openedx · sdaitzman · Jul 27, 2026 · Aug 10, 2026 · Aug 10, 2026 · Aug 10, 2026
diff --git a/oeps/processes/oep-0070-proc-shared-design-collateral.rst b/oeps/processes/oep-0070-proc-shared-design-collateral.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+.. _OEP-70 Shared Design Collateral Contribution Requirements:
+
+OEP-70: Shared Design Collateral Contribution Requirements
+##########################################################
+
+.. list-table::
+   :widths: 25 75
+
+   * - OEP
+     - :ref:`OEP-0070 <OEP-70 Shared Design Collateral Contribution Requirements>`
+   * - Title
+     - Shared Design Collateral Contribution Requirements
+   * - Last Modified
+     - 2026-07-27
+   * - Authors
+     - Sam Daitzman <sam.daitzman@schema.education>
+   * - Arbiter
+     - TBD (Needs an arbiter)
+   * - Status
+     - Draft
+   * - Type
+     - Process
+   * - Created
+     - 2026-07-14
+   * - Review Period
+     - TBD (recommended 2 weeks)
+   * - References
+     - Open edX shared Figma instance; `Open edX Shared Design Collateral
+       <https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/A4BtbwE>`_;
+       :ref:`OEP-1 <OEP-1 OEP Purpose and Guidelines>`
+
+.. contents::
+   :local:
+   :depth: 1
+
+Abstract
+********
+
+This OEP establishes that design collateral contributed to the Open edX
+platform must be contributed back into the shared Open edX Figma instance,
+under open access for reuse, as a condition of the work being considered
+complete. This applies to all design contributions to the platform. It applies
+the same collaboration model the community already relies on for code to
+design: a single source of truth, versioned work in branches, and maintainer
+review before merge.
+
+Following the precedent of prior *amnesty*-style process changes (e.g., the
+:ref:`lint amnesty <OEP-34 Lint Amnesty>`),
+the requirement applies going forward only: existing and legacy design files
+are granted amnesty and are not required to be retroactively migrated to match
+the structure or format of the standard reference design collateral, though
+contributing them is strongly encouraged.
+
+Motivation
+**********
+
+Historically, Open edX has had no shared source of truth for design resources.
+This created three recurring problems:
+
+1. **Duplicated, siloed work.** Every provider with design capacity maintained
+   separate, out-of-date versions of designs, and teams regularly recreated
+   designs from scratch for existing Open edX apps.
+2. **Ambiguous intent.** Without a design source of truth, engineers could not
+   differentiate intentional design decisions from provider-specific Figma
+   quirks or accidents.
+3. **High onboarding cost.** New design contributors had nowhere to start and
+   no history of decisions to build on, making community onboarding very
+   difficult.
+
+The shared Open edX Figma instance now provides that source of truth, with
+resources across nearly all platform areas and modern, reusable file structures
+aligned to Paragon. However, **adoption is now the central risk to future Open
+edX community shared/open design efforts.** Strong in-person interest has not
+translated into active use of the shared instance, and some active
+contributions have built on openly shared components without contributing their
+new files back or making them available for open reuse.
+
+Without a community-wide norm, a single provider effectively becomes the only
+party keeping the files current, which is not sustainable. Codifying a
+contribution expectation is the most direct lever to secure the long-term value
+of the shared instance.
-The shared Open edX Figma instance now provides that source of truth, with
-resources across nearly all platform areas and modern, reusable file structures
-aligned to Paragon. However, **adoption is now the central risk to future Open
-edX community shared/open design efforts.** Strong in-person interest has not
-translated into active use of the shared instance, and some active
-contributions have built on openly shared components without contributing their
-new files back or making them available for open reuse.
-
-Without a community-wide norm, a single provider effectively becomes the only
-party keeping the files current, which is not sustainable. Codifying a
-contribution expectation is the most direct lever to secure the long-term value
-of the shared instance.
+The shared Open edX Figma instance will provide that source of truth, with
+resources across nearly all platform areas and modern, reusable file structures
+aligned to Paragon. An expectation of continual contribution to this shared instance,
+from all parties working on design collateral, mirrors the norms that the project
+already has around code contributions.
-The shared Open edX Figma instance now provides that source of truth, with
-resources across nearly all platform areas and modern, reusable file structures
-aligned to Paragon. However, **adoption is now the central risk to future Open
-edX community shared/open design efforts.** Strong in-person interest has not
-translated into active use of the shared instance, and some active
-contributions have built on openly shared components without contributing their
-new files back or making them available for open reuse.
-
-Without a community-wide norm, a single provider effectively becomes the only
-party keeping the files current, which is not sustainable. Codifying a
-contribution expectation is the most direct lever to secure the long-term value
-of the shared instance.
+The shared Open edX Figma instance will provide that source of truth, with
+resources across nearly all platform areas and modern, reusable file structures
+aligned to Paragon. An expectation of continual contribution to this shared instance,
+from all parties working on design collateral, mirrors the norms that the project
+already has around code contributions.
+
+Specification
+*************
+
+1. **Contribution requirement.** Any accepted product proposal that includes
+   design work MUST submit its design collateral to the shared Open edX Figma
+   instance for the project to be considered complete. This SHOULD be captured
-   instance for the project to be considered complete. This SHOULD be captured
+   instance for the project to be considered complete. This will be captured
-   instance for the project to be considered complete. This SHOULD be captured
+   instance for the project to be considered complete. This will be captured
+   as an expectation in future design contributions.
+
+   - **Note**: the contribution model is actively maintained by the `Design
+     <https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KwDR3w>`_ and `Frontend
+     <https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/9YYuu>`_ Working Groups, which will
+     allow for flexibility and openness in shared design collateral governance
+     going forward.
+
+2. **Open access.** Contributed files MUST be openly accessible and reusable by
-2. **Open access.** Contributed files MUST be openly accessible and reusable by
+2. **Open access.** Contributed files must be openly accessible and reusable by
-2. **Open access.** Contributed files MUST be openly accessible and reusable by
+2. **Open access.** Contributed files must be openly accessible and reusable by
+   the community (viewable and exportable, under an open license) so that
+   anyone can reference or build on them, including for open-format export and
+   agentic prototyping.
+3. **Workflow parity with code.** Contributions happen in branches within the
+   shared instance. Design maintainers review work-in-progress and provide
+   feedback before it is merged into the live product-area files, mirroring the
+   code-maintainer model. Frozen release files are published to the Figma
+   Community as part of the release (Build-Test-Release, or BTR) process.
+4. **Roles.** Each proposal and contribution stream has identified Author(s)
+   and an Arbiter, plus Design Maintainers (analogous to code maintainers)
+   responsible for reviewing and merging contributions.
+5. **Communication and relay.** This expectation is relayed to current and
+   future contribution owners and providers, and at minimum current
+   contribution owners are asked to return files they worked on to the shared
+   instance.
+
+Backward Compatibility
+**********************
+
+This OEP applies to new and future work only: **no regressions.** Design work
+that predates this proposal is granted amnesty: providers are not required to
+retroactively migrate legacy files into the shared instance, though doing so is
+strongly encouraged. This mirrors the community's linting-amnesty precedent,
+where new violations are disallowed while pre-existing ones are forgiven.
+
+Rationale
+*********
+
+- **Proven model.** Code contributors already benefit from a shared source of
- **Proven model.** Code contributors already benefit from a shared source of
+- **Open-source as a priority.** The Open edX project is licensed under open-source licenses. Open-source means making software code public so anyone can view, use, modify, and share it. Making our design collateral similarly open-source enables community innovation on the same scale as the code itself.
+- **Proven model.** Code contributors already benefit from a shared source of
- **Proven model.** Code contributors already benefit from a shared source of
+- **Open-source as a priority.** The Open edX project is licensed under open-source licenses. Open-source means making software code public so anyone can view, use, modify, and share it. Making our design collateral similarly open-source enables community innovation on the same scale as the code itself.
+- **Proven model.** Code contributors already benefit from a shared source of
+  truth, versioning, parallel work, central issue tracking, and a shared doc
+  site (Paragon). Extending the same practices to design is a natural, low-risk
+  step.
+- **Lower barrier to entry.** A shared, openly licensed instance lets new
+  contributors start from existing work instead of an empty canvas,
+  accelerating onboarding.
+- **Cleaner handoffs.** A design source of truth lets engineers distinguish
+  intentional decisions from accidents, reducing guesswork and rework.
+- **Reduced duplication.** Shared, reusable atoms, molecules, and full views
+  cut redundant design spend across providers.
-  cut redundant design spend across providers.
+  cut redundant design spend across providers.
+ - **Adherence to standards.** Ensuring that all designs use the same, reusable elements across the platform enables all components to natively follow accessibility, internationalization, and other standards.
-  cut redundant design spend across providers.
+  cut redundant design spend across providers.
+ - **Adherence to standards.** Ensuring that all designs use the same, reusable elements across the platform enables all components to natively follow accessibility, internationalization, and other standards.
+
+Rejected Alternatives
+*********************
+
+- **Voluntary adoption only.** Already attempted through direct and
+  working-group outreach. It produced enthusiasm but insufficient
+  follow-through, leaving maintenance concentrated in a single provider.
+- **Any single provider as ongoing design arbiter.** Rejected. The goal is a
+  shared community norm and capability, not a gatekeeper. Time-boxed resourcing
+  to help providers through first-time heavy lifts, plus reusable training, is
+  a complementary effort, not a permanent arbitration role.
+
+Open Questions
+**************
+
+- Identification of the Arbiter.
+- Exact licensing terms and access mechanics for contributed files.
+- Whether the requirement applies to all design contributions or a defined
+  subset or tier.
+- The support and resourcing model (e.g., a pilot and training) to help
+  providers meet the requirement.
+
+Change History
+**************
+
+2026-07-27
+==========
+
+* Converted the working draft to the OEP format and claimed the number OEP-70.
+
+2026-07-14 - 2026-07-20
+=======================
+
+* Editing some details, asking for some community input.
+
+2026-07-14
+==========
+
+* Initial draft synthesized from recent Shared Design Collateral syncs and the
+  community provider-adoption debrief.