This is a proposal. View the final process here: Open edX Product Contribution Guide
During the 2025 Open edX Conference the Core Product Working Group delivered a workshop to identify friction and confusion in the current Product Review Process. This helped us:
Understand real experiences from all roles
Co-create ideas for more clarity, transparency, and efficiency
Define a path forward with actionable next steps
New and Proposed Product Review Process
We have identified four contribution pathways:
Fast Track Changes: small, low-risk improvements, like UI tweaks, content updates, or minor backend/frontend code changes.
Clear-Scope Bug Fixes: obvious, user-facing bugs with a clear cause and straightforward solution. These are limited in scope, don’t require new feature design, and have low risk.
Feature Ideas: early-stage ideas or user needs shared in the forum to gather feedback and guide future priorities.
Product Proposals: well-defined plans for larger features, including a write-up, community review, and cross-team alignment before implementation.
Fast Track ChangesProcess for small changes:
Approval troubleshooting:
|
Clear-Scope Bug Fixes
For an example of this contribution pathway, see:
Information about who maintains the parent repo of a pull request can be found under Projects > Contributions on the right-hand side of the pull request: Here, the maintaining team is @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform.
|
Feature IdeasThis is a lighter-weight process that feeds into the full Product Proposal process when needed.
|
Product ProposalsAs agreed by majority, Confluence is the most suitable tool for product proposals as it offers version history, in-line comments and editing features.
We will also have a stakeholder matrix in the template. This will allow submitters to quickly initialize conversations with relevant stakeholders/domain experts and speed up the review/feedback process.
Step 1: Submit a Product Proposal on ConfluenceThen share it widely:
Optional: Post your proposal on Forums to get feedback from wider audience
Step 2: Create GitHub Issue
Step 3: Coordinate ReviewAs the submitter, you are the Proposal Coordinator by default. (This will be communicated by a note within the template) You are responsible for:
Step 4: Finalise the Proposal
Step 5: Seek Approval
as long as there are no outstanding comments, and as long as there is consensus on the proposal and no adverse feedback, the proposal can be considered approved. Step 6: Execute Post-Review StepsOnce the proposal is approved: Add the project to the Community Release Sheet under the appropriate tab, once a team is committed to implementation. Step 7: Teams Execute Product ProposalDesigners
Developers
|
Product Workshop Results in Pictures
Photos of existing process with participant feedback:
Note: The last steps in the above process were not photographed as these included questions that @Jenna Makowski will answer related to resourcing.
Photos of solutioning of critical issues uncovered during process review:
@Cassie Zamparini @Mahnoor Sarwat Thanks for running a great workshop at the conference!
A few of us from the Core Product Working Group had an informal meetup on the last day of the conference to discuss things further. Here are a few of the comments that came up:
Each proposal should have a 1-2 sentence summary at the top.
We should ensure the product ideas / feature requests process is included in the larger product review process (please ping me if you have any questions about this process).
@Marco Morales came up with the idea of tagging proposals by the area of the platform they relate to. This would help us organize our proposals better and identify which platform areas are well-covered and which might need more focus. We could even consider using the same tags for bug reports, user interviews, feature requests etc. Here’s a preliminary list of the groups he proposed:
Learner Experiences
Course Experience
Identity / Credentials
Catalog / Discovery
Educator Experiences
Authoring
Course Operations
Data / Insights
Administrator Experiences
It would be great to involve the Educators Working Group more actively in the product review process. During the conference town hall, educators expressed interest in learning about upcoming features and contributing to shaping the Roadmap.
@Marco Morales @Sam Daitzman @Edward Byun Please add anything I may have missed.
@Cassie Zamparini @Mahnoor Sarwat Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for getting the conversationgs started!