Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 8 Next »

  1. BizDev WG IMPORTANT for the next meeting. (30 minutes)
    During the September meeting, attendees participated in focus groups organized by BizDev, and we have compiled the voting results. To effectively position Open edX in the competitive EdTech landscape, it is essential that we advance initiatives that support this goal. Therefore, we ask each of you to articulate your objectives and present your execution strategies during the next meeting. Each presentation should be approximately two minutes long.

    Please prepare your goals and OKRs, as these are vital for our group's success.

    Here are some examples to guide you in the process:

    • Goal: Identify two high-priority features based on user feedback that directly address market demands for improved user experience and engagement.

    • Goal: Collect 100 customer feedback responses regarding their Open edX experience to identify areas for improvement and inform future development.

    • Goal: Host three customer-focused webinars to showcase best practices and new features, aiming to increase product adoption and engagement.

    • Goal: Establish three strategic partnerships with organizations in the education or corporate training sectors to expand the platform's reach and credibility.

    • …

    Thank you for your commitment to this important initiative.

    NEXT points on the agenda are:

  2. Proposal and discussion for a new architectural design to better define the Open edX product strategy (25min) – Edward Zarecor

  3. Proposal of a product evaluation tool tailored for key stakeholders, including educators, researchers, corporate trainers, and other non-developers or non-core contributors Cecilia Liu (5Min)

Meeting Notes 2024-10-30

Participants: 16

Notes:

  1. Evaluation of the Product Proposal Process
    Current process: Open Source Contributions - Product Proposals
    -> There is no indicator on what fields are mandatory and which are not. Guidance on this is required on the short term.

    1. There is a lack of communication between the single Working Groups

    2. Product proposals are getting sometimes lost or not the required attention

    3. There is a poll https://web.polly.ai/ym94gu for getting some feedback from the community concerning the tools currently in use and wishes on how to improve the communication/processes

    4. Is there the need for a new tool for Product Proposals or should we refine the usage of the current available tools?

  2. How the feedback from the BizDev WG can help the Product WG?

    1. The BizDev WG is there to give advice to the Product WG to prioritize the product improvements and roadmap. This feedback is based on:

      1. Client feedback (Interviews and surveys)

      2. Pain points

      3. Trends in e-learning

      4. Competitors/Market analysis

    2. We should motivate members who are regularly in touch with clients and get feedback

    3. These results/Feedbacks should be captured in a document or in a precise slack thread (Eden and Cecilia will work on a document)

    4. BizDev WG members should also attend the Product WG Meetings and vice versa

    5. BizDev Meeting cadence - should we meet more often, or is once a month enough?

The most essential overall goal is to add transparency to the product proposal process and to create more awareness/visibility as to where and how to create a proposal.

Another pain point is that currently there is no product strategy in place.

Comment from Fox:

https://gitlab.com/opencraft/documentation/public/-/merge_requests/581 <-- Handbook merge request aligning OpenCraft's processes with the produce review process.

NEXT STEPS

  • Proposal and discussion for a new architectural design to better define the Open edX product strategy (25min) – Edward Zarecor

    • There will be a separate time slot for this

    • The slot will be dropped in the slack

  • No labels