Core Committers Phase 2

Phase 2 Objective

“Co-establish and publish Core Committer program”

Building upon learnings from the pilot, in this phase we focus on officially establishing and publishing the CC program in collaboration with the participants in the pilot.

  • Review. Review the status of Phase 1 goals and achievements.

  • Retro. Collect feedback and input in the form of a retrospective of the pilot program.

  • Rules. Co-establish rules for the future of the program.

    • 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?

  • Publish. Document and publish updates to the CC program, along with its updated rights, responsibilities, and selection process. When published, communicate that the program is still in its infancy and yet to be fully developed (to be scalable in phase 3).

Phase 2 Board

Miro board: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lfwFZFQ=/

Retro - Summary as Text

  • 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:

    • Time! 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?

Reference: Phase 2 Planning

Async Week Schedule and Tasks

 

Review Phase 1 Outcomes

Retro Phase 1

Rules for Future

 

Review Phase 1 Outcomes

Retro Phase 1

Rules for Future

Format

Pre-determined peer-review assignments

  • Liked

  • Lacked

  • Learned

  • Longed For

 

Day 0 (Fri, Nov 13th)

  • share assignments (with video instructions)

 

 

Day 1 (Mon, Nov 16th)
30 mns

  • (30mns): self-review and update your own goals and outcomes

  • Create 2 informal self videos (can use Loom, OBS Studio):

    • (2-3mns) on 1 thing that worked well with your Core Committer work

    • (2-3mns) on 1 thing that could be improved for the future (by you or by the group)

 

 

Day 2 (Tue, Nov 17th)
30 mns

 

  • (30mns): self-reflection - write down your own thoughts for each of the 4 categories

 

Day 3 (Wed, Nov 18th)
30 mns

  • (25mns):

    • watch your assigned peer’s video

    • review the goals/outcomes of your peer

      • remember to include both positive and constructive feedback

  • (5mns): post your own thoughts on the shared board

 

Day 4 (Thu, Nov 19th)
30 mns

  • (15mns)

    • read everyone’s outcomes and peer-reviews

    • post your observations on the shared board

  • (15mns): read everyone’s thoughts and feel free to group them on the shared board

 

Day 5 (Fri, Nov 20th)

 

 

  • (30mns): future thinking, possible questions to ask yourself:

    • who should become CC? Selection criteria?

    • what outcomes to expect of CCs?

    • how can we improve the program?

Day 6 (Mon, Nov 23rd)
2 hours + social

  • (25mns): vote and discuss observations (in breakout rooms)

  • (25mns): vote and discuss grouped items (in breakout rooms)

  • (60mns): ideate on what rules to define

Day 7 (TBD)

 

 

 

Monday Agenda

  • (15mns) Review - @Nimisha Asthagiri

    • (3-5mns) Synthesis / Summary

    • (10mns) Discussion

  • (35mns) Retro - @Xavier Antoviaque

    • (3mns) Synthesis / Summary

    • (30mns) Discussion

  • (5mns) Break

  • (60mns) Rules - @Nimisha Asthagiri

    • (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