gistfile1.txt

# GitHub Activity Report
**Repository:** openedx/wg-governance
**Period:** 2025-05-31 to 2025-11-27
**Generated:** 2025-11-27 15:59:14 UTC

---

## Activity Summary
- Total Activities: 101
- Issues: 18 (14 opened, 4 closed)
- Pull Requests: 1 (0 opened, 0 merged, 1 closed)
- Commits: 1
- Comments: 81
- Reviews: 0
- Releases: 0

---

## Activities (Newest First)

### 2025-11-24 11:02:31 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3570171775

**Comment:**
```
Update: this was presented to the TOC during its meeting last week, and feedback gathered from the TOC members:

https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/edit-v2/5345542145#Notification-Framework-Discussion
```

---

### 2025-11-18 06:57:58 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Onboarding Improvements (#116)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/116#issuecomment-3545722549

**Comment:**
```
Update: this is currently on hold. But can be picked up by anyone who is interested.
```

---

### 2025-11-10 13:33:10 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3511690685

**Comment:**
```
Update:
The [Notifications Admin MVP proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/OEPM/pages/5318770699/Proposal+Notifications+Admin+MVP) has been posted! Please add your feedback. 

```

---

### 2025-10-30 15:13:09 - [COMMIT]
**Title:** docs: Change owner from axim-engineering to axim-admins
**Author:** Feanil Patel
**SHA:** `f1c16a6aa404af293fb4ac7b657725d7bed32c52`
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/commit/f1c16a6aa404af293fb4ac7b657725d7bed32c52

**Full Commit Message:**
```
docs: Change owner from axim-engineering to axim-admins

Separate administrative ownership.
```

**Files Changed:** 1 files (+1, -1)
- `catalog-info.yaml`: +1, -1

---

### 2025-10-27 08:51:05 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3450122653

**Comment:**
```
**Update:**
The proposal for a notifications admin MVP is undergoing internal review. It should be ready to share with the Community for input and feedback in the second half of November.

```

---

### 2025-10-24 08:50:18 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3441904664

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Perfect, thank you! ❤️ 

Looks like we are all done here! 👍 
```

---

### 2025-10-23 14:01:04 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3437197128

**Comment:**
```
Eden has already applied the changes on https://openedx.org/open-edx-community-working-groups/, @antoviaque :)
```

---

### 2025-10-21 23:30:28 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3429924711

**Comment:**
```
Thanks for posting the announcement, @antoviaque. I've asked Eden to update the WG name on https://openedx.org/open-edx-community-working-groups/. I'll let you know when that's done so we can close the GH issue.
```

---

### 2025-10-20 08:55:18 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3421122057

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Just making sure you saw this part - it's the last step to complete the renaming, the part from the marketing WG:

> >   I can ask Eden right after you post the announcement.

> Thank you! 👍 All good now, it's announced! 😁
```

---

### 2025-10-14 14:38:46 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3402205218

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Thanks! Perfect, I have posted the announcement on the forum: https://discuss.openedx.org/t/governance-working-group/17381

>> Defining the WG processes and decision-making.

> I agree to what you proposed in your comment.

Sounds good, I have updated the section "Processes and Decision-Making" of the charter to have the criteria explicitly there.

>  Should we include this summary in the sprint report that's already being published, or should we keep it separate?

I meant having the summary simply replacing the meeting summaries in the working group section of the wiki, there: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3820191745/CC+Working+Group+Meeting+Notes?atl_f=PAGETREE -- then it would be picked up for the sprint reports summaries, instead of the current mention that stays the same: _"The working group decided to adopt an asynchronous-first model, retiring monthly meetings in favor of ad-hoc calls when necessary. Last meeting notes → 2025-05-13 CC Working Group Meeting Notes"_

> I can ask Eden right after you post the announcement.

Thank you! 👍 All good now, it's announced! 😁 
```

---

### 2025-10-14 00:07:36 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3399455391

**Comment:**
```
Great progress, @antoviaque! Thanks a lot for your help. Regarding your comments:
<br>

> Clarifying the roles within the WG: This I think we have now done, in the inline discussion on the wiki - unless there are other roles we need to create?

Agree.

> Defining the WG processes and decision-making.

I agree to what you proposed in your comment.

> Deciding whether we’ll have recurring meetings (or keep it async only).

I agree. Should we include this summary in the sprint report that's already being published, or should we keep it separate?

> For the wiki I ended up moving the pages to switch the old page in the hierachy to your new page - this was the draft, it's now the live charter: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5237571587/Governance+Working+Group+Charter

Thanks!

> For the Slack channel, @jalondonot you seem to be the owner, so could you rename it to wg-governance?

Done!

> If you are good with all the above and the announcement draft, I will post the announcement on the forum
I think we're good to go.

> We will also need to ask the Marketing WG in #wg-marketing to rename the working group on https://openedx.org/open-edx-community-working-groups/ -- to do at the very end as it's on openedx.org

I can ask Eden right after you post the announcement.

```

---

### 2025-10-13 14:33:56 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3397787106

**Comment:**
```
**Quick Update:**
We've started work on a product proposal for a notifications admin MVP. I will share the link here when it's ready.
```

---

### 2025-10-10 15:35:22 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3390809324

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Some further progress:

* Sara and Sarina have completed the renaming of the github repo, forum category and Slack channel
* For the wiki I ended up moving the pages to switch the old page in the hierachy to your new page - this was the draft, it's now the live charter: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5237571587/Governance+Working+Group+Charter
* I have updated the links on the charter page on the wiki, to point to the new URLs/names

Still needed:
* @jalondonot about the Slack channel: could you "add a channel description saying that it was previously called 'coordination'"? (from Sara)
* If you are good with all the above and the announcement draft, I will post the [announcement](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5269389493/Governance+Working+Group+Renaming+-+Announcement) on the forum
* We will also need to ask the Marketing WG in #wg-marketing to rename the working group on https://openedx.org/open-edx-community-working-groups/ -- to do at the very end as it's on openedx.org
```

---

### 2025-10-08 16:28:33 - [PR_CLOSED]
**Title:** Update README.md (#161)
**Author:** @saraburns1
**State:** closed
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/pull/161

**Description:**
```

```

**Changes:** 1 files (+10, -4)

---

### 2025-10-08 09:24:15 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3380631350

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot To address the points from your [previous list of remaining tasks](https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/137#issuecomment-3298994353) 

> - Clarifying the roles within the WG.

This I think we have now done, in the inline discussion on the wiki - unless there are other roles we need to create?

> - Defining the WG processes and decision-making.

For this I think the existing processes from the coordinator working group can apply well to the larger scope of governance items, without much adaptation needed: we can use the [github tickets & board](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/62/views/1) to process new proposals made to the working group. A bit like we did for the items from the contributors summit: when someone brings up a topic we can create a ticket in the column "New topics and issues to discuss", then follow its progress and discuss it there asynchronously? 

Then if there is a decision to make in one, it could be done using the [process described in the summit proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4518674465/Continuing+to+Iterate+After+The+Summit+A+Governance+Working+Group#Solution), since it was accepted? Ie like during the core contributor summit: "review async for 2 weeks, and then we (core contributors) vote"

> - Deciding whether we’ll have recurring meetings (or keep it async only).

Ideally we would be able to keep it async imho, that makes easier to include people from different timezones/locations, or who don't regularly join meetings. We might still want or need to do meetings, but it would be good to do them about specific topics/issues, for example if one gets stuck or is lacking consensus? If we see that things don't move because of it we can put back some synchronous meetings, including the regular ones - but so far it doesn't look to work too bad, we have been able to keep iterating on this and other issues no?

What would be good though would be a way to get a summary of the working group activity, to allow people to follow it without going to check the board and individual tickets. It would also provide something publish in the core contributor update for example - a synchronous meeting gives this via the transcript, but the activity on the tickets could likely also be used to generate a summary.

> - Updating the group’s name in other information radiators (forum, GitHub project, etc.).

For this I have just:
- Created a ticket with Axim engineering for the renaming of the github repository and forum category: https://github.com/openedx/axim-engineering/issues/1579
- Renamed the wiki page of the working group and copied the new charter to it: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3768188929 -- though I can't save the updated page for some reason, @jalondonot are you able to? https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/edit-v2/3768188929

Three things that remain to do on our side:
- For the [Slack channel](https://openedx.slack.com/archives/C05EEET8NAG), @jalondonot you seem to be the owner, so could you rename it to `wg-governance`?
- Once the renamings are done I will post the announcement in the forum - [here is a draft for review](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5269389493/Governance+Working+Group+Renaming+-+Announcement)
- We will also need to ask the Marketing WG in #wg-marketing to rename the working group on https://openedx.org/open-edx-community-working-groups/ -- to do at the very end as it's on openedx.org


```

---

### 2025-10-07 11:45:13 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3376522267

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Thanks for the pass, and sounds good then, will do! 👍 
```

---

### 2025-10-07 07:14:56 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128#issuecomment-3375514179

**Comment:**
```
The [Open edX Documentation’s](https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/) main navigation has been updated! We’ve defined a better UX, and included a new section for “Core Contributors”. Now that the [initial proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4735041541/Discovery+New+Open+edX+Handbook+Structure) has been completed, we’re working on the [next steps](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5239308348/Discovery+Migrate+and+Add+Relevant+Content+to+Documentation). Thanks to John Swope, Sarina Canelake and Michelle Philbrick for their support.
```

---

### 2025-10-07 00:23:14 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3374719772

**Comment:**
```
Thanks, @antoviaque! I've looked it over, acknowledged, and applied the changes you suggested. Yes, I think the remaining steps would be to announce it and change the names of the GH project, the Slack channel, and the forums subcategory. I accept your offer of help. Thanks!
```

---

### 2025-09-30 07:56:59 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3350494804

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Btw how do you see the next steps for the working group change, I think what we have left is mostly to announce it now, right? I'm happy to help with it or do it.
```

---

### 2025-09-25 15:39:55 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3334790402

**Comment:**
```
Thanks @jalondonot this looks great! I have nothing to add. You and Xavier covered it all :) 
```

---

### 2025-09-24 12:48:06 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3328255685

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot I have done a pass on your draft document at https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AwAvOAE - I have posted inline comments and made some changes to the text: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=5237571587&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
```

---

### 2025-09-18 06:30:36 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3305611145

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque Looking at the bigger picture sooner rather than later makes sense. 

I'd love to start investigating what a minimal version of the notifications admin might look like. I’ll let you know about any blockers or budget needs so we can keep the initial scope small and get started sooner. I'll keep you posted.
```

---

### 2025-09-17 17:12:29 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3303891558

**Comment:**
```
@ali-hugo OK, thanks for the details. Is there a way we can accelerate the development of this feature, and avoid just leaving it for later? For example by contributing hours to get to a minimally functional version? Could I give you the task to see how this could fit, and what a minimal version of it would be? Let me know about blockers or budget needs. We can keep it small to get started, and assess the usage? The important bit is to be able to start experimenting with talking with the larger community. It will already take time for instances to upgrade and pick up this announcement feature, so the earlier we plant the tree...

Btw it's not just about users requesting this feature, it's about us in the core community developing our ability to communicate to/with the rest of the users of the platform. It's more a community management feature, and something that helps to ensure good governance. Being able to spread announcements to more users & instructors would allow for eg. wider representation for user surveys & testing, or for eg. during the TOC elections.
```

---

### 2025-09-17 12:24:45 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3302746056

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Fantastic! Thank you for the work there, I will review it and post comments.
```

---

### 2025-09-16 14:19:50 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3298994353

**Comment:**
```
Hi @antoviaque, welcome back!

I drafted a proposed charter here: [Draft Charter](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AwAvOAE), based on your original proposal: [Continuing to Iterate After the Summit – A Governance Working Group](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4518674465/Continuing+to+Iterate+After+The+Summit+A+Governance+Working+Group).

I’d love for you and @cassiezamparini to review it so we can adjust, finalize, and then publish it along with a community forum post.

There are still a few open points to define together:
- Clarifying the roles within the WG.
- Defining the WG processes and decision-making.
- Deciding whether we’ll have recurring meetings (or keep it async only).
- Updating the group’s name in other information radiators (forum, GitHub project, etc.).

Feel free to add your comments and thoughts directly to the draft. Thanks!
```

---

### 2025-09-16 12:05:10 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3298287577

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque 100% agree — announcements like this are important.

In the initial proposal, we'd suggested a notifications admin area where users could create, read, update, and delete notifications. However, this would have required significant development work, and given the tight Phase 1 timeline, we decided to hold off until there’s stronger evidence from the community that this is a widely requested feature. Also, as noted [here](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/OEPM/pages/5150244903/Future+improvements+in+Notifications?focusedCommentId=5150539804), such an admin area would most likely become part of the new admin console being designed under the RBAC project.

For Phase 1 of notifications, the outcome will be a user-friendly notifications tray in the LMS, which displays automated, and event-based notifications. At this stage, those notifications are hard-coded.

> What would be needed to get that notification feature to achieve this goal?

We’ve started a doc to gather ideas for how the notifications feature could grow and improve. That’s the best place to share requests and suggestions for future phases — especially [this section](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/OEPM/pages/5150244903/Future+improvements+in+Notifications#Tentative-type-of-notifications). I haven't yet gotten around to suggesting a way to announce info or events to the wider community, but it’s on my list. If you get to it first, feel free to drop a comment in the doc.
```

---

### 2025-09-15 11:31:10 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3291699235

**Comment:**
```
@ali-hugo How did the notifications feature of Open edX vary from the goal? Imho it's still important to establish a way to communicate more directly with intructors and users of the Open edX instances out there, to at least be able to announce important information or events to the wider community. What would be needed to get that notification feature to achieve this goal?
```

---

### 2025-09-15 08:59:56 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3291127507

**Comment:**
```
**UPDATE:**
The first phase of the notifications project is in progress. For Ulmo, we will have an open-source version of the [notifications feature](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BIAmGwE) on Open edX. However, the feature’s direction has shifted from what we initially anticipated, and the chosen approach will not address the original goal of this ticket i.e. to find better ways to gather feedback from the Core Community. I’d like to bring the discussion back to that original intention.

Since this ticket was created, we have successfully launched the ["Feature Ideas" category](https://discuss.openedx.org/c/feature-ideas/48) on the forum, which appears to have been well adopted by the community. This is a positive step toward encouraging community conversations that are held in the open.

@ehuthmacher Do you have an update on the idea of using IdeaExchange to gather contribution metrics? Was this ever implemented?

@antoviaque Did you have any other specific goals in mind when opening this ticket? A lot has happened since then, so some of the goals may already have been solved.
```

---

### 2025-09-10 14:18:59 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3275201649

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot Back! :) Did everything go fine? Is there anything pending I can help with?
```

---

### 2025-09-01 11:02:32 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Evaluate the Communication Tools We Use and How We Use Them (#132)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/132#issuecomment-3241939527

**Comment:**
```
## PROGRESS UPDATE (Sep 1):
⏸ Work didn’t progress as planned in July due to capacity constraints and remains on hold until I have more availability.
```

---

### 2025-09-01 11:02:22 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Create a Shortlist of Communication Tools, Prioritizing Open Source Options (#133)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/133#issuecomment-3241939102

**Comment:**
```
## PROGRESS UPDATE (Sep 1):
⏸ Work didn’t progress as planned in July due to capacity constraints and remains on hold until I have more availability.
```

---

### 2025-08-20 14:52:32 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Obtain feedback & iterate on core sprint checkins & retros (#95)
**Author:** @Julian-Dumitrascu
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/95#issuecomment-3206753401

**Comment:**
```
1. We can take these steps:
1.1 [Build rapport](https://tb.sol-global-management.com/issue/SGM-3/We-agree-on-how-we-build-our-dialogue).
1.2 Discuss the related benefits that you seek.
I've known about edX since 2013. During your many years of activity, did you start managing a database about benefits for you?
One about the benefits you help people enjoy would be useful, too.
1.3 Discuss actions that help you get these benefits.
It is useful to check from time to time which plan helps one to get the desired benefits to a higher extent and to keep costs under control, e.g. by reducing some.
Your discussing publicly how to improve your relationships with contributors can benefit anyone, e.g. you and them. I can only support such attitudes and actions.

I note some of the many topics that we can discuss. These here are probable to influence one's costs and the degree to which one gets the desired benefits. It's useful to discuss them once we spend enough time doing e.g. the things I've mentioned in section 1.
2. Software environment
It seems you've used these services: Atlassian Confluence, Discourse, Google Workspace, Listaflow, Microsoft GitHub, SalesForce Slack
2.1 You've written: "Members feel overwhelmed by the multiple locations that information is stored (forum, Confluence, etc.). It takes time to discover where the documentation _you_ need is stored post onboarding."
2.2 Which computer programs have you used to manage content (blog, wiki, etc.)?
Software that you've used and has features for content management: Atlassian Confluence, Google Drive, Microsoft GitHub
2.3 Which computer programs have you used to manage databases?
Software that you've used and has features for data management: spreadsheets, [GitHub](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects), [Slack](https://slack.com/help/articles/27452748828179-Use-lists-in-Slack).
2.4 [E-mail](https://tb.sol-global-management.com/issue/data-17/What-helps-more-than-e-mail)
2.4.1 "core contributors should have received an email"
2.4.2 Messages exchanged between 6 and 16 September 2024:
"Does this email address forward to all Core Contributors?"
"I believe it sends an email to all core contributors."
"Let me know if you get the email!"
"We didn't get that email."
"To send an email to all the Core Contributors to notify them of the Summit on the 21st October do I need to submit a request?"
How did you feel while writing such messages?
2.4.3 "put together an email"
Do you mean using data set 1 from computer program 1 to create manually data set 2 in computer program 2?

3. "we can find better asynchronous ways to plan collaboration"
How can one learn about your views related to collaboration, planning, and anything that you find related to these two topics?

4. Data management
4.1 "Remove the section about the next asynchronous update and meetup to reduce noise as it’s on the Working Group Calendar."
4.2 As you've used a Google document to report and discuss the results of the survey on possible improvements in the experience you create for your core contributors, it's difficult to use those data, to communicate about this topic, and to plan for improvements. @antoviaque Do you [refer](https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/95#issuecomment-2348387147) to the fact that features for data management are useful, while they are lacking in [such software](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4448419874/Summit+to+Enhance+the+Core+Contributor+Experience+Call+for+Proposals)? Even if you'd word this differently, I would support a statement that software that is at least as powerful as GitHub actually empowers people more than communication software.
4.1.1 Have you connected pieces of content from Confluence to issues in Jira?
4.1.2 I'd merge Confluence into Jira:
a. One can communicate more clearly by threading messages.
As other auxiliary software does, plug-in software for threading messages in Jira stink.
While the number of programmers and the number of programs have grown a lot, one can find quite a bit of rather poor programming.
b. One can use e.g. fields to manage content: "easier to organize and follow than wiki pages"
4.3 [Forms](https://tb.sol-global-management.com/issue/data-15/Forms)
4.4 Notifications
4.4.1 "I already get lots of notifications about events"
```

---

### 2025-08-18 13:04:11 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-3196739292

**Comment:**
```
**UPDATE:**
The current plan is to enable the [existing edX notifications feature](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BIAmGwE) in Open edX _as is_ in time for Ulmo (Dec 2025). It would allow learners, instructors, and course staff to receive in-app and email updates about course activity and adjust their notification preferences. Given the tight timeline, any enhancements would come in a later phase.
```

---

### 2025-08-06 11:29:17 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3159775543

**Comment:**
```
That sounds good 👍 Thanks for looking into the issue and updating the data @feanil.

CC @mphilbrick211 
```

---

### 2025-08-05 19:56:25 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @feanil
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3156451297

**Comment:**
```
> [@feanil](https://github.com/feanil) What would we lose by doing that? I.e. does the CSV file contain any relevant info that we wouldn't be able to get when using the committers team as a source of truth?

The comitters csv file is auto-synced from the source of truth in salesforce so I think it will be more likely to stay up-to-date.  If it's wrong, I think correcting the data will be better.  We've fixed a bunch of data up today and so I think this should work a lot better and perhaps we can keep doing that until the automation works rather than making more manual work.
```

---

### 2025-07-29 07:14:12 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @xitij2000
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3131019212

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd  I think one of those things would be non-code CCs, but since this discussion is for GitHub, I don't know how many PRs will come from non-code CCs. And in those few cases perhaps manual tagging will do, especially since the linked PR should allow adding that tag manually.
```

---

### 2025-07-28 11:59:55 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3126900669

**Comment:**
```
@xitij2000 

> I think it might make sense to use the [committers team](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/teams/committers) as a source of truth in this case, rather than relying on the values in the CSV file.

That might be a good alternative.

@feanil What would we lose by doing that? I.e. does the CSV file contain any relevant info that we wouldn't be able to get when using the committers team as a source of truth?

CC @mphilbrick211 
```

---

### 2025-07-25 08:41:41 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @xitij2000
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3116924687

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd  I think it might make sense to use the [committers team](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/teams/committers) as a source of truth in this case, rather than relying on the values in the CSV file. That approach is unfortunately quite opaque. I don't know what's in it so I can't validate if the issue is coming from the file or from the code or elsewhere. 
```

---

### 2025-07-24 14:10:45 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @sarina
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-3113629205

**Comment:**
```
I added the comment in the forums because no one responded to me here. I think we need to update the sprint report:

- 10 oldest PRs _across the project_
- **Excluding** PRs that are in the "Waiting on Author" state.
```

---

### 2025-07-24 08:38:46 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-3112574281

**Comment:**
```
[inform] Conversation continues [here](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/core-contributor-news-for-sprint-july-5th-july-18th-2025/16576/2).
```

---

### 2025-07-24 08:31:59 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3112554070

**Comment:**
```
@xitij2000 I came across a new batch of cases today where the bot rejected the `core contributor` label:

* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-build/pull/660
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-build/pull/661
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-build/pull/662
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-build/pull/663
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning/pull/1752
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning/pull/1753
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning/pull/1754

Some notes:

* The initial examples for this behavior (cf. ticket description) came from https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning, but here we can see that the issue affects https://github.com/openedx/frontend-build, too. So it doesn't seem to be repo-specific.
* Today's examples all came from [PKulkoRaccoonGang](https://github.com/PKulkoRaccoonGang), while the initial examples came from [ihor-romaniuk](https://github.com/ihor-romaniuk) (so the issue doesn't seem to be author-specific either).
* Both authors have had CC status since long before the initial implementation of the labeling automation was [merged on May 14 of this year](https://github.com/openedx/openedx-webhooks/pull/357#event-17657122570). They were added to the program in June 2024 and August 2024, respectively. So it's starting to seem unlikely that the issue 
    > might just be due to the [source file containing CC information] not being entirely up to date.

CC @feanil, in case you have any input to share here.
```

---

### 2025-07-22 00:00:37 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-3099999596

**Comment:**
```
I can do it, @antoviaque. I'll post an update here once it's finished. Enjoy your vacation!
```

---

### 2025-07-18 11:01:23 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @sarina
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-3089082455

**Comment:**
```
Hi, I'm curious if we're only putting old edx-platform PRs in the newsletter, rather than all oldest PRs across the org?
```

---

### 2025-07-15 18:55:36 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @mphilbrick211
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128#issuecomment-3075056919

**Comment:**
```
> [@mphilbrick211](https://github.com/mphilbrick211) I'd appreciate your eyes on the [updated Discovery](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4735041541/Discovery+New+Open+edX+Handbook+Structure). I thought if accepted by the community we could create a board in GitHub to track the reorganisation of the docs 😄 We can also discuss in person at the conference!
> 
> cc. [@antoviaque](https://github.com/antoviaque)

Looks great! Thanks, Cassie! Very clear, and easy to understand.
```

---

### 2025-07-07 13:33:30 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Merge the Contributors Meetup Async Update and the Core Contributor Check-in into one report (#144)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/144#issuecomment-3045170589

**Comment:**
```
@nataliacho I hope you’re well! I’m just checking in to hear if you could update us on the general performance of the new format, as the aim was to get more interaction? 😄 
```

---

### 2025-07-05 09:00:14 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-3038558583

**Comment:**
```
@pomegranited Thanks for bearing with me here, and chatting to Bitergia to clarify all those little ambiguities. I don't have any additional questions at the moment.

Going forward, it might be helpful to update the Open edX dashboard to include charts incorporating the [filters you came up with](https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/139#issuecomment-2931512090) for excluding `[FC-XXXX]` PRs. @pkulkark Maybe we can chat about that a bit more in late July/early August.
```

---

### 2025-06-26 15:59:18 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3008985146

**Comment:**
```
@xitij2000 Thanks for the details, I'll keep an eye out for cases where the bot's decisions don't seem to line up with available info about CC status. If we can get more data, maybe that will reveal a pattern.

No need to block https://github.com/openedx/openedx-webhooks/pull/368 on that, though. It'll be good to get back the ability to manually add/remove the `core contributor` label sooner rather than later.
```

---

### 2025-06-26 15:47:05 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-3008949241

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque @sarina I forget how the list of stuck PRs in the CC newsletter is being compiled -- if it's based solely on how long ago they were opened, it would definitely make sense to add some filtering based on the waiting on author state and/or label.

CC @cassiezamparini 
```

---

### 2025-06-26 09:25:50 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @xitij2000
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-3007814463

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd I've created a PR to fix the issue of the webhook removing the label, in [this PR](https://github.com/openedx/openedx-webhooks/pull/368). As for the other issue, I'm not entirely sure what's going on there. 

My understanding is that the webhook runs in an environment where it is a provided a file that has all the information about all CCs. However, my assumption was that this file has a record of the global CC status, not the pre-repo CC status. 

So the issues in that case might just be due to the file not being entirely up to date. 
```

---

### 2025-06-24 08:11:17 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Implement and configure test boards in the organization (#157)
**Author:** @ChrisChV
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/157#issuecomment-2999278275

**Comment:**
```
Status update: https://github.com/openedx/.github/pull/169 is merged, I am going to start the work in the platform repos
```

---

### 2025-06-18 17:51:54 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Define workflow for interactive PR bot that enacts Single Responsible Person Principle (#152)
**Author:** @bradenmacdonald
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/152#issuecomment-2985202100

**Comment:**
```
Oops, sorry for the delay. Done: https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/160
```

---

### 2025-06-18 17:51:28 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Implement MVP of Single Responsible Person Principle (#160)
**Author:** @bradenmacdonald
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/160

**Description:**
```
Following the workflow defined in https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/152 , implement a bot that enacts an MVP version of the proposal, and begin testing it on one or two repositories.
```

---

### 2025-06-17 15:18:33 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @pomegranited
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2980793850

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd Bitergia says:

> Thank you very much for your question. It has helped us find some bugs in our captions and help texts.
>
> Both metrics include all **closed** PRs: [https://chaoss.community/kb/metric-time-to-close/](https://chaoss.community/kb/metric-time-to-close/)
```

---

### 2025-06-16 21:57:19 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @pomegranited
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2978280645

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd 

> I'm not sure, though, if their response answers the earlier question of whether both Lead Time and Time to Merge take into account merged and closed/rejected PRs?

Oh you're right.. I've asked Bitergia support, will let you know :)
```

---

### 2025-06-16 11:35:39 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @xitij2000
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-2976197553

**Comment:**
```
@itsjeyd This is a bit surprising. My assumption was that the data the webhook uses is global. Perhaps this PR was simply using obsolete data in case of a new CC? In any case it should not remove a manually added CC label. So that should be fixed. 
```

---

### 2025-06-13 16:21:08 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @sarina
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2970885095

**Comment:**
```
Or exclude ones that are in the "Waiting on Author" state?
```

---

### 2025-06-13 15:53:41 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2970816613

**Comment:**
```
@sarina Good point - maybe we could have a narrow label to exclude specific tickets from being listed; maybe "no-cc-help-needed-now" or something? Maybe @itsjeyd will have a better idea :)
```

---

### 2025-06-13 15:02:55 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2970682493

**Comment:**
```
@pomegranited I had a closer look at Bitergia's response. This part in particular does seem relevant for understanding the different metrics better in general:

> The line visualization shows PRs **closed** in the timeframe whereas the gauge filters by **creation** date. Therefore the gauge captures a smaller sample of shorted-lived PRs than the line visualization, which includes older PRs with longer durations that push the average up).

I'm not sure, though, if their response answers the earlier question of whether both Lead Time and Time to Merge take into account merged **and** closed/rejected PRs?

(Maybe it does... It's been a long day 😅)
```

---

### 2025-06-13 14:39:38 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Improve documentation on how to find OSPRs to review (#146)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/146#issuecomment-2970616393

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque It used to be. Yesterday I actually created #159, a follow-up to #155 for making some adjustments to the implementation. `#timing`

CC @mphilbrick211 
```

---

### 2025-06-13 13:04:26 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @sarina
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2970328719

**Comment:**
```
It might be worth refining it a bit, some of the oldest PRs now have comments explaining why they're stuck and I'm not expecting to see movement on them.
```

---

### 2025-06-13 13:03:42 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @sarina
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2970326846

**Comment:**
```
Yep I try to take a look every sprint - it's helpful!
```

---

### 2025-06-13 09:54:48 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128#issuecomment-2969795003

**Comment:**
```
@mphilbrick211 I'd appreciate your eyes on the [updated Discovery](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4735041541/Discovery+New+Open+edX+Handbook+Structure). I thought if accepted by the community we could create a board in GitHub to track the reorganisation of the docs 😄 We can also discuss in person at the conference!

cc. @antoviaque 
 
```

---

### 2025-06-13 08:46:18 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2969573159

**Comment:**
```
What a win! Thanks for the update @antoviaque 
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:58:32 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2969153371

**Comment:**
```
@cassiezamparini Definitely, it made some of us go have a look yes - and especially @sarina went to help moving them (thank you!). 
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:08:25 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Implement and configure test boards in the organization (#157)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/157#issuecomment-2969054413

**Comment:**
```
@ChrisChV Great! Can you keep a close eye on the upstream PR to get it merged?
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:07:39 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-2969053214

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot The announcement and update to the charter looks great! 👍 Thank you.

For the change of name of the working group, you prefer to do it separately? I'm going on vacation and there is the conference, but if you want I could take care of it when I am back early September.
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:04:14 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Partners As Maintainers (#136)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/136#issuecomment-2969048780

**Comment:**
```
Still pending a final TOC proposal & decision - I'll bring this up during the conference to try to get it over the finish line.
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:03:33 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Define workflow for interactive PR bot that enacts Single Responsible Person Principle (#152)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/152#issuecomment-2969047900

**Comment:**
```
@bradenmacdonald Not sure if you have created the follow-up ticket on this yet? So I haven't closed this ticket yet to not forget - can I let you do both?
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:03:31 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2969047859

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque This is awesome news! Do you think mentioning them in the "CC Newsletter" is one thing that's helping?
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:01:57 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Improve documentation on how to find OSPRs to review (#146)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/146#issuecomment-2969044968

**Comment:**
```
@mphilbrick211 Do you think you will be able to finish this ticket? @itsjeyd can correct me if this is wrong, but I believe it's the last ticket to complete https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/134
```

---

### 2025-06-13 05:00:07 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158#issuecomment-2969040346

**Comment:**
```
Many of these PRs have been updated/pushed forward over the past few weeks - we can come back to this in a little while to see if that helped.
```

---

### 2025-06-12 09:54:11 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159#issuecomment-2965943948

**Comment:**
```
@mphilbrick211 FYI ⬆ 
```

---

### 2025-06-12 09:53:06 - [ISSUE_CLOSED]
**Title:** openedx-webhooks only considers repo-specific info for labeling and rejects manual overrides (#159)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**State:** closed
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/159

**Description:**
```
### Epic

https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/134: Improving OSPR Management

### Story

"As an OSPR manager, I want 

1. openedx-webhooks to add the `core contributor` label to *all* OSPRs coming from CCs, and
1. the ability to override the bot's decisions if necessary

... so that the presence or absence of the `core contributor` label on an OSPR correctly reflects the author's status."

### Full description

Follows up on #155.

The automation implemented in #155 seems to work as expected for some repositories (e.g. ones where the author of an OSPR is a CC for the parent repository).

However, it doesn't seem to be adding the `core contributor` label to an OSPR -- at least not reliably -- if the author is a CC but doesn't have CC status on the parent repository of the OSPR.

In this situation, attempting to add the `core contributor` label manually results in the bot removing the label right away:

![bot-rejecting-core-contributor-label](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/66439891-e554-4150-a478-2e673864f5de)

The purpose of this ticket is to update the behavior of the bot to add the `core contributor` label based on global CC status, and to allow users with relevant permissions (such as OSPR managers) to add the label manually if necessary.

#### Examples

PRs where the automation worked as expected:

* https://github.com/openedx/code-annotations/pull/169
* https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/pull/36894

PRs that should have gotten the `core contributor` label but didn't:

* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning/pull/1713
* https://github.com/openedx/frontend-app-learning/pull/1716

#### Behavioral specifications

N/A

### Documentation updates & improvements criteria

Left to the assignee's appreciation

### Relevant repositories

* https://github.com/openedx/openedx-webhooks

### Review timeline

Flexible
```

---

### 2025-06-10 18:24:13 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @mphilbrick211
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128#issuecomment-2960225241

**Comment:**
```
@cassiezamparini of course!
```

---

### 2025-06-10 17:02:54 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128#issuecomment-2960009804

**Comment:**
```
After a brief pause on this I'll post an updated discovery tomorrow. @mphilbrick211 I would appreciate it if you could run through my proposal before I share it with the Docs working group? I'll send a link when ready.
```

---

### 2025-06-10 15:35:44 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-2959744020

**Comment:**
```
**UPDATE:**
If all goes according to plan, we hope to have the first draft of the technical discovery of the notifications proposal ready in time for the conference. 
```

---

### 2025-06-06 09:16:59 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-2948618050

**Comment:**
```
@jalondonot That's great, thanks for the announcement and the update! I'll plan to do a pass of review - let me know when you're done.
```

---

### 2025-06-05 17:59:09 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-2945509989

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque That worked nicely! Thank you. 🙂 
```

---

### 2025-06-05 16:21:17 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-2945154361

**Comment:**
```
@ali-hugo It's still 24h, so they should have answered you already. I have pinged them in the thread.
```

---

### 2025-06-05 15:16:34 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @jalondonot
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137#issuecomment-2944953876

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque, as agreed upon at the [last meeting](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4992860161/2025-05-13+CC+Working+Group+Meeting+Notes), I’ve published the [announcement](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/contributor-coordination-wg-moving-to-asynchronous-model/16254) on Discourse to inform the community about the Contributor Coordination WG’s transition to an asynchronous model, and I've paused the recurring event in the community calendar. Over the next few days, I’ll be working on updating the WG charter to reflect the new async-first approach and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of WG members. Thanks!
```

---

### 2025-06-05 13:30:38 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-2944347920

**Comment:**
```
> Ping me if it looks like this doesn't bring anything quickly enough, I'll then try pinging people myself too.

@antoviaque If you don't mind, I could use your need pinning someone down for the discovery. Could you take a look at the conversation [on this ticket](https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/STAR-4147) and weigh in there? It's true that the people I pinged haven't had much time to respond yet, but with the conference coming up, we need to finalise this soon. 

Thank you in advance! 
```

---

### 2025-06-03 11:00:41 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2934695942

**Comment:**
```
@pomegranited Thanks a lot for reporting back with the details from Bitergia. Happy to hear that they were quick to respond! I'm a bit short on time this week so can't take a closer look right now, but it's on my list for next week.
```

---

### 2025-06-02 21:28:18 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @ali-hugo
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124#issuecomment-2932570150

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque Thanks for the ideas and for offering to help find someone if necessary. I'm on it, but will let you know if I run into any trouble. 
```

---

### 2025-06-02 16:32:34 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @pomegranited
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2931512090

**Comment:**
```
@antoviaque  

>  This is just based on the github org of the contributor, though, right? 

Yes. I'm also not sure when this org membership is recorded or taken into account -- e.g. what about people who were part of edX but now aren't?

> So it would still include PRs from blended projects or sub-hiring like Edly's teams working for edX, no?

Yes. If people are good about including `[FC-XXXX`] or `[BD-XXXX]` in the titles of their PRs, we can [exclude them with filters like this](https://openedx.biterg.io/app/dashboards#/view/9663d5a0-e1dc-11e8-8aac-ef7fd4d8cbad?_g=(filters:!(),refreshInterval:(pause:!t,value:0),time:(from:now-12M,to:now))&_a=(description:'Efficiency%20panel%20for%20GitHub%20Pull%20Requests%20by%20Bitergia',filters:!(('$state':(store:appState),meta:(alias:Bots,disabled:!f,index:github_issues,key:author_bot,negate:!t,params:(query:!t),type:phrase),query:(match:(author_bot:(query:!t,type:phrase)))),('$state':(store:appState),meta:(alias:!n,disabled:!f,index:github_issues,key:author_multi_org_names,negate:!t,params:!('edX,%20Inc.','The%20Center%20for%20Reimagining%20Learning'),type:phrases,value:'edX,%20Inc.,%20The%20Center%20for%20Reimagining%20Learning'),query:(bool:(minimum_should_match:1,should:!((match_phrase:(author_multi_org_names:'edX,%20Inc.')),(match_phrase:(author_multi_org_names:'The%20Center%20for%20Reimagining%20Learning')))))),('$state':(store:appState),meta:(alias:!n,disabled:!f,index:github_issues,key:title,negate:!t,params:(query:%5BBD),type:phrase),query:(match_phrase:(title:%5BBD))),('$state':(store:appState),meta:(alias:!n,disabled:!f,index:github_issues,key:title,negate:!t,params:(query:%5BFC),type:phrase),query:(match_phrase:(title:%5BFC)))),fullScreenMode:!f,options:(darkTheme:!f,hidePanelTitles:!f,useMargins:!t),query:(language:lucene,query:''),timeRestore:!f,title:'GitHub%20Pull%20Requests%20Efficiency',viewMode:view)). However, that filter doesn't have much effect on the mean/median gap either, so it doesn't much help.
```

---

### 2025-06-02 12:17:29 - [ISSUE_COMMENT]
**Issue:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139#issuecomment-2930404455

**Comment:**
```
@pomegranited OK, interesting. This is just based on the github org of the contributor, though, right? So it would still include PRs from blended projects or sub-hiring like Edly's teams working for edX, no? If so, it would be great to have a way to filter those out too, as they probably inflate the proportion of PRs being merged quickly.
```

---

### 2025-05-12 14:41:17 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Old PRs needing reviews (#158)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/158

**Description:**
```
Cf https://discuss.openedx.org/t/core-contributor-news-for-sprint-mar-29th-apr-11th-2025/15552/15

The[ list of stuck PR](The list of stuck PR shows some pretty old PR - the oldest two [being from 2023](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/pull/33784) ([2nd PR](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/pull/33785)), and don’t look too big or controversial? Are there for those to have been there for so long? What could we do to unblock them?) shows some pretty old PR - the oldest two [being from 2023](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/pull/33784) ([2nd PR](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/pull/33785)), and don’t look too big or controversial? Why have they been there for so long? What could we do to unblock them?
```

---

### 2025-04-11 16:47:29 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Implement and configure test boards in the organization (#157)
**Author:** @ChrisChV
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/157

**Description:**
```
### Epic

- #138 Use Kanban board for the working workflow 

### Story

"As a member of the Open edX community, I want automated Kanban Boards, so that we can see the work of the Core Contributors in a general way"

### Full description

Follow the `Technical Discovery` of the proposal to implement a working prototype.

### Completion criteria

- Implement a working prototype of the proposal


```

---

### 2025-02-17 13:44:42 - [ISSUE_CLOSED]
**Title:** Update openedx-webhooks to use team membership to apply labels (#155)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**State:** closed
**Labels:** development
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/155

**Description:**
```
Epic: https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/134

Relates to:

* https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/149
* https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/148

Axim is already moving towards a github team for each repo. And as of early Feb 2025, CC data that is available to openedx-webhooks includes a new column called "Is Core Contributor" which provides global/repo-agnostic info about someone's CC status. ([Ref](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bJX8TgFeS32fs55DIf8wcIRjFFLcDPZUw_L5YY4Iapg/edit?disco=AAABcp2gBXg))

So update the openedx-webhooks codebase to apply the `core contributor` label to a PR if its author is a CC.
```

---

### 2025-01-13 14:15:13 - [ISSUE_CLOSED]
**Title:** Define workflow for interactive PR bot that enacts Single Responsible Person Principle (#152)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**State:** closed
**Labels:** discovery
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/152

**Description:**
```
### Epics

https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/135: Single Responsible Person Principle (for bugs & PRs)
https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/134: Improving OSPR Management

### Story

"As a member of the Open edX community, I want an interactive PR bot that enacts the [Single Responsible Person Principle](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/A4A8DQE) so that it's always clear what next steps are and who is responsible for performing them."

### Full description

Follows up on STAR-3870 and a meeting between Braden, Kshitij, Navin, and Tim to [combine approaches](https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/STAR-3870?focusedCommentId=302211&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-302211) for [areas of overlap](https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/STAR-3870?focusedCommentId=302069&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-302069) from their CC summit proposals.

### Completion criteria

 * Come up with a comprehensive workflow for an interactive PR bot for enacting the [Single Responsible Person Principle](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/A4A8DQE).
     * The bot's workflow should be [opt-in](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4517036035/Single+Responsible+Person+Principle+for+bugs+PRs?focusedCommentId=4565762054) (at least for now), i.e., allow PR authors to trigger it if needed.
     * The bot's workflow should generally match/integrate with existing workflows for managing OSPRs:
         * Establishing completely different workflows for repos with and without a maintainer would likely lead to confusion. :bulb: However:
         * We'll prioritize defining (and, in a series of future tickets, implementing) a workflow for *repos that have maintainers* as a first step.
             * The OSPR process is more standardized for these repos, so a corresponding workflow for the interactive PR bot should be simpler to define and implement than a solution that tries to incorporate *all* aspects of the OSPR process from the start. Additional elements of the process that are specific to unmaintained repos can always be added in a later iteration.
             * In the long term we want all repos belonging to the [openedx](https://github.com/orgs/openedx) organization to get a maintainer. So facilitating the OSPR review process for repos that have maintainers will ultimately be the PR bot's main job.
     * The bot should be able to "collaborate" with OSPR managers, so they can step in and help if the bot encounters a situation where it cannot determine the next step on it's own.
         * Under these circumstances the bot could simply assign a PR to the parent repo's primary PM.

### Resources

 * [Contributions](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/19) board (main tool that OSPR managers use for the purpose of triaging community contributions).

#### Documentation describing the OSPR process as a whole

 * [Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions](https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/developers/references/developer_guide/process/FAQ-about-pull-requests.html)
 * [Pull Request Status (and Label) Guide](https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/developers/references/developer_guide/process/pull-request-statuses.html)
     * Note that:
         * The "Scheduled for Eng Review" status no longer exists on the Contributions board; it's a leftover from a time when 2U were much more involved in the OSPR review process than they are today.
         * While the (more specific) `changes requested` label still exists, it is used less frequently than the (more general) `waiting on author` label to indicate that a PR is waiting for the author to address review comments.

#### Documentation describing the product review process

 * [Contributing](https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/developers/references/developer_guide/process/contributor.html)
 * [How to submit an open source contribution for Product Review](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3875962884/How+to+submit+an+open+source+contribution+for+Product+Review)
```

---

### 2025-01-13 14:04:32 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Improve documentation on how to find OSPRs to review (#146)
**Author:** @itsjeyd
**State:** open
**Labels:** documentation
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/146

**Description:**
```
### Epic

https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/134: Improving OSPR Management

### Story

"As a core contributor, I want to know where I can find OSPRs to review (and be sure that other CCs have the same knowledge) so that I can more effectively help the community with getting their contributions merged (and be sure that my own PRs will be reviewed and merged more quickly)."

### Full description

Implements [this part](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4516577281/Improving+OSPR+Management#Improving-documentation-on-how-to-find-OSPRs-to-review) of the proposal for [Improving OSPR Management](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA1DQE) from this year's [Summit to Enhance the Core Contributor Experience](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/IoAlCQE).

> 
> We have special views on the Contributions board that list OSPRs in need of a reviewer ([all OSPRs](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/19/views/27), [edx-platform only](https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/19/views/29)). It might not be clear to CCs - especially if they've been onboarded to the program only recently - that finding OSPRs to review can be as simple as going to those views, picking one or more PRs that align with their area(s) of expertise, and assigning themselves as reviewers. In order to make CCs aware of this option, *we'd suggest that the onboarding course for CCs and/or related onboarding documentation be updated to include pointers about how to find OSPRs to review.*
> 

### Completion criteria

 * Identify the best place(s) to document where to find OSPRs to review.
 * Create PRs with relevant updates.

### Relevant repositories

 * https://github.com/openedx/onboarding-course-introduction
 * https://github.com/openedx/training-courses
 * https://github.com/openedx/docs.openedx.org/tree/main
```

---

### 2025-01-07 08:48:04 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Merge the Contributors Meetup Async Update and the Core Contributor Check-in into one report (#144)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/144

**Description:**
```
## Description:
One issue that was not tackled during the [Summit to Enhance the Core Contributor Experience](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4448419874/Summit+to+Enhance+the+Core+Contributor+Experience+Call+for+Proposals) was the potential merging of the Contributors Meetup Async Update and the Core Contributor Check-in into one report. We received some valuable feedback from the [survey we sent out in 2024](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qbbxe4rzA2-z11Sa7zxcsdX19op6r5xPPg2aPoD_xd4/edit?tab=t.0) and I think it would be beneficial to implement the feedback.


## Feedback:

- 68.6% of CCs would like the "Contributors Meetup Async Update" and the "Core Contributor Check-in" to be merged into one report.

### Contributors Meetup Async Update

Here are the requests:

- Improve the Working Group Updates section by making it:
   - Shorter
   - Less technical

- Improve the "Upcoming Events" section by:
   - Including milestones like the next planned release.
   - Including events in the community calendar.
   - Linking to Open edX events page.

- Improve the “Projects” section on the “Contributors Meetup Async Update” by (note: Members are confused why this section is “often” empty):
   - Including a list of current projects in a non-technical way.
   - Linking to info from the release planning spreadsheet.
   - Linking to platform-roadmap.

- Improve the “Next async update and meetup” by:
   - Updating the heading to "Get involved in the next Contributor Coordination Working Group meeting" and explain what the group actually does.
   - Ensuring draft agenda links to the most recent agenda, or possibly remove the link to reduce noise and add it to Slack like the other Working Groups do.
   - Possibly remove it to reduce noise as it’s on the Working Group Calendar.
 
### Core Contributor Check-in

- Incorporate the updated questions as per [this proposal](https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/130).

## Circulation

- Circulate update in Slack channels as well

## Proposal Link

[View Proposal here](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4833312775/Merge+the+Contributors+Meetup+Async+Update+and+the+Core+Contributor+Check-in+into+one+report)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:29:59 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Core Contributor Metrics with Biterg.io (#139)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/139

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4522278913/Core+Contributor+Metrics+with+GrimoireLab)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:28:37 - [ISSUE_CLOSED]
**Title:** Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group (#137)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** closed
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/137

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4518674465/Continuing+to+Iterate+After+The+Summit+A+Governance+Working+Group)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:27:50 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Open edX Partners As Maintainers (#136)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/136

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4517134415/Open+edX+Partners+As+Maintainers)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:27:06 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Single Responsible Person Principle (for bugs & PRs) (#135)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/135

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4517036035/Single+Responsible+Person+Principle+for+bugs+PRs)

Private ref: [MNG-4509](https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/MNG-4509)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:25:08 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Create a Shortlist of Communication Tools, Prioritizing Open Source Options (#133)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/133

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4529258511/Create+a+Shortlist+of+Communication+Tools+Prioritizing+Open+Source+Options)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:24:17 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Evaluate the Communication Tools We Use and How We Use Them (#132)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/132

**Description:**
```
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4529324061/Evaluate+the+Communication+Tools+We+Use+and+How+We+Use+Them)
```

---

### 2024-10-16 13:20:19 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Open edX Handbook (#128)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/128

**Description:**
```
## Proposal 
[See proposal](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/4465164298/Open+edX+Handbook)

## Phase 1 Schedule 

### 1: Define the New Handbook Structure ✅ 

- Assignees: @cassiezamparini  and @jalondonot 
- Task: Analyze survey feedback and existing Core Contributor information to outline the essential sections of the Handbook.
- Deadline: 24 January 2025

### 2: Get Feedback on New Handbook Structure ✅
- Assignees: @cassiezamparini, @jalondonot and wider community.
- Task: Validate the proposed list of sections with reviewers, and establish the priority order for section development.
- Deadline: 9 February 2025

### 3: Incorporate Feedback into the New Handbook Structure 🚧 
- Assignees: @cassiezamparini
- Deadline: TBD

### 4: Create a Space for the Handbook in the Open edX Docs 
- Assignees: @cassiezamparini and TBD
- Tasks:
   - Set Up a GitHub Repository for Handbook for facilitating easy submission of changes. (See how [this page](https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/documentors/quickstarts/first_documentation_pr.html) in the "Docs" explains how to update documentation. This is a nice resource to include)
   - Create a section in the Open edX docs.
- Timeline: TBD

## Phase 2 Schedule 
The phase 2 timelines will be fleshed out once Phase 1 is completed.

### 1: Iterative Content Development and Population
- Developed in 4-week intervals
   - Weeks 1-2: Develop content for the highest-priority sections with the help of Core Contributor volunteers.
   - Weeks 3-4: Review and refine these sections based on feedback and publish the content.

### 2: Repeat Development Cycles:
- Continue developing and refining additional sections in 4-week intervals, incorporating feedback and making iterative improvements as needed.
```

---

### 2024-05-31 12:17:21 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Need better ways to get feedback? (#124)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/124

**Description:**
```
Recently several initiatives have expressed difficulty in getting feedback/reactions from the core community:

* @mariajgrimaldi in the [last retrospective](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/contributors-meetup-async-update-may-11th-may-24th-2024/13081/2): _"I’m gathering data using a form to improve developers’ experience with the Hooks extension framework, but I’m having trouble getting people to fill it out. If you, or any of your team members used the framework, please share it, or [fill out the form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc5_Qad-KkduhWpxuLk0wk4YVO8AxjHZ9DeVYbVzcLqSFzYzg/viewform?usp=pp_url) and help us improve!"_
* @ali-hugo @cassiezamparini with the [core contributors survey](https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/95)

Do we need better ways to reach out to our core community? Establish better rituals/process to allow us to collect it?

_Ticket created based on the [May 24th retrospective](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/contributors-meetup-async-update-may-11th-may-24th-2024/13081/2)_
```

---

### 2024-01-23 17:58:43 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Core Contributor Onboarding Improvements (#116)
**Author:** @cassiezamparini
**State:** open
**Labels:** None
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/116

**Description:**
```
_*This issue is to follow up on a topic from the contributor meetup working group_

I recently chatted to a new CC and they had the following feedback:

- Who helped you with the onboarding?
  - I received the initial onboarding instructions from X. I don't recall receiving any other steps after that though. 

- Did you feel sufficiently supported during the onboarding process?
  - I was expecting an onboarding course/guide and instructions on how to engage with the rest of the CCs. 
 
- Is there anything that still remains unclear to you with regards to the CC program?
  - I'd like to know more about how CC responsibilities are broken down by function (e.g. marketing, product, etc.) and the preferred tracking/reporting of hours and responsibilities. 
 
- Do you receive an email reminder from Listaflow at the end of every sprint to fill in the check-in form? If not, could you check your spam folder and let me know?
  - Yes, I see them in my spam folder and will begin completing them from this month. 
 
- If I remember correctly, the onboarding mentions adding your name to this list. Was that clear to you? No worries if not, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of things! Could you go ahead and add your details to the table of "Current Core Contributors" when you have a moment.
  - Thanks for looking into everything. I don't recall receiving a separate set of instructions to add myself to this page. That said, it looks like I can't make an edit to [the list](https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3156344833/Core+Contributors+to+the+Open+edX+Project) anyway.

There may be room for improvement in the actual onboarding process so new CCs follow and understand the processes. I would be interested in everyone else's thoughts...
```

---

### 2023-05-02 09:21:00 - [ISSUE_OPENED]
**Title:** Obtain feedback & iterate on core sprint checkins & retros (#95)
**Author:** @antoviaque
**State:** open
**Labels:** community
**URL:** https://github.com/openedx/wg-governance/issues/95

**Description:**
```
This issue is to follow up on a topic from the contributor meetup working group

See https://discuss.openedx.org/t/brainstorm-better-planning-collaboration-reporting-for-core-contributor-work/9585
```

---