Repository: github.com/openedx/wg-governance
Period: 2026-02-12 to 2026-03-23
Generated: 2026-03-23 07:55:12 UTC
Activity Summary
Activities (Newest First)
2026-03-20 18:35:54 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @gabrieldamours
URL: Link
Sorry for the delay @antoviaque -- I've now set my GH notifications to my OpenCraft email instead of my personal email, where it was filtered out ;p
May sounds good to start ! I'll take this in steps, starting with the prep in April. I'll start by creating a filter view to identify the tickets and narrowing down our scope/goals. Then we can review, finalize planning, and kick off the hackathon right at the beginning of May. Sounds good? cc. @jalondonot @itsjeyd
2026-03-20 05:55:59 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@jalondonot This is amazing, thank you! 👍👏
Still not sure when that would start, as @gabrieldamours will only start organizing it in April, and we'll likely want to go ask a few more organizations for support, building upon Edunext and OpenCraft's commitments. Maybe from May @gabrieldamours ?
2026-03-20 00:24:27 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @jalondonot
URL: Link
@antoviaque, I confirm that we can commit to about 80 hours a month from our maintainers in April and May to contribute to the hackathon. Just let me know if you need more information about the repositories we're focusing on, or if you need help coordinating the next steps. Thanks!
2026-03-17 09:20:46 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @itsjeyd
URL: Link
@gabrieldamours Awesome, happy to hear you're up for this :)
@antoviaque Re: scope — I had thought of this initiative more in terms of finding a way to speed up OSPR reviews in general, but focusing specifically on the two points that you mention sounds good too :)
👍, I'll look into setting up a view that'll list relevant PRs. Once we know what the start date of the hackathon will be, we can plan to snapshot the view that day (or perhaps the day before) to get the final list of PRs to target.
2026-03-17 07:06:09 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@gabrieldamours Great to hear! 👍 🥳
For where to organize, here is a good place - it's public and it's a ticket, so it will only notify people involved in the ticket itself. Also feel free to create other tickets on the Governance WG board here: https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/62
2026-03-16 19:52:48 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @gabrieldamours
URL: Link
@itsjeyd @antoviaque I also think this makes a good intro to OSPR management work, so I'm in! Let's narrow down the scope and timeline and I'll handle it. I'll be somewhat busy from end of March until ~April 20, but I'm not expecting this to take too much time anyway.
Should I schedule an OpenCraft ticket to plan this with you, or should we do it here somewhere?
2026-03-16 17:26:06 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
Updated the title & description to use "Hackathon" rather than "Sprint", as the former might be more meaningful for something meant to be done once?
2026-03-12 17:10:58 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@itsjeyd Great idea! @gabrieldamours you would be good at this I think, if you're interested. 👍
One thing that your numbers have shown is that the project does review a large portion of its PRs quite fast - that is probably the team work around maintainers, and it seems to already be quite productive given the amount of PRs merged every month. I'd like to focus on the other ones, less maintained or from external contributors.
If we include the more recent PRs, it will be easy for many to score high just going through their normal set of PR reviews within their team or on repos they maintain, while some PRs will still be sitting months or years after. Here we want to focus on the PRs that don't get attention, and push people to go review PRs on unfamiliar parts of the codebase. PRs still needing reviews after 1 month should be a good criteria for finding this type of PR? It won't cover them all, but it would already be quite a victory to bring the max review time of PRs under 2 months. A future iteration could go further.
2026-03-12 16:57:46 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@jalondonot Sounds completely fair, thanks for making sure the commitment would be well thought and solid! :) In any case we are still in early discovery, so it doesn't need to be too precise - we will have to figure out the correct time frame still for example. So don't hesitate if you have constraints or preferences actually - we can set that up together.
2026-03-12 15:00:42 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @itsjeyd
URL: Link
@antoviaque
Re: leading the effort — That sounds tempting, but I'm afraid my plate is too full at the moment. Maybe it's something that @gabrieldamours would be interested in taking on? It could be a good introduction to the world of OSPR management.
Re: scope — To keep things simple for a first iteration, it might make sense to focus on a single category of PRs, e.g. PRs that already cleared the product review stage.
Re: PRs >1 month old — That's an interesting idea! A potential caveat is that if a PR has been sitting around waiting for engineering review for a month or more, the author might not respond very quickly (or at all) when the review does begin.
2026-03-11 23:54:47 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @jalondonot
URL: Link
Thanks for looping us in, @antoviaque. I reckon it's doable, but I'll have to crunch some numbers to give you a solid commitment from our side in terms of hours per week from our CCs during the end of March and full April and May. I'll have a more detailed answer for you early next week. What do you think?
2026-03-10 14:55:20 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@jalondonot @felipemontoya FYI ^ Let me know what you think, and if you would want to participate with eduNext on this? OpenCraft would too - we haven't discussed it too widely within the team yet, but we would focus the core contributor work from OpenCraft on this effort during its duration.
2026-03-10 14:47:06 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
@itsjeyd — Maybe we could narrow the scope further - for example only include PRs that are > 1 month old, at the date the sprint starts? If the sprint lasts one month, clearing the PRs by the sprint's end would mean that there would not be any PR waiting on reviews older than 2 months anymore?
Btw would you want to lead that effort?
2026-03-09 15:30:24 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @itsjeyd
URL: Link
@antoviaque Thank you for starting this conversation.
Re: scope — One such topic that recently came up was a11y. To keep things simple for a first iteration, it might make sense to focus on a single category of PRs, e.g. PRs that already cleared the product review stage. While certainly valuable, trying to cover various topics and areas right from the beginning might get in the way of starting a first round sooner rather than later?
2026-03-05 08:11:14 — ISSUE_OPENED
Title: Hackathon - Contributions Review Spring Cleaning (#163)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
As discussed on the forum, we would like to explore the idea of doing a focused core contributor hackathon to clear out the review queue. Scope, duration, tracking progress, and encouraging reviews of unfamiliar code are the key aspects to discuss.
2026-03-05 07:54:28 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Activity summaries for the governance WG (#162)
Author: @antoviaque
URL: Link
I have done a second activity report. I will keep generating those, but marking the current ticket as done.
2026-03-02 11:07:36 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Create a Shortlist of Communication Tools (#133)
Author: @ali-hugo
URL: Link
Work started on this ticket again. I'll post a full update when available.
2026-02-19 07:38:25 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
Author: @ali-hugo
URL: Link
UPDATE: The Notifications Admin Proposal relies heavily on the Release Notes Proposal, whose next steps are unknown. We have posted a Slack vote to try to decide on the way forward. Please cast your vote.
2026-02-18 13:49:38 — ISSUE_COMMENT
Issue: Evaluate the Communication Tools We Use and How We Use Them (#132)
Author: @ali-hugo
URL: Link
This ticket has been completed, and a Summary of Findings has been documented. The next step is to develop a plan of action to implement the recommendations, which will continue under #133.