Live Transcript

Live

Raw meeting transcript · 29 entries

Chelsea Rathbun0:45

We're going to start with the product proposals board review.

Chelsea Rathbun1:05

We have some new proposals that have no status. Does anyone want to claim them?

Ali Hugo1:55

I need to take a look at my capacity and core contributor hours before I volunteer for anything.

Sarina Canelake2:25

I have a slight concern around capacity. We already have twelve proposals in review, two new, and eleven on hold.

Chelsea Rathbun3:25

I generally agree in terms of limiting work in progress. Maybe we focus on tackling items already in review first.

Ali Hugo5:50

There are disagreements about how many items a clipboard can hold. I'm not sure how to proceed with a disagreement like that.

Chelsea Rathbun6:15

Do we have user research about whether this causes confusion? Testing could show how it should be implemented.

Jenna Makowski7:00

We can build user discovery into the first phase: designs followed by usability feedback. We don't have to decide the item limit now.

Glib Glugovskiy8:20

It would be good to do a proper UX review and user testing first, then move to the final implementation idea.

Jenna Makowski10:20

I would move the clipboard proposal to backlog.

Jenna Makowski11:15

There may be value in breaking the backlog into a more nuanced status: projects that are funded and projects that are not.

Sarina Canelake12:10

On deck sounds like it already has a team and is next for development.

Jenna Makowski12:35

Maybe the status should be 'approved, needs resourcing'.

Santiago Suarez13:00

I like 'please work on it'. It is simple, understandable, and acts as a call to action.

Jenna Makowski13:15

I'll take an action item to break this out for the next meeting.

Chelsea Rathbun16:20

When a product proposal is accepted, should it be added to the community release plan as a new row?

Jenna Makowski17:10

Proposals should go on the sheet only if they are resourced and we know who the team is.

Jenna Makowski18:15

We can add a placeholder during review, then update it during the monthly release-planning cycle.

Glib Glugovskiy20:30

Editors should use personal filter views so view-only users can still see the complete planning horizon.

Cassie Zamparini24:10

I've been working on the product review process and cleaning it up. I'll run through it briefly.

Cassie Zamparini25:30

I tried to keep it concise while putting as much information as possible into one document, so we have one source of truth.

Ali Hugo26:20

This is much better. It looks much easier to follow.

Sarina Canelake29:20

I didn't really understand all the labels and statuses. It would be good to build consensus around what they mean.

Jenna Makowski30:10

This is a good opportunity to align and simplify the labels as much as possible.

Jenna Makowski32:00

The action item is to review the labels, align them with current roadmap usage, and simplify from there.

Glib Glugovskiy34:10

How should the product working group be involved in the Open edX Marketplace proposal?

Jenna Makowski36:20

Please present the proposal to this group. We need to align it with the XBlock and LTI configuration projects.

Glib Glugovskiy37:20

I can prepare a more detailed presentation focused on product categories and how the Marketplace should be populated.

Glib Glugovskiy41:10

Tutor plugins may be the main extension mechanism. The product group can help categorize and describe modules so the Marketplace is usable for the community.

Common Ground Map

A real-time view of topics, perspectives, and friction points.

Core Product Working GroupActive topicContention 18%Readiness —0 loops

Active topicHigh contentionPrivate mediationReady to resume

44:50