Page Comparison

Expected Impact

TBD (?)Very High

Initiative ID

WG-sup

• Provide guidance to align all working groups around the shared product vision/strategy

• Align Open edX Roadmap to BTR needs and get ahead of Olive release

• Support Marketing with clear product vision and roadmap/strategy language

• Triage issues with BTR and DEPR working groups

• As noted previously that a lack of product vision/strategy leads to challenges in defining the product roadmap for Open edX. The lack of share vision also leads to challenges for other working groups in startegizing and planning for their respective functional areas.

In scope:

• Create documents that outline the product vision and the product narrative and share them with the marketing group.

• With BTR, develop a shared framework for metadata and info required to inform Release Notes for tickets on the Community Roadmap. Develop a shared definition of “done” and “shipped”. Develop shared vocabularly for “supported”, “included”, etc. Ensure the workflows to define a Core Product Offering are translated/transferred to inform BTR flows. Develop small incremental goal/deliverable to improve Olive testing process.

Provisionally in scope:

• Review the existing marketing collateral in collaboration with the marketing WG to ensure alignment of the language and content with product vision and narrative.

Out of scope:

• (…)

<TBD>

• Dean Jay Mathew

• Jenna Makowski

Expected Impact

TBD (?)Very High

Initiative ID

PR

• Evaluate the end-to-end PR process to identify pain points that contribute to bottlenecks and delayed review turnover.

• Make recommendations for where and how the Product Working Group should intervene to remove bottlenecks and ensure timely reviews, such as prioritizing, coordinating, etc.

• Consider the PR process as it relates to elements of the BTR workflows, particularly around inclusion of product context in Roadmap Initiatives, definitions of “done”, and transfer of information about initiatives, etc.

• There is currently a lack of clarity and predictability on the ability to obtain product reviews on work being contributed upstream. This results in less work being contributed and more remaining in forks, as an upstream-first approach has unreliable timelines for merges.

In scope:

• Review the steps where product reviews are expected in the OSPR process

• Evaluate the current practice by reviewing the tickets currently needing a product review, and by asking the community for feedback about them

• Improve the product review practice & steps; in particular, figure out a way to ensure contributions don’t end up blocked, along with detection & escalation of any missing product review

Out of scope:

• (…)

<TBD>

• Xavier Antoviaque Jenna Makowski