►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Common.June.25.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Common.June.25.2020
A
B
C
B
A
C
B
B
B
So,
but
I'm
going
to
be
I'm
not
going
to
share
that
detail
in
the
email,
I'm
just
going
to
say
I'm
going
to
do
this.
This
metric
is
going
to
be
released
in
draft
here.
I
would
like
it
to
be
reviewed
in
this
period
or
you
can
review
it
later
on
it's
up
to
up
to
the
community
to
decide
what
to
do
with
my
tardiness,
because
it's
not
like
the
first
time
I've
been
late.
D
A
E
B
B
A
A
A
G
A
A
F
A
A
F
A
F
C
A
E
A
E
For
the
and-
and
maybe
this
takes
a
slightly
sidetracked
note
as
I
apologize
for
the
comp
contributor
employer
location-
I
remember
that
was
like
somewhat
an
analogous
and
parallel
piece.
I
mean
I,
I
don't
know,
sort
of
where
how
things
go
through
release
cycles
and
things
like
that
is
that's
just
something
we
just
want
to.
You
know
bump
out
to
the
next
one
or
because
it's
pretty
similar
in
a
lot
of
ways
to
the
employer
location.
E
F
E
Although
I
think,
if
I
recall
a
little
bit
of
the
difference,
was
the
presumption
that,
like
one
could
be
based
in
london.
Yet
your
employer
is
in
new
york
and
you
know
sometimes
you
know
you
might
be
someone
who
works
on
your
employer's
hours
on
open
source
versus
your
own.
So
I
remember
that
being
a
distinction,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
enough
to
your
point,
I
don't
know
if
that's
enough
of
just
being
a
different
way
to
capture
and
filter
versus
having
its
own
metric.
B
B
C
F
B
F
E
I
think
that
makes
perfect
sense.
Yeah
I
was
I
was
just.
I
knew
they
were
both
put
together
in
parallel
to
a
degree,
so
I
just
wanted
to
have
a
little
bit
of
that
just
making
sure,
but
I
sort
of
like
the
approach
of
let's
learn:
let's
learn
from
the
contributor
location
and
then
use
that
as
feedback
for
tweaking
and
the
employer,
one
that
makes.
A
A
I'm
just
gonna
add
that
as
a
note
in
the
spreadsheet,
if
somebody
could
take
notes
in
the
notes
document
that
would
be
awesome
because
I
don't
think
any
of
us
are
actually
doing
that,
but
it
does
sound
like
it
probably
needs
a
little
more
work
based
on
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
around
it.
That
there's
still
some
some
questions
so
we'll
continue
to
we'll
continue
to
work
on
that
one
as
well.
A
D
A
B
B
We
can
we
could
get
so
detailed
about
release
notes
or
we
could
keep
them
like
most
release.
No
switches
are
just
that
we
released
this.
This
metric
is
included
in
this
release
and
I
guess,
if
there's
something
particularly
special,
that
can
be
written
in
a
sentence
or
less.
We
could
add
that,
but
I
don't,
I
don't
think
most
release
notes,
have
long
descriptions.
A
A
B
A
F
F
So
we
can
review
it
and
then
it
becomes
the
released
version
later
like
we
did
in
the
past,
but
the
handbook
and
the
process
we
outlined
is
different,
where
we
say
for
the
regular
release
we're
doing
the
same,
continuous
metric
release
process
for
the
metrics.
We
just
bundle
them
together
and
talk
about
them
at
the
same
time,
and
then
we
don't
create
the
website
until
the
very
end
when
it
actually
goes
into
release,
and
so
I
was
a
little
confused
there.
F
D
F
D
A
A
F
F
D
I
would
propose
tell
me
if
this
works
with
that
we
can
make
this
change
with
the
community
handbook
org
that
we
go
back
to
offering
the
web
page
making
sure
that
that's
an
explicit
thing
during
this
30
day
period,
because
that
that
really
is
the
main
like
center
point,
where
people
can
take
a
look
at
the
metrics
and
then
click
on
the
issue
to
take
them
to
the
github
spot.
To
don's
point
right:
asking
people
to
rummage
through
all
of
the
repos
is
not
really
a.
D
It's
not
really
a
practical
way
to
ask
people
to
do
it
now,
you're
kind
of
mean
so
then
the
the
ones
that
have
already
been
released
as
cmcs
as
the
continuous
metric,
so
for
the
ones
that
are
going
as
part
of
the
regular
release.
I
think
it's
pretty
easy
just
to
link
to
the
issue,
because
that
public
comment
period
is
over
or
I'm
sorry
that
public
comment
period
is
open
and
so
for
the
cmcs.
D
We
could
actually
just
reopen
that
issue
and
technically
it
will
get
two
30-day
review
periods.
Cmcs.
Will
I
don't
think
that
breaks?
I
don't
think.
That's
gonna
cause
big
problems
and
then
the
metrics
that
are
already
released,
meaning
they're
not
like
they
were
released
prior
to
fosdem.
They
don't
have
a
link
to
an
issue.
You
know
they're
marked
as
already
released.
What
do
people
think
of
that.
F
F
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
F
C
F
A
D
F
A
A
B
B
A
A
E
D
A
B
B
A
A
B
So
I'm
gonna
propose
I'm
actually
gonna
finish
proposing
that
one
because
it
exists
in
augur
and
it's
not
hard.
It's
not
hard
to
explain
it's
not
hard
to
define
and
it's
I
said,
like
you
like
schedule,
two
hours,
just
writing
metrics
every
week
I
think
life
because
it
always
seems
to
fall
to
the
bottom
of
the
pile.
A
G
B
B
B
B
G
So
what
I
had
in
mind
is
so
I
was
I
was
thinking
of
this
as
what
contribution
then
is
basically
each
commit
has
modified
or
added
or
removed
certain
files
and
lines
of
code.
So
my
idea
was
to
start
from
from
a
high
level
perspective,
just
work
with
numbers.
We
can
even
go
perhaps
with
the
path
or
how
many
you
know,
module
how
deep
you
go
in
the
tree.
Let's
say
in
the
hierarchy,
but
yeah
that
would
be
kind
of
all.
Initially,
then
we
can
discuss
about
any
other
things.
B
B
So
I
guess
I
guess
maybe
just
look
over
an
evolution
and
see
take
a
look
and
think.
If
you
see
you
know
it
could
be
the
case
that
maybe
there
are
metrics
in
evolution
that
need
to
move
over
to
common
because
they
belong
in
common
or
the
lines
of
just
look
at
look
at
the
lines
of
code
metric
and
see
how
it
relates
to
what
you're
thinking
and
maybe
we
can
chat
about
it
in
the
next
meeting,
because
I
don't
think
we
want
to
do
the
analysis
while
we're
standing
here.
E
A
A
Okay,
so
this
is
good,
so
I
think
we
have.
We
have
the
three
that
we're
going
to
work
on
next,
which
is
great
and
then
what
I
put
together
for
the
agenda
for
for
next
week,
at
least
the
stuff
we
have
now
is
obviously
action
items
prs
and
issues,
including
any
release
feedback,
and
then
we'll
use
it
as
kind
of
a
working
session
for
vanode
to
work
on
some
of
the
review,
the
forks
metric
and
go
through
that
with
everybody
and
get
that
way.
You
can
get
some
good
feedback
on
it.
Yeah
matt.