Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Prefix your topic with your intention so we are clear on what outcome you are striving from the discussion. Examples:

  • [inform] You are simply seeking to inform the group of this item. You may field clarifying questions from the group on your inform, but not seeking further discussion at this time.

  • [ideation] You are seeking divergent and wide perspectives from this group. In this brainstorming mode, all ideas are accepted, without critical analysis.

    • It may be helpful to clarify whether you’d like to ideate on the problem space or the solution space.

  • [analysis] You are asking the group to help you poke holes in your idea/topic/plan/etc.

  • [quest] You are seeking information/responses to a question you have.


  • [Phil] [discuss] edx-cookiecutter & auto-adding LMS id from JWT to User Django model in non-LMS new services

    • Consensus:

      • Let’s add the lms_user_id in by default: PR + ADR

      • Let’s consider in the future how to reduce the number of identifiers, especially considering future efforts of unifying identity at 2U

        • Enterprise may have a model for this in how they stub users if they are added to subscriptions before they exist in the LMS.

    • Created: ​​

    • Raw discussion notes:

      • Purchase squad, migrating ecommerce to 2U pre-existing ecommerce - “Titan”

      • Confusion about canonical user identifiers - LMS user ID

      • Pie or Exams do this thing about auto-adding LMS user ID - should we add this to the cookie cutter?  Should new services automatically have the LMS user ID in their user model?

        • Well, maybe not all of them need it… but many may eventually need it?

      • John: Side note: Maybe we could set the id of the user in the new service to be the same as the lms_user_id?

        • Phil: I didn’t know we could do this!

        • Chris D: What about conflicts?

          • John N: There is only one user table that creates IDs

      • John, Robert: Seconded

      • Robert: We should have docs in the cookiecutter about this information

      • Robert: On the older services we didn’t have this for a long time. We were re-using an assorted variety of user identifiers across services. Users were and many times still are being created in LMS by different services.

        • History: Ecommerce was one of the first repos where we were trying to get the lms_user_id holistically added to all calls to/from the repo & LMS

      • David: Does Enterprise has any use cases of user imports?

        • John: We have a stub record we create if a user doesn’t pre-exist in LMS

      • John: Makes sense to have lms_user_id in the user model. Maybe a future thought is to reduce our total number of ids.

      • Robert: In the LMS, we do have the concept of external IDs.

      • Chris: We have global identity as well.

      • John: Maybe we have options to map it in the future.

  • [Robert] (quest) Arch Monthly Stand-up used to provide me some info about what others are up to. I know we had thoughts about an async replacement, but right now I feel like I just don’t get this info.

    • Do others feel they are getting this info? Where can I tap in?

      • There’s an L&P Scrum of Scrums that covers some of this for managers

    • Or, do we need some replacement?

      • BOM teams try to keep track of what to announce, does this need to be a more widely done practice?

      • Are demo/sharing time meetings common in teams?


  • [Feanil/Ned] Announcements

  • [Feanil] General overview of how things are going at 2U?

  • [Andy] report on LTI tool actual vs. specified or expected behavior 

    • Unique identifiers

    • PII sharing


  • [Ned] Slack shared channel policy: why did we require them to be private?

    • Because it used to be much harder to distinguish channels that had external people in them.  Slack has since fixed this.

  • [Ned] Introductions, we have a new person

  • [David] (maybe a 2U topic, oops) Arch Hours - there’s a Content Arch WG that has one too, and interest in broader 2U.  Is this perhaps the Open edX Arch Hour?

    • Essentially, try to bring up topics of broad interest to the Open edX community here and ones that are likely to touch on 2U proprietary information in the other venues that only have 2U employees in them

    • Arch Hour representation of teams?  I.e., “representative democracy”

    • Reminder: we try not to make decisions in these meetings, because not all stakeholders can reliably attend.  More of a forum for questions and initial feedback on ideas before they go out for broader discussion and review.

    • OEP-56 tries to establish a process for decision making that gives all stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to participate

    • We have existing change broadcast/feedback mechanisms for OEPs, DEPR WG, and Architecture squads

  • [inform](Bernard) New to company and checking out forum 

  • [inform](Feanil) Dave is doing a lot of open thinking around the learning core

  • [inform](Feanil) Consider watching the announcements space on Open edX Discourse

  • [Jeremy] We have a lot of GitHub Project boards now, in different places: edx & openedx orgs, org and repo level in each.  We should make sure they consistently have descriptions, and some kind of index of them.

  • [inform](Feanil) design coming soon