MFEs documentation & reviews

[antoviaque]

This issue is to follow up on a topic from the contributor meetup working group (imported from https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3934289923/2023-11-28+CC+Working+Group+Meeting+Notes )

MFEs documentation & reviews

• Presenters: @arbrandes @pdpinch
• Notes from previous meeting:
  • Product working group should be involved, so that it’s not just a technical decision to include a MFE
  • BTR should be involved to validate that the MFE should be accepted or not
  • Jorge: BTR: hard to tell what are the non-negotiable items from a product working group - what should be the release blockers? Need to get the product working group involved in the other working groups. In general, lack of shared goals between working groups - we don’t plan as a community.
    • Ed: If more people were in the current meeting that would allow to coordinate. Should also be working on what should go in a release right after a release.
    • Xavier: Should we have a product release manager for stable releases, as a counter-part to the more technical role of release manager, to be able to handle product-related topics?
  • To help increasing the cross-over between working groups (such as BTR and product), it would help to do more async communication, which would help to include members of other groups in discussions, without having to attend many meetings or monitoring many Slack channels.
• Action items:
  • Edward Zarecor to propose to Jenna Makowski to lead a meeting release management for the next release Redwood in January
  • @jalondonot will ask Maksim about the possibility of him continuing as the release manager for the next release and, if not, will start looking for a successor.
  • @jalondonot will create async discussion spaces for reviewing the scope for Redwood and will include Jenna in the discussion.
  • @ali-hugo would bring up the topic of ownership for pushing new MFEs (or features in general) with the product working group
  • @nedbat would be investigating the 3 repos in the edX Github organization that start with 'front end app,' one of which is private, and let @arbrandes know the outcome.

[jalondonot]

09/01 Contributor Meetup Update:

• @jmakowski1123 has scheduled a meeting for planning the redwood.1 release for 11/01.
• Regarding the repos in the edX GitHub, 2 of them are solved and 1 is still stuck.

[antoviaque]

The first redwood meeting happened: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3995107330/Redwood+Meeting+Planning+1+Jan+11+2024 - to follow to see how this helps to address the points above for Redwood.

[antoviaque]

There is now a spreadsheet to coordinate the list of features for Redwood: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tWgp9LXNg4sfWYd_0ghNl6qfIZZ9851MtGBXPeSgzFs/edit?pli=1#gid=0 - this, with a process to get features accepted in there through reviews, should help guarantee that features are now planned properly for a release, and documented. We will now need to see how that works out in practice for Redwood :)

A monthly standing meeting for release planning has been agreed.

Subsidiary topics:

• How this release planning ties into the Roadmap planning https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3995107330/Redwood+Meeting+Planning+%231%2C+Jan+11%2C+2024?focusedCommentId=4012605586
• How we account for the development timelines, by delivering reviews that are prompt enough to match them https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3995107330/Redwood+Meeting+Planning+%231%2C+Jan+11%2C+2024?focusedCommentId=4012965950
• Adopting the same sprint rhythm as core contributors https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3995107330/Redwood+Meeting+Planning+%231%2C+Jan+11%2C+2024?focusedCommentId=4012867650

[antoviaque]

@jalondonot @ali-hugo What do you think of the current status on this? I haven't followed the recent evolution of MFEs reviews before they are released, did things improve in terms of matching the project requirements, including documentation?

[ali-hugo]

@antoviaque I'm afraid I don't know enough about this to give a useful update. Let me know if there's something specific you'd like me to find out about in the next Core Product Working Group Meeting.

[jalondonot]

@antoviaque, I think with the improvements we have implemented from the Redwood Release Testing Strategy, the level of alignment and cooperation between the BTR WG and the Product WG has increased significantly. Of course, there are still several opportunities for improvement, but these will be tracked with the "retrospective" label in the BTR GH board. I think for what may be of concern to the CC WG, we could mark this issue as done :)