Agenda Item | Presenter | Description | Notes/Next steps |
---|---|---|---|
Update: Project Status Updates: Governance Charter | Review of final edits and comments and finalize. Set plan to review on a regular cadence. Product working group Charter | Notes from 10/25: Project closed and completed Notes from 10/11: Xavier Antoviaque to review remaining comments and new edits, and close comments if resolved. Once comments are closed, Jenna Makowski to post final version in original discourse thread. Ticket created to do a retro in 6mos. | |
Update: Project Status Updates: Product Narrative [prod-nar] | https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/26/views/1?filterQuery=prod-nar | Next steps - value props survey | |
Update: OEP-57 | Summary idea behind OEP-57: we wish to define what a Product Narrative, a Core Product Offering, and an Extended Product Offering are, and detail the process by which we will get there. https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3540713547/Open+edX+Proposal+57+Product+Offering?src=mail&src.mail.action=view&src.mail.notification=com.atlassian.confluence.plugins.confluence-notifications-batch-plugin%3Abatching-notification&src.mail.recipient=8a7f808a7e00012e017e0289182301dd&src.mail.timestamp=1664995272833 | Any updates on reviews, comments, feedback? | |
PR step of OSPR process | Xavier Antoviaque Ryan O'Connell Sarina Canelake Jenna Makowski |
| See next steps and ticket links below |
Release Notes Blog Invitation | Invitation to publish release notes to the Open edX Product Management Confluence Blog |
PR process - Immense opportunity to redefine how this works
Next steps:
Pain point: Product context gets separated from the PR by the time the PR is submitted. There should be an earlier “product check” process.
Solution: Leverage the Roadmap. Need a step to create a Roadmap ticket for the project at the same time the PR is submitted. Create better/more streamlined issue templates for the Roadmap and document this step in PR process to submit tickets (OEP?)
Jenna Makowski will work with Sarina Canelake on this
Pain point: No guidelines for when PRs should go to product review and when.
Solution: Open edX Product to write and own this guideline.
Ryan O'Connell and Jenna Makowski to collaborate on v1
Pain point: The review process historically has taken too long, with PRs sitting for months or more.
Solution: PMs need better notification systems. Explore integrating GH and Jira
Solution: Explore shifting the review workload to future Core Contributor Product Managers and leveraging WG meetings to review
Pain point: No framework for assessing submissions
If Solution B above moves forward, the WG must create a framework for assessing based on the evolving Core Product work
Notes on the conversation:
Current workflow
-engineering teams are taking PRs are making decisions about whether or not to engage with PMs, most PRs don’t make it to PMs
Pains
-no centralized process or gates
-pop up surprises for PMs in boards at sprint review times
Pro of current workflows
-where teams are active, the process can move quickly, esp for non-user facing PRs
Need - identify a rubric for EMs to decide when a PR goes to product
Does this change UI or user behavior, reporting, data structure?
-or if an EM is unsure
Bake into the PR workflow - product documentation should be baked into the process by design
-adding docs to a PR vs pre-check processes
^the goal of the roadmap is to capture those pre-check steps of new features, enhancements
-Can we start with the roadmap? Create a roadmap ticket at the same time as a PR?
-use roadmap template but modify template depending on types of features - major features, major arch changes, smaller bug fixes, etc (link to PRs)
Then:
More pain points:
How do we find the right person?
Different teams on different timelines
Possible solutions:
-clear expectations of timelines - ie a high-level review within 2 weeks of submission, or a second option to escalate to the PWG to undertake the review
-recognize it will be difficult, sometimes not possible, to enforce an sla
-possibility to shift some of the review responsibilities to core contributor PM role, and leverage the PWG time to aid in reviews, unblock
-need framework to conduct the high level review, quick checklist to review submissions
Secondary problem - GH vs jira
-better notifications from GH? slack integrations?