...
(15mns) Review - Nimisha Asthagiri (Deactivated)
(3-5mns) Synthesis / Summary
(10mns) Discussion
(35mns) Retro - Xavier Antoviaque
(3mns) Synthesis / Summary
(30mns) Discussion
(5mns) Break
(60mns) Rules - Nimisha Asthagiri (Deactivated)
(5mns) Instructions
Choose which breakout room
Readout expectations
Will vote on the proposals afterward, becomes a talking-point
Group roles (choose within 2mns):
Note-taking: Could be one-person or shared
Spokesperson: Who’s going to do the readout
Facilitator: Optional
Proposal decision-making options (choose within 30secs):
Unanimous
Choose a decider
Majority ← default
(25mns) in breakout rooms
What
How
Who
(10mns x 3) Each group reads out and discusses with larger group
(2-3mns) Readout
Any decisions that they propose? → Capture and vote async on individual items
Open questions? → Follow-up activities/meetings/action-items
(7-8mns) Discuss
(30mns) Social
Retro - Summary
Liked - Existence of the program:
Energy it brings in the community, resulting from trust (given ownership) & being valued, giving confidence to contribute (+++)
Unblocked a lot of pending contributions by speeding up/helping with OSPR reviews (+++)
Ownership granted pushed to get the perspective of the project (“does this belong in the core”)
Deepened & established relationships (across organizations, including edX)
Learned:
Best value when organizational goals can be aligned with the pilot (+++)
Community knowledge of the project is strong, and can be trusted
Many deepened their knowledge of the Open edX project & of open source project management because of the CC/Champion duties
Communication with contributors on PRs can be hard (shown core committers the other side of OSPR reviews)
Lacked:
(30mns) SocialTime! Not enough allocated / prioritized by the participating organizations (+++++)
More time explicitly allocated by organizations to core committers (tickets in sprints, weekly quotas, etc.)
Leaderboard to provide clarity and organizational accountability (+ friendly competition
)
More streamlined process: (+++)
Better PR descriptions
Make it clearer for contributors and simpler overall
Avoid/speedup the blocking product review
Better ways to get questions answered & obtain approvals (when missing context or unsure about a decision)
Better onboarding of contributors:
Better material for new contributors/devs (course, docs)
More reliable devstack (broken devstack often a time-consuming blocker, also for core committers)
More reviewers on each repository (extend responsibilities of core committers, add new core committers)
Information about tasks & projects corresponding to the PRs (access to roadmap, Jira tickets)
Non-developer core committers?
(5mns) Break
(60mns) Rules - Nimisha Asthagiri (Deactivated)
(5mns) Instructions
Choose which breakout room
Readout expectations
Will vote on the proposals afterward, becomes a talking-point
Group roles (choose within 2mns):
Note-taking: Could be one-person or shared
Spokesperson: Who’s going to do the readout
Facilitator: Optional
Proposal decision-making options (choose within 30secs):
Unanimous
Choose a decider
Majority ← default
(25mns) in breakout rooms
What
How
Who
(10mns x 3) Each group reads out and discusses with larger group
(2-3mns) Readout
Any decisions that they propose? → Capture and vote async on individual items
Open questions? → Follow-up activities/meetings/action-items
(7-8mns) Discuss
Rules
What outcomes can we expect of Core Committers in the future? Reflect on what CCs already accomplished in the Pilot. How far can we stretch ourselves for future wins?
How can we improve the program going forward? Reflect on the Retro board and consider what actions we should take.
Who (not looking for specific names) should be invited to the program, with what selection criteria?
...