Core Contributor Sprint Retro - 29 October - 12 November

compare-report.csv (73.0 KB)

Full report

@antoviaque #working-groups:core-contributors

Find the full report attached or in Listaflow for your convenience:

A relatively low amount of hours have been reported this sprint compared the last four sprints. There have been 299 hours worked on the latest sprint, compared to 366.75, 497.75, 285.75 and 320 hours in the previous four sprints.

The Core Contributors average satisfaction for this latest sprint was 3.6 out of 5, which is 0.1 higher than the previous sprint.

Total hours this sprint: 299

Name Hours
Kyle McCormick 60
Adolfo R. Brandes 58
Jill 20.5
Kshitij Sobti 17
Maria Grimaldi 15
Ali Hugo 14.5
Zia Fazal 13
Piotr 12
Igor Degtiarov 11
Matjaz Gregoric 10
Michelle Philbrick 10
Xavier Antoviaque 8.25
Esteban Etcheverry 8
Pierre Mailhot 8
Braden 6.5
Gabriel 6
Dean Jay Mathew 6
Felipe Montoya 5
Giovanni 5
Ignacio (Nacho) Despujol Zabala 2
Ilaria Botti 2
Pooja 1
Omar Al-Ithawi 0.25
Nicole Kessler
Brian Mesick
Juan Montoya
Chintan Joshi
Sarina Canelake
Angie Ruiz
Peter Koblyakov
Andrés González
Carolina De Mares
Peter Pinch
Jorge Londoño
Dave Ormsbee
María Laura Rivas Díaz
Andreas Grähn
Edward Edward
Ivo Branco
Patrick Neubert
JayRam Nai
Sofiane Bebert
Ayaz Quraishi
Maksim Sokolskiy
Pedro Cabral
Ana Garcia
Feanil Patel
Achim Neuss
Stefania Trabucchi
Carlos Muniz
Ghassan Maslamani
Eden Huthmacher
Jhony Avella

Here are the calculations of total hours: Core Contributors - Sprint Planning & Retro - Google Sheets

Calls for help/collaboration

|Is there anything where you could use help from others? Or that you would like to collaborate on?

|Retrospective - Blockers|User|

Still looking for a reviewer on this PR
fix: added keyword substitution support in edx_ace based bulk course emails by ziafazal · Pull Request #31044 · openedx/edx-platform · GitHub
Zia Fazal
I have PTO that occurred during this sprint, as well as the upcoming sprint, so my hours may be less than planned. Michelle Philbrick
Feedback needed for the election process! See Elections - Additional feedback? Xavier Antoviaque

What went well these last two weeks / sprint?

I explicitly set aside time each day to do CC work, and miraculously, this got my contribution hours up to scratch again! Jill

Please check the full report for information on:

  • What did CCs accomplish in the last two weeks
  • What will CCs work on for during the next two weeks / sprint

Hi! I’m sorry I missed reporting, I was on holiday on Friday and missed the ping.

Per **More Repos.** As a core committer already in the program, I would like write-access to more repositories, in order to increase my contributions and meet my CC goals. · Issue #173 · openedx/open-edx-proposals · GitHub I’d like to quickly bring up the proposal for Core Contributors to propose logical repo “groupings” (groups that it’d be common for other Core Contributors to apply to, such as a particular set of XBlocks, or a feature repo + associated libraries). My idea would be these groupings wouldn’t necessarily mean you have a history of contributing to every single one, but your performance in a few of the repos would be a good proxy for proving you understood the whole group.

@arbrandes @brian.smith and I have been discussing grouping MFE repos in such a way and in @BrianMesick 's nomination we provided some groups for Analytics repos.


Thanks @Dean !

And here is a recap of the discussions of the points from the checkins at today’s contributors meetup:

@Zia_Fazal Thanks for alerting about this. From the discussion during the meeting, it looks like the difficulty is to find someone who has enough context on the topic to be able to do the review properly. @sarina had a look at it, but it has changed quite a bit since she last worked on it. @Kelly_Buchanan your team might have someone who qualifies?

Another point that I had missed to mention during my initial checkin:

Here is also a recap of the work reported & described in the checkins for the past sprint:

Development & PR reviews

  • Course pacing fixes (Zia) [1] [2]
  • xAPI fixes (Zia) [1] [2]
  • LTI PRs, and community submitted-PR. (Giovanni)
  • Frontend reviews (Adolfo)
  • PRs for the survey report app (Felipe)
  • Updates to the events library where I’m maintainer (Felipe)
  • Upgraded the cs_comments_service to work on Ruby 3+ from Ruby 2.5 which is deprecated. (Kshitij)
  • data-wg#21 Spike: Investigate Apache Superset Permissions: worked on prototype (Jill)
  • Prototyping and testing using helm charts with Tutor for multi-instance deployment (Braden)
  • DnDv2 fixes (Piotr)
  • prefer_xmodules removal. (Piotr)

Technical discussions & architecture


  • Tested event routing backend plugin on Olive demo instance (Zia)
  • Reviewed test results for Olive (Pierre)

Project management & governance

  • General frontend community project management at the Frontend Development board (Adolfo)
  • Elections:
  • Posted feedback thread & added documentation of the election process to the wiki (Xavier)
  • Finalising image for announcement of the TOC election winners (Ali)
  • OEP-58 Translations Management: approved PR (Jill)
  • OEP-21 modifications use named releases for DEPR instead of dates: approved PR (Jill)
  • OSPR process honing; OSPR triage (Michelle)

Documentation & courses

  • Upstreaming course (aka Open Source Masterclass):
    • Review+merge of changes from the last remote sprint, preparation of the official beta course URL (Xavier)
    • #125: Added icon + logo to marketing site (Jill)
    • Reviewing Jill’s implementation of the responsive icon/logo (Ali)

Product management

  • OEP-57 + OEP-61 Core Product: read and commented on wiki and forum (Xavier, Jill) & first/third party components discussions (Xavier)
    • Arbiter duties on OEP-57 (Ali)
  • Product PR workflow discussions (Xavier)
  • platform-roadmap#165 Modular Learning Initiative : read and commented on specifications prepared so far (Jill)


  • Reviewed OEP-58 (Pierre)
  • Reviewed translations (Pierre, Ana, Gabriel)
  • Translations (Ana)
  • Recruited new WG member (Gabriel)


  • Helped with conference planning (researching swag, reviewing blog posts) (Gabriel)
  • MWG meetings Events (Meetups & Conf 2023) (Esteban)
  • Updating Conf 2023 website (Esteban)


  • Updated the Skeleton Loader Figma file based on feedback in working group meeting (Ali)
  • Discussing requirements for the Marketplace page on Open edX with Ed


  • Working group meetings
  • TOC meeting
  • Forum help & moderation

I’d like to quickly bring up the proposal for Core Contributors to propose logical repo “groupings” (groups that it’d be common for other Core Contributors to apply to, such as a particular set of XBlocks, or a feature repo + associated libraries).

Repo groupings sounds like a good idea to me. :+1:

The analytics ones are an obvious start, as you’ve noted.

Would it make sense for CC repo groups that include any MFEs to include paragon, frontend-component-header, and frontend-component-footer too? And grouping XBlock and xblock-utils with any CC repo group that includes a supported XBlock repo? Changes to these foundational repos may affect the dependent repos, and so CCs could weigh in on changes there, plus they’d have dev environments already set up for testing.

1 Like

I like how the summary is divided up into topics @antoviaque. Cheers!


@arbrandes and @brian.smith are going to propose some MFE groupings - but this makes sense to me.

I like this, although I would also add xblock-sdk. I wonder how we should propose this particular grouping, and then add it to the people who already have some amount of XBlock access (Kshitij, Piotr, Giovanni, Igor - additionally, Peter Pinch, Felipe, and Braden already have access to these repos)? Thoughts? Do a traditional nomination but just of the grouping?