the Open edX Core Contributor Program. Our goal is to make your involvement more efficient and impactful. To participate please visit this link.

@pdpinch

What did you accomplish this sprint?

@Cassie

@pdpinch

@Felipe

  • Group meetings: large instances and release planning
  • I worked updating dependencies from the packages I’m maintainer
  • Dropped python 3.8 support from edx-organizations

@mafermazu

  • PR reviews
  • Assists in Discuss
  • Improve the WooCommerce Plugin

@Awais_Qureshi

  • Upgrading instructor APIs to DRF

@john_curricume

  • Migrate EdX Educators Docs

@jill

  • Repo maintenance
  • Set up notifications sandbox for UI/UX review

@Zia.Fazal

  • Reviewed PR 38 of H5P xblock

What do you plan to work on in the upcoming sprint?

@john_curricume

  • Continue Docs Migration

@mafermazu

  • Documentation

@pdpinch

  • Need to start planning for Sumac testing

:speech_balloon: Questions or comments?

Please add any questions or comments you might have below. We’d love to hear from you!

And if you’d like to take a peek at the full report, see it on Listaflow

2 Likes