2023-07-11 CC Working Group Meeting Notes

We are an official working group!

https://discuss.openedx.org/t/introducing-the-contributor-coordination-working-group/10626

@Jorge Londoño

Jorge announced the creation of a working group called the contributor coordination working group. This group is the formalization of an existing effort. Its purpose is to centralize and better coordinate efforts within the community, with the aim of creating more synergies between the working groups and improving community support. Jorge encouraged interested individuals to join the working group, and he mentioned that a clear backlog would be created soon.

Waffle flags: For a feature that’s used so frequently, waffle flags are not well-documented – Neither the library nor the implementations." -- any suggestions?

@Peter Pinch

Identified Concerns and Suggestions

Peter raised concerns about the lack of documentation for waffle flags, specifically in the context of the edX implementation. He explained that there was variability in how waffle flags were implemented and a lack of clarity about the decision-making process behind these implementations. Felipe suggested that contributors could help by reporting and addressing issues with the implementation of features.

Emphasis on Clear Documentation

Felipe emphasized the importance of clear documentation for waffle flags and the need for a well-defined process for contributors to follow. He mentioned that if a decision was made for a specific reason, it should be documented to avoid confusion.

Jorge asked for suggestions on how to further discuss and improve the documentation. Jeff suggested that documentation for both waffle flags and course level settings should be connected to provide a better user experience.

Evaluation of Existing Documentation and Issues

Peter provided some context on the existing documentation for waffle flags. He mentioned an OEP (Open edX Proposal) that describes the use of feature flags and waffle flags, but noted that it might not be well known or up to date. Peter agreed with Jeff's suggestion of having a document that explains both waffle flags and course level settings together with their justifications. He also mentioned a technical documentation document that lists all available waffle flags, but acknowledged that there were issues with its generation and discoverability.

Addressing Flags Lifecycle Management and Naming Issues

Peter acknowledged the issue of flags not being removed when they were projected to be removed. He mentioned the efforts of the deprecation working group to address this and establish a process for code maintainers to be responsible for cleaning up flags. He suggested that formalizing this process would be beneficial.

Peter also raised a concern about the naming of waffle flags, noting that some flags did not correspond to the name of the feature they represented. He suggested that contributors could help by ensuring that the names of flags aligned with the features they represented.

Proposal for a New Course Level Setting

Jeff discussed the need for a course level setting to address a PR related to the mathjax rendering package. He explained that there were different versions of the package with varying levels of interactivity and bugs. He proposed a course level setting that allowed instructors to choose the version of the package they wanted to use. This would provide flexibility for instructors and allow for smooth transitions without disrupting existing documentation or user experiences.

Plans to Improve Waffle Flags Documentation

Felipe suggested enhancing the API that provides information about waffle flags by including annotations in the JSON response. This would make it easier to understand the purpose and context of each flag. He also mentioned the possibility of creating a micro front-end (MFE) that builds on this API to allow for easier modification of the flags. David suggested creating an issue in the repository to consolidate the existing documentation on waffle flags and improve its organization and clarity.

Video social share feature

how can we get an answer to -- if anyone from 2U is there, can you relay? (otherwise I'll try to bring it up to the product working group

@Peter Pinch

Peter brought up the issue of documentation for social sharing of course videos. Jorge asked if there had been any progress or if Peter still needed help with it. Peter mentioned that the GitHub issue related to this was still in progress, and he would follow up with Ryan and Matt Carter for updates and information.

PR Review Delays: Follow-up on the discussion from the last meeting

• Discussion has kept going async on the forum in the meantime. - any comments/topics from the forum exchanges worth discussing synchronously?

• Kudos to everyone from this meeting who commented btw

• Tasks creation and assignation - on topics that already have consensus (like advertising the need for more core contributors, and for existing core contributors to extend their rights), is there anyone willing to create tasks for the work? To take some of them on?

@Jorge Londoño

Jorge mentioned that there had been a discussion about delays in PR reviews. He shared a link to the proposals, tasks, and action items related to this issue for anyone interested in reviewing them.

Discussion on PR for MFE Theming

@Felipe Montoya

Felipe brought up a specific PR by Adam that adds support for loading external themes CSS to micro frontends. He explained that the PR had been sitting for over a month and a half and expressed the need for it to be merged in order to support MFE theming. Felipe asked for clarification on the status of the PR and how they could help move it forward. David encouraged Felipe to mention his interest and provide a review on the PR - Adam had been working on different projects, but might be able to come back to it now. It's mostly waiting on reviews.