Strings are sent to Transifex, to the Open edX translation project, will be used by Atlas from Quince (maybe, as some of the changes were made after the cut for Quince).
Is MFE translation support production ready? Yes, since Olive.
Not sure this has been tested by the BTR group. Not sure if it’s on the BTR backlog, but there is some issues items on the MFE projects
You have to translate in both the edx-platform and openedx projects, risks of sync issues between the two projects - question for David and Omar to know when Atlas will be put in place. Will require some setup to transition between the two.
For Pierre, not an issue for Quince for him, as he has a hack, but could be for anybody else not using English. This workaround could be communicated with others, but might require access to be granted by Eden & Omar.
Quality control issue about MFEs being put into production
@Jorge Londoño will be bringing it up with the BTR group and ask @Omar Al-Ithawi
@Pierre Mailhot to see with the BTR group and @Peter Pinch about posting a warning about this in the release notes, and give a workarounds: use the JSON file of the translations, and use it with the feature in Tutor to override the language files
@Ali Hugo would bring up the topic of ownership for pushing new MFEs (or features in general) with the product working group
@Ned Batchelder (Deactivated) would be investigating the 3 repos in the edX Github organization that start with 'front end app,' one of which is private, and let @Adolfo Brandes know the outcome.
@Adolfo Brandes@Peter Pinch
Product working group should be involved, so that it’s not just a technical decision to include a MFE
BTR should be involved to validate that the MFE should be accepted or not
Jorge: BTR: hard to tell what are the non-negotiable items from a product working group - what should be the release blockers? Need to get the product working group involved in the other working groups. In general, lack of shared goals between working groups - we don’t plan as a community.
Ed: If more people were in the current meeting that would allow to coordinate. Should also be working on what should go in a release right after a release.
Xavier: Should we have a product release manager for stable releases, as a counter-part to the more technical role of release manager, to be able to handle product-related topics?
To help increasing the cross-over between working groups (such as BTR and product), it would help to do more async communication, which would help to include members of other groups in discussions, without having to attend many meetings or monitoring many Slack channels.
@Edward Zarecor to propose to @Jenna Makowski to lead a meeting release management for the next release Redwood in January
@Jorge Londoño will ask Maxim about the possibility of him continuing as the release manager for the next release and, if not, will start looking for a successor.
@Jorge Londoño will create async discussion spaces for reviewing the scope for Redwood and will include Jenna in the discussion.
Action items carried over from the previous meeting:
@Ali Hugo would bring up the topic of ownership for pushing new MFEs (or features in general) with the product working group
@Ned Batchelder (Deactivated) would be investigating the 3 repos in the edX Github organization that start with 'front end app,' one of which is private, and let @Adolfo Brandes know the outcome.
Product & UX meeting
Last core contributors update: “The Paragon Working Group would like to get members of the Product Working Group (and others in the community) more involved in UX discussions. This will allow individuals outside of 2U, not only to keep tabs on design updates, but also to help guide the design of Open edX. The idea is to start a cross-functional meeting for context/knowledge sharing around design. Anyone interested in getting involved?”
Quick update, relaying the information from the comments on the left section from @Ali Hugo
@Xavier Antoviaque to ask @Ali Hugo where/if the betatester program will be documented? Will it be linked with the Aspect betatest?
Low response rate to the contributors reports
See the discussion in the last report, only 25% of core contributor respond. Is it lack of interest/use? Lack of core contributor work in the first place?
@Dean Jay Mathew@Xavier Antoviaque
Xavier: Complex topic, linked to a lot of other issues - in a nutshell:
@Ali Hugo performing core contributors interviews and preparing a survey about this
Some lack of interest in the outcome, not everything is interesting to all, need to refine the content, presentation & frequency
Synchronous vs async - reports use async tools, but most of the activity and culture of the project is on synchronous tools
Lack of activity from a part of the core contributors - might need to establish a “alumni core contributor” role, to still recognize past work, while making it clear who is currently active
A lot of activity only happens on Slack, which is hard to follow for anyone not spending their life there - it also encourages synchronicity, and the community’s archive is held up in a proprietary tool
Should we make a more concerted effort to move to more async tools (and open source), like Discourse?