►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Common.February.5.2019
Description
CHAOSS.Common.February.5.2019
D
C
B
B
So
the
agenda
for
this
one
is
is
really
sort
of
super
light,
with
the
idea
being
that
we
could
cover
kind
of
kind
of
two
things.
We
could
have
a
quick
discussion
about
the
the
working
group
and
see
if
there
are
any
any
questions
anything
we
need
clarity
on
and
then
we
can
also
talk
about
where
to
start
and
start
coming
up
with
some
some
action
items
for
four
things
that
we
need
to
do:
hello
there
Brian
and
Toby
hello
Toby.
B
A
B
A
/
yeah
so
personal
question:
they
need
I
need
a
picture
of
his
shirt.
He
was
wearing
on
Sunday
at
the
thing,
because
I
couldn't
quite
get
close
enough
to
see
it,
but
I
saw
this
and
I
was
like
what's
going
on,
so
that
was
the
Dalek
one
right,
I
think
so:
yeah,
okay,
a
few
words
and
I
again
it
was
a
little
awkward
I,
don't
usually
go
running
up
and
staring
at
people
like
hey
what
Joanne.
B
He
gets
a
lot
of
comments
on
his
shirts
he's
in
this
geeky
t-shirt
of
the
Month
Club
and
he
gets
like
one
of
them
is
t-rex
spelled
out
like
te
a
and
it's
a
t-rex
holding
a
little
teacup
sure,
so
they
were
very
British
that
one
in
particular
but
but
yeah,
some
of
them
really
funny
he's
got
yeah.
Yes,
quite
a
quite
a
collection,
yeah.
C
B
E
B
F
E
D
E
B
B
So
we
really
really
have
kind
of
two
things
on
the
agenda.
So
I
wanted
to
keep
his
first
meeting
really
simple
and
kind
of
high-level,
so
I
thought
we'd
just
have
kind
of
a
quick
discussion
about
the
the
new
working
group
and
see
if
there
any
people
have
any
questions
or
anything.
We
need
clarity
on
and
then
the
second
item
is
really
kind
of
where
to
start
and
start
assigning
some
action
items.
So
if
there
are
some
metrics
that
people
are
interested
in
working
on,
we
can
we
can
kick
that
off
as
well.
B
Hey
I'm
strong,
we
have
the
agenda
and
the
minutes
are
in
the
zoom
link.
So
if
you
don't,
let
me
know
well
send
them
to
you,
okay,
so
discussion,
the
new
working
group.
So,
as
you
all
probably
know
this,
this
was
kicked
off
because
we
realized
that
we
had
some.
We
had
some
gaps,
so
there
were
key
metrics
important
metrics
that
didn't
cleanly
fit
within
the
growth,
maturity
and
decline,
working
group
or
the
diversity
and
inclusion
working
group.
So
things
like
metrics
around
organizational
affiliation.
B
Those
are
probably
used
by
all
the
working
groups,
but
nobody
was
actually
dealing
with
it.
So
that
was
the
one
that
sort
of
the
canary
in
the
coal
mine
there,
but
then
there
are
loads
of
them.
So
what
we
started
doing
is
we
started
and
at
the
same
time
we
were
kind
of
having
conversations
of
do
be
deprecated.
B
The
metrics
repository
and
people
started
going
through
it
and
realizing
there
were
loads
of
really
good
metrics
that
either
weren't
being
worked
on
at
all
or
maybe
were
being
worked
on
in
the
growth
maturity
declined
working
group,
but
something
different
was
in
the
metrics
repository.
So
what
we
thought
we'd
do
is
have
kicked
off
a
working
group
for
for
as
long
as
it's
useful.
B
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
keep
this
group
around
forever,
but
to
start
defining
some
of
the
metrics
that
are
in
the
metrics
repository
as
well
as
any
other
metrics
that
are
just
missing,
so
the
organizational
affiliation
stuff
is
kind
of
missing
right
now
there
are
some
the
touch
on
it.
There
are
some
things
like
you
know
the
count
of
the
number
of
or
participating
things
like
that,
but
not
actually
the
affiliations.
So
that's
that's
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
a
gap.
B
B
A
lot
of
the
diversity
and
inclusion
metrics
that
we've
been
working
on
in
the
diversity
and
inclusion
working
group
repository
are
not
included
in
the
metrics
repository,
so
Matt
is
kind
of
doing
a
process
of
going
through
and
indicating
which,
which
metrics
are
being
worked
on
in
which
which
groups,
and
so
that
is
in
working
process.
I.
Think
it's
a
I
think
it's
a
pull
request
right
now
it
hasn't
been,
it
hasn't
been
merged.
Yet
there's
a
request.
G
B
E
B
I
mean
I
get
let's,
let's
talk
about
what
the
existing
working
groups
have
done,
because
I
suspect
that
what
we're
doing
in
DNI
is
probably
different
than
what
you're
doing
in
GMD.
But
what
we've
done
in
DNI
is
that
we've
we've
identified
I
think
something
like
seven
focus
areas
and
we've
identified
individual
metrics
within
those
focus
areas
and
then
we're
defining
those
defining
those
metrics.
And
so
what
that
looks
like.
Is
you
know
what
what
question
is
this
answering?
What's
a
description
of
the
metric?
B
What
are
some
of
the
strategies
for
you
know
for
the
for
this
metric
and
what
are
some
of
the
ways
of
measuring
it,
and
so
that's
what
we
kind
of
doing
on
the
diversity
inclusion
side.
So
we
basically
by
doing
a
lot
of
just
textual
definitions
of
what
these
mean,
especially
given
that
a
lot
of
the
diversity
inclusion
ones
from
frankly
are
pretty
difficult
to
measure.
You
end
up
having
to
survey
it.
You
know,
survey
people
and
ask
people
about
you
know
what
their
thoughts
are
on,
whether
or
not
they
feel
included
in
particular
areas.
B
C
A
growth
maturity
and
decline
are,
we
have
tried
to.
We
started
out
doing
something
different.
It's
not
worth
going
back
in
history,
we're
trying
to
mirror
the
process
that
the
diversity
inclusion
worker
does
so
now
we
have
use
cases
that
we
take
in
and
around
those
use
cases
we
hang
metrics
focus
areas
and
same
as
DNI
within
the
focus
areas
we
try
to
define
metrics
and
the
met.
Our
definitions
goes
all
the
way
to
a
working
prototype
in
a
Jupiter
hub.
Notebook
and
that's
you
know-
are
the
metrics
are
in
growth.
C
A
A
As
you
say,
a
common
metrics
workgroup
I
mean
I'm
I'm,
trying
because
I
guess
the
ultimate
question
is:
are
we
just
trying
to
do
the
snow
that
all
the
metrics
that
we
have
in
place
having
a
single
point
of
responsibility
like
where
it's
going
to
live
and
which
working
group
is
going
to
maintain
it?
Is
that
our
ultimate
goal
here,
or
are
we
trying
to
figure
out
ways
to
parse
them
out
into
separate
work
groups,
or
you
know?
How
does
that
work?
Yeah.
B
I
mean
I
would
I
would
say
that
what
you
said
is
definitely
it's
definitely
a
piece
of
it.
I
would
say
that
the
goal
is
probably
to
put
definitions
behind
some
metrics
that
are
important,
but
that
no
one
has
spent
the
time
to
put
definitions
behind
as
a
side
effect
of
that
we
also
need
to
figure
out
who's
working
on
which
metrics
and
doose
a
bit
of
classification.
For
you
know,
the
metrics
working
group
doesn't
need
to
worry
about
this
one
because
it's
being
done
in
G,
MD
or
DNI,
and
so
I
do
think.
B
We
need
to
get
better
clarity
over
which
of
the
three
working
groups
are
working
on
which
of
the
metrics.
So
I
do
think
that
that's
a
part
of
this
exercise,
but
that's
a
part
that
I
think
Sean
and
Matt
have
been
I've
been
working
on
already.
So
I
think
that
we
should
have
at
least
the
start
of
that
pretty
soon,
but
I
think
that
there
are.
There
are
loads
of
metrics
in
the
metrics
repository
that
nobody's
really
spent
any
time
defining
that
are
important
and
then
there's
stuff.
B
Do
we
want
to
take
an
approach
where
we
start
where
we
try
to
classify
these
into
separate
focus
areas
and
go
down
the
route
that
GMD
and
diversity
and
inclusion
are
doing
or
do
we
or
do
we
treat
these
as
more
as
standalone
standalone
metrics
that
we
that
someone
needs
to
work
on
and
and
we
can
decide
that
right,
I
mean
where
that's
part
of
part
of
what
this
working
group
needs
to
needs
to
decide.
Kevin
did
you
have
a
question
yeah.
H
H
B
H
Right
so
I
think
there's
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
in
talking
about
value,
but
I,
don't
know
that
it's
necessarily
being
talked
about
it
in
the
other
workgroups
right
now,
all
right.
It
probably
relates
to
all
four
of
the
workgroups,
so
the
the
common
workgroup
it
might
be
a
great
place
to
start
having
those
those
value.
Discussions
I
think.
F
B
C
Decline
was
attending
to
any
of
those
that
come
up,
but
we're
not
staking
an
ownership
or
a
leadership
position
in
the
case
of
risk
I'm
doing
a
bit
of
an
exercise,
I
call
it
a
soft
coordination
role,
trying
to
get
the
discussions
about
licensing
and
compliance
into
into
the
chaos
organization
and
I've
implemented
a
couple
of
risk.
Metrics.
The
CII
badging
for
license
coverage,
for
example,
is
now
in
augur
so
we're
doing.
We
are
doing
some
things
in
that
space
through
GMD.
C
A
C
B
B
Does
anybody
have
any
strong
opinions
about
whether
we
should
try
to
tackle
focus
areas?
Do
we
because
right
now
that
list?
If
you
look
at
the
repository,
it's
I
think
it's
it's
an
alphabetical
list,
or
is
it
just
a
random
list
I'm
trying
to
remember
how
its
how
its
ordered
it's
not
ordered,
particularly
well
I'm.
C
Ok,
there
was
some.
There
has
been
some
work
to
make
them
at
the
names
of
the
metrics,
follow
a
focus
area
that
identified
by
one
of
the
working
groups,
so
the
ones
that
are
in
the
process
in
the
work
pull
requests
that
I
have
are
are
all
like.
If
it's
an
issue,
it's
like
issue
X.
If
it's
code,
it's
code
X,
so
the
metrics
around
the
same
phenomena
in
trace
data
are
named
consistently
once
that
pull
request
is
pulled.
A
B
Yeah
I'm
just
wondering
what
to
do
about,
because
I
would
see
organizational
affiliation
as
being
sort
of
a
collection
of
metrics,
and
so
so
I
think.
My
question
was
more
around
whether
or
not
we
want
to
make
that
collection
kind
of
explicit
in
some
way,
because
there
are
so
so
there's
a
metric
called
contributing
organizations
already
there's
another
one
called
new
contributing
organizations
and
new
contribute
or
organizations.
B
H
B
A
And
forgive
the
newbie
question
because
I
haven't
really
been
actively
involved
with
the
workgroups.
But
so
when
you
see
focus
areas
are
in
my
head:
I'm
picturing
them
as
sort
of
like
here's,
a
work
group
and
then
a
focus
area
is
sort
of
like
a
Medicare
or
a
into
which
individual
metrics
are
put.
Is
that
basically,
the
organizational
structure
that
you're
outlining
here
I.
A
B
G
B
What
we
have
within
diversity
and
inclusion
is,
we
have,
we
have
focus
areas
which
are
basically
I,
mean
I,
think
of
them
as
a
way
to
organize
organize
the
metrics
and
organize
the
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
keep
everything
you
know
kind
of
in
logical
blocks.
So
if
you're
interested
in
improving
you
know
like
the
diversity
of
your
leadership,
then
here
are
some
things
to
think
about.
Would
you
agree
with
that?
Georg.
B
And
then,
within
any
of
these
focus
areas
you
see
like
you
know,
if
that
diversity
talks
about
identifying
the
diversity,
inclusion
and
events
and
then
within
each
one,
we
have
very
specific
metrics,
so
speaker,
demographics,
attendee,
demographics,
diversity,
access
tickets,
for
example,
and
then
any
one
of
these
drills
down
into
we've
got
a
question,
a
description,
some
sample
objectives
and
strategies
and
then
success
metrics.
So
we
have,
you
know,
actual
questions
to
ask
people
ways
of
measuring
this
resources,
and
so
this
is
this
is
what
the
focus
groups
look
like
for
for
diversity
and
inclusion.
E
What's
interesting,
though,
is
it
it
seems
that
some
of
these
focus
areas
of
the
different
groups
sort
of
like
intersect
in
strange
ways.
So
no
like
a
matrix.
You
know,
for
example,
diversity
and
inclusion.
Governance
is
going
to
tie
into
a
sort
of
like
affiliation,
metrics
racing
to
some
degree,
yeah.
A
You
know
don't
like,
depending
on
what
the
researcher
is
looking
for.
These
metrics
might
show
up
in
multiple
buckets
that
make
sense.
I
have
another
example
of
those
in
the
DNI
work
group.
We
have
a
metric
called
contributor
diversity
or
types
of
contributions,
communication
types
where
the
idea
is
that
if
we
only
get
code
contributions,
then
the
project
is
not
healthy
because
it
needs
documentation,
it
needs
testing,
it
needs
all.
A
These
odd
things
like
marketing
and
so
on
and
with
contribution
type
I
wrote
out
that
the
specification
for
it-
and
it
was
very
detailed
to
some
extent
for
how
to
collect
the
metrics,
and
one
of
the
comments
we
got
was.
This
also
applies
to
GMD
because,
as
you
go
through
the
life
cycles,
you
have
different
focus
on
different
to
bution
types
and
so
on.
The
reason
type
is
one
of
those
metrics,
like
you
said
Brian
that
defaults
into
different
areas
that
you
can
look
at
from
different
angles.
E
All
right
so
to
sort
of
answer
your
question.
It
feels
like
we
have
one
focus
area
that
we
agree
on
mm-hmm,
and
it
also
feels
that
we
have
sort
of
like
a
question
around
the
meta
focus
group
or
like
something
of
that
sort
that
either
could
be
tackled
in
that
group
or
could
be
tackled
somewhere
else
mm-hm.
Can
you
state
for
me
again
with
the.
C
C
C
C
So
I
think
in
the
Cape
I
mean-
and
this
is
coming
out
of
conversations
I've
had
with
most
of
you
over
time
when
it
comes
to
the
organizational
affiliation
I
think
it
is
a
tooling
and
a
data
question
and
a
data
policy
question.
There's
a
data
policy
question
about
privacy
and
keeping
names
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
there's
a
tool
question
about
what
could
we
do
to
make
it
easier
to
to
have
data
that
helps
us
map
organizational
affiliation
without
a
lot
of
labor-intensive
work?
Mm-Hmm.
B
E
D
B
Is
a
problem,
and,
and
some
of
these
to
be
honest,
it's
one
of
the
things
we
we
run
across
in
the
diversity
and
inclusion
working
group.
Quite
a
bit
is
that
some
of
these
are
some
of
the
things
are
really
really
difficult
to
measure,
and
so
there
are
some
things
that
we
we
talk
about.
You
know
needing
to
keep
needing
to
keep
an
eye
on,
and
you
need
to
be
aware
of
that.
We
don't
necessarily
have
all
the
answers
for
right
now
and
I
think
that
certainly
falls
into
into
it.
B
The
other
bit
that
we
talk
about
a
lot
in
diversity
and
inclusion
is
kind
of
ethics
and
accountability
which
gets
sort
about
some
of
the
the
privacy
stuff.
But
you
know
if
you're
collecting
data
about
people's
genders
sexual
orientation,
all
kinds
of
stuff
that
is
rather
rather
sensitive.
There
are
a
lot
of
ethics
around
how
you
collect
that
and
how
you
use
it
and
also
a
lot
of
accountability
and
how
you
keep
that
data
safe
for
people,
yeah.
B
Exactly
so
so
yeah,
so
these
are.
These
are
things
that
need
to.
We
need
to
define,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
may
be
a
good
first
step
would
be
to
start
to,
like
we
did
with
the
focus
areas
under
diversity
and
inclusion
to
start
breaking
out.
What
are
the
metrics
that
we
need
to?
We
need
to
define
and
what
are
some
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
think
about,
even
if
we
can't
necessarily
define
them
to
find
them
right
now,
and
we
have
some
templates.
C
There
they
might
be
closer
aligned
if
we're
going
to
be
working
on
trace
data
yeah,
but
the
high-level
structure
is
not
overwhelming
different,
but
we
could.
Okay.
Are
we
we're
gonna
work
in
the
so
I?
Guess,
though
you
know
the
to
dues,
are
we
need
to
create
like
a
template
in
the
repository
right,
mm-hm.
H
B
Know
be
good.
The
other
question
is
so
what
we
usually
do
in
the
diversity
inclusion
groups,
with
the
templates
as
we
we
usually
start
them
in
a
word
doc.
So
we
create
an
issue
that
we
need
to
define
this
metric.
We
linked
to
the
word.
Sorry,
not
a
word
doc
of
google
doc,
a
Google
Doc
where
everybody
can
can
participate
and
add
things,
and
then
we
move
it
to
the
repository
where
then
people
can
continue
to
continue
to
add
things.
The.
B
Google
Doc
is
linked
from
the
issue
yeah.
The
Google
Doc
is,
on
the
one
hand,
it's
better
for
people
who
are
not
intimately
familiar
with
the
way
that
get
works,
and
so
maybe
aren't
that
great
or
aren't
aren't
likely
to
submit
a
full
request
to
add
some
text
or
add
some
information
to
something,
whereas
they
would
in
a
Google
Doc,
which
is
which
happens
quite
a
bit
in
the
diversity
inclusion
working
group.
B
We
have
some
people
who
aren't
particularly
active
on
get,
but
that
have
added
a
tremendous
amount
of
value
by
having
them
in
in
Google.
Docs
I
could
go
either
way,
I
mean
I,
don't
I,
don't
mind
working
directly
and
and
get
and
damn
files
I
also
don't
mind
working
in
in
Google
Docs.
Is
there
anybody?
We
have
any
strong
preferences,
I.
E
No
I
completely
lost
what
I
was
gonna
say.
No,
yes,
I
was
gonna,
say
I
do
agree
that
finish
so
initial
kind
of
work,
google
issue
I,
mean
sorry
a
Google
Doc
or
like
that
kind
of
a
document
is
actually
better
than
working
off
of
pull
requests,
mainly
because
there's
like
so
much
reorganization
of
the
content-
and
you
can
comment
really
easily.
It's
a
lot
harder
to
do
on
an
actual
on
an
actual
issue.
Pull
requests
so
I
think
that's
a
good
idea.
I
have
been
playing
a
bit
with
the
thing.
E
Marked
down
in
its
space,
so
that's
nice
because
it's
easier
to
translate
but
I
I'm
not
yet
convinced
that
it's
a
better
option
than
Google
Docs,
so
I
think
it's
actually
a
really.
It
works
well
for
the
kind
of
initial
work
that
we
want
to
do,
I
saw
I
would
I
would
go.
Is
that
I
have
an
unrelated
question?
I,
don't
know
if
now's
a
good
time
to
ask
it.
Yeah.
C
E
C
A
The
conversation
about
publishing
surfaces
every
now
and
then
and
we
don't
have
a
finished
solution,
ready,
I,
think
one
of
the
solutions
that
has
a
lot
of
support
is
to
take
a
snapshot
of
what
we
have
in
the
repositories
and
put
it
on
our
website.
I
would
think
that
that
would
be
at
bare
minimum
a
good
solution.
A
B
E
B
The
idea
also
is
that
people
could
say
you
know
this
is
I've
implemented,
something
using
version
1.0
of
the
chaos
metrics,
which
might
be
different
than
version
2.0
and
so
to
be
live
update
it.
These
are
the
conversations
we're
having
none
of
the
decisions
have
been
made
as
far
as
I
know.
So
the
question
is:
do
we
always
keep
updating
stuff,
or
do
we
give
people
version
numbers
that
they
can
tie
back
to
things?
Well.
E
We've
had
those
in
the
web
standards
space
for
him,
I
think
15
years
at
this
point,
yeah
I
do
I
do
strongly
I
mean
I
came
strongly
to
the
conclusion
that
anything
but
live
of
documents
and
life
standards
was
ridiculous
and
stupid
in
this
day
and
age,
but
some
people
still
disagree
generally
for
legal
reasons.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
of
sort
of
like
these
concerns
with
these
groups
anyway,.
E
Think
it
would
be
really
nice
because,
from
like
from
an
outsider's
perspective,
I
have
literally
no
idea
if
anything
has
happened
in
these
working
groups,
so
forth,
right
and
I
sort
of
like
I
mean
I.
Follow
this
face
really
closely
right.
So
you
know
it's
just
I
find
it
sort
of
like
I
mean
I
personally,
don't
want
to
invest
a
lot
of
time
into
something
where
the
rest
of
the
world
feels
nothing
is
happening.
So
that
was
the
point.
E
B
C
C
Sis
and
I
are
tag
teaming
Kevin,
but
that's
because
Matt
can't
be
in
the
meeting.
I
think
we
did
not
know
buddy
circulated
a
agenda
in
advance,
which
is
okay,
is
and
I.
Think
so.
I
think
this
workgroup
is
one
of
the
agenda
items
by
default
right
now.
So
if
we
want
to
frame
a
question,
then
I
guess
what
is
the
quite
I
mean?
Can
someone
summarize
what
the
question
is
that
we
would
frame
so
that
does
Toby
that
wants
to
work
on
something
and
I
agree
with
him?
E
Broader
I
mean
like
well
I,
don't
I
mean
ideally
I.
Think,
like
every
group
should
have
a
a
simple
way
to
publish
this
in
a
simple
place
where
external
people
can
see.
What's
going
on
and
linked
to
specific
metrics
right
that
that's
like
outside
of
that
I
I,
just
like
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
that
work
as
being
super
impactful,
because
it's
not
pristine
elsewhere.
Right
I
can't
reference
this
when
I
talk
to
clients,
for
example,
like
I,
can't
tell
the
client
hey,
look
we're
using
this
metric.
That's
going
to
get
hung
up.
E
Oh
don't
worry,
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
of
them
right.
So
so
that's
that's
really
something
so
whether
I
mean
I
feel
like
a
solution
ideally
would
work
for
all
the
groups.
If
all
the
groups
don't
agree
with
that.
That's
a
shame,
but
in
that
case
it
would
be
really
nice
if
it
could
work
in
this
group,
I
think.
C
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
when
I
look
at
things
like
SPD
acts.
I'll
use
that
as
an
example,
they
have
a
published
version
of
the
standard
and
I
think
and
it's
put
on
a
website.
It's
not
an
acute
hub
repository
and
so
there's
ample
precedent
for
having
published
versions
of
standards
and-
and
this
is
I,
think
something
softer
than
a
standard.
C
But
let's
call
it
that
because
I
don't
have
another
word
if
we
could
publish
a
version
of
this
standard
when
we
have
a
set
of
metrics
that
satisfy
the
basic
criteria
of
definition,
right
and
I.
Think
it's
right
and
good
that
we
should
do
that.
Like
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
a
point
if
we're
not
gonna.
Do
that
eventually,
because
I
agree
I
can't
if
I'm
looking
at
a
github
repository,
that's
not
super
helpful.
E
B
Think
broad
agreement
within
the
project
that
we
do
need
to
publish-
and
you
know
quote-
unquote-
release
the
metrics
so
that
we
can
promote
them
if
people
can
use
them
and
people
can
feel
comfortable
with
them,
which
I
think
you
make
an
excellent
point
like
you
can't
just
point
clients
to
random,
github
repo
and
say
hey
I'm,
using
this
thing
and
that's
not
gonna,
it's
not
really
going
to
get
you
anywhere.
So
I
think
there
is
broad
agreement
that
we
should
be
that
we
should
be
doing
something
to
to
pull
these
together
and
promote
them.
B
It's
kind
of
part
of
a
package
of
you
know
here
are
all
the
metrics
in
the
chaos
project
and
here's
the
here's,
the
output.
We
just
have
it
because
the
metrics
are
in
various
definitions
of
defined.
We
haven't
quite
figured
out
exactly
how
we
want
to
do
that
and,
and
we're
looking
for
I
mean
I
would
say
we're
looking
for
input
on
that,
because
there,
it
just
hasn't
been
hasn't,
been
decided
how
we
want
to
do
that
because
we
still
have.
E
I
mean
so
I'm
happy
to
join
a
broader
conversation
than
that
topic.
Just
tell
me
sort
of
when
and
where
and
and
I'll
be
happy
to
join
it
and
happy
to
provide
input,
and
if
this
agreement
I'm
happy
to
actually
do
some
of
the
work
or
help
pay
for
someone
to
do
some
of
the
work
because,
like
it
makes
it
makes
it
really
a
big
difference
to
me.
So.
C
I
am
I,
took
some
notes,
just
listening
and
creating
my
own
head
that
that
one
process
that
we
might
have
the
group,
the
larger
chaos
explorers.
We
set
a
release
date
that
we
all
worked
in
software.
For
me,
I
think
motivates
like
having
a
release
date
and
we
say
our
next
date:
we're
gonna
release
a
set
of
standard,
metrics
chaos,
definitions
to
agree
on
what
we.
C
What
are
those
standard
definitions
like
what
needs
to
be
in
it
for
it
to
be
released
and
I
think
we
almost
have
that,
but
we
haven't
talked
about
it
in
the
context
of
release
yet
so
we
just
need
to
tighten
that
connection
and
then
having
the
work
has
working
groups
say:
okay,
we're
gonna.
Have
these
specific
metrics
ready
to
release
for
this
first
release
and
then
I
guess
the
feedback
loop
would
be
a
you
know
ensure
this
is
some
adequate
minimum.
A
And
I
kind
of
back
up
a
little
bit
and
talk
about
errs
on
this
group,
so
we
mentioned
corporate
affiliation
as
one
area
on
which
we
want
to
tackle
first
I,
I
guess
my
question
would
be:
are
there
more
and
should
we
define
them
now
because
I
I'm
kind
of
wondering
if
we
shouldn't
sort
of
define
our
lane,
so
we
don't
inadvertently
like
pick
like
I,
don't
want
to
pick
a
metric
that
you
know.
You
know
diversity.
Inclusion
comes
along
later.
It
says:
oh
yeah,
we
were
going
to
work
on
that.
B
I
think,
as
long
as
we
discuss
them
in
the
meeting,
I
I,
don't
think
that's
gonna
be
a
concern
mainly
because
Gehrig
and
I
are
involved
in
diversity.
Inclusion,
Shawn
and
others
are
involved
in
GMD,
and
so
we
should
be
able
to
head
any
of
that
off
and,
like
Shawn
mentioned,
there's
a
pull
request
coming.
B
C
B
E
B
E
C
B
E
B
To
define
that
you
know
we're
basically
to
give
a
place
to
link
to
the
Google
Doc
file,
an
issue
and
the
metrics
repository
that
year
that
links
to
the
Google
Doc,
where
we
can
discuss
the
different
measures
that
we
need
to
come
up
with,
and
then
we
can
create
individual
Google
Docs
to
define
each
one
of
those.
Once
we
have
the
list,
you.
E
B
D
D
E
B
E
E
B
E
E
B
Anything
else
we
want
to
to
talk
about
I
would
say
that
for
for
the
agenda
for
for
the
next
meeting,
we
can
talk
about
the
progress
on
organizational
diversity
as
one
topic,
our
organizational
affiliation,
and
then
we
can
also
look
at
the
list
of
metrics
and
see
what
else
would
want
to
focus
on,
because
I
think
that
should
be
easier
to
do.
In
two
weeks,
once
we
have
the
the
other
stuff
merged
I
think
the
list
will
be
a
bit
cleaner.
A
B
A
Actually
have
a
housekeeping
request
along
those
lines.
I
said
earlier
in
an
email
that
this
meeting
falls
exactly
on
the
cadence
of
my
weekly
team
meeting
yeah
it
in
time.
The
only
reason
I'm
here
is
because
we're
all
dead
from
pasta,
so
they
canceled
my
meeting
and
is
there
any
way
we
could
off
ship
this
by
like
a
week,
if
not
I
won't
be
able
to
participate
in
this
work
group
on
a
regular
basis,
I'm.
D
B
My
my
challenge
is
that
I
have
a
similar
conflict
on
the
opposite
week's,
which
is
why
I
think
this
one
I
can
I
can
see.
If,
because
mine
is
not
a
team
meeting,
but
it's
one
is
like
a
sink
meeting
with
a
vice
president.
We
have
time
on
her
calendar
every
two
weeks
and
it's
like
the
whole
team
syncs
with
her,
and
so
that
was
pretty
hard
to
move,
but
I
I
can
ask
and.
B
A
B
Yeah
we
can
I,
don't
know
that
would
get
a
different
answer
than
I
got
last
time.
The
other
person
we
want
to
add
is
Matt
because
he
couldn't
make
it
for
this
one,
but
yeah
I
think
this
is
really
kind
of
the
people
that
were
on
the
dutiful.
Okay,
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
that
it's
gonna
be
gonna,
be
if.