I would like to nominate Miguel and Mikel Amigot of IBL Education to the Core Contributor Program. They are active contributors of the Marketing Working Group and have contributed to the Open edX Project for over 8 years. IBL Education is committed to contribute 20 hours of non-code contributions within the Marketing Working Group, by assisting us in the video production efforts of an upcoming “How To” video series, as well as other marketing related video materials.
Please let us know your thoughts on this nomination. The comment period will be active until 7/20/22.
2 Likes
Fantastic news! IBL have been major promoters of Open edX for years now. It will be great to have their support as core contributors!
2 Likes
Thank for the help IBL! A yes from me.
2 Likes
Dear Miguel, dear Mikel Amigot,
We have known each other for years, and you have always been a strong voice for open edx since the beginning.
Great that after the meeting in Lisbon now you are also official part of these Marketing Working Groups. Welcome and hope to see you soon. The video production is extremely important for all of us and for Open edX and I really thank you for your support!
1 Like
Hello,
I have known Miguel and Mikel for a long time now and I also think they have demonstrated their 3Cs in the community.
Now, in terms of the process I am a little confused. This would mean that there are two separate nominations here right?
Also most participants of the marketing project that I see in the list have the Translation Reviewer Role and one or more languages assigned. Is that what the nomination in this thread means?
I’d like to vote yes but I also would like to clarify what this means. Perhaps even we need a new role that better maps the giant contribution that video production for the marketing how to videos entails.
1 Like
Hi Felipe,
Hope all is well and thank you for your feedback! Yes, technically, it would be 2 nominations. Both Miguel and Mikel are assisting us with video production work in the realm of the Marketing WG. However, they are not part of the Translations Working Group. Does this answer your questions, or did I miss something?
This answers most of my questions, but the role they would take is still unaswered.
The situation is that we don’t have a role right now in the core contributors program for the marketing working group, so I understand we have been using “translation reviewer” as a proxy.
Maybe @sarina could help us to figure out what should be done in this case.
We have a marketing role framed out: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/2759460357/Core+Contributor+Role+Definitions#Marketing-WG-members---Eden - but it never got any serious attention and I think needs to be fleshed out before someone can claim this role.
Yes, I will update the current Marketing Role in Confluence. It appears to have both Translation and Marketing efforts combined within it, so I will separate the two roles. Thank you for the heads up @Felipe !!
I have updated the marketing role. It is all set now.
Thanks a lot @ehuthmacher,
Now, given all the updates I vote yes for both nominations, Miguel and Mikel for the role of Marketing core contributors.
1 Like
Great, thank you @Felipe !!
I’ve met Mikel at the very first Open edX conference way back in late 2014. I’ve met Miguel too at a few Open edX conference since then. We always had good discussions on a multitude of Open edX topics. It’s a yes from me for both of them.
1 Like
Quick correction, since I nominated both Mikel and Miguel in one post: Mikel is nominated to fulfill the Marketing WG role, by assisting in the Open edX How-To video production series, as well as other marketing videos, and press coverage during the Open edX Conference. Miguel on the other hand, wants to provide code contributions and therefore will fulfill the role of a code contributor. @jill @sambapete @abstract-technology @Dean @Felipe will it still be a yes for both individuals, provided these updates?
I don’t have an objection per se, but don’t we need examples of code contributions before accepting a code contributor? Wasn’t it based on a specific repository and also accompanied with a champion in the past? At least that was the case at the very beginning of the core contributors program. @sarina could probably give us some clarity on this topic.
I have no problem with Miguel as I am using one of the Xblock he helped develop GitHub - ibleducation/jupyter-edx-colab-cloud-xblock: Provide a Jupyter Notebook environment in Open edX for the use of Jupyter notebooks with Open edX.
@sambapete my understanding is this is not a nomination for a coding role:
Look at the latest message from @ehuthmacher
Blockquote
Mikel is nominated to fulfill the Marketing WG role, by assisting in the Open edX How-To video production series, as well as other marketing videos, and press coverage during the Open edX Conference. Miguel on the other hand, wants to provide code contributions and therefore will fulfill the role of a code contributor.
Yes, that’s correct.
It was already kind of weird to have two people nominated in one thread - they really ought to have been different threads. Now that it is two people for two separate roles, you should make a separate thread for the coding contribution as that needs to be run by those who have commit rights to repos.
Ok, I will create a separate thread for Miguel as a code contributor. Initially, they were both supposed to be Marketing contributors. However, Miguel informed me that he would like to be listed as a code contributor instead. Since he has received approval for the Marketing role, I will ask him if he wants to occupy that role as well. It looks like Mikel has already received 5 yes’s for the Marketing role. Could you respond to Pierre’s question regarding past examples of code contributions @sarina ? I will update the new listing with the proper requirements accordingly. It would also be helpful to emphasize in the instructions that only one person can be nominated at a time.