►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group April 13 2023
Description
Minutes from this meeting can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xsii5tfmmDwWpuhrFcBJMeYeT3RipJdiCdHrbi0NalQ/edit
A
B
I'm
on
it
hi
everybody
Welcome
to
the
chaos
common
work
group
meeting
good
to
have
you
here.
So
the
question
today
is
is,
if
you
know
your
current
elevation,
how
high
you
are
then.
C
A
D
B
They
just
shoot
up
right
away,
so
you're
immediately
like
550
feet
or
something
like
that,
not
even
doing
anything
yeah
all
right
does,
it
does
actually
does
does
England
or
the
the
UK
does
it
have
much
Coastline
that
goes
right
into
or
is
it
real
Cliffy
or
is
it
highly
variable?
It's
a
giant
amount
of
Coastline,
so
yeah.
D
A
B
All
right,
well
great,
it's
good
to
have
you
here
a
couple
things
on
the
agenda
for
today.
B
So
thanks
to
Don
for
putting
together
some
approaches
towards
chaos,
governance,
and
so,
if
you'd
like
to
take
a
look
at
that
document,
here,
yeah
it's
now
starting
to
kind
of
make
the
rounds
so
Don.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
this
at
all.
D
Yeah
yeah,
so
so
what
I've?
What
I've
tried
to
do
is
well
I
guess
just
to
back
up
like
the
chaos
project
has
evolved
a
lot
since
it
was
first
started,
and
we
haven't
really
changed
our
governance
structure
since
then,
and
we've
added
we've
added
loads
of
working
groups
and
now
we're
talking
about
adding
different
kinds
of
working
groups.
D
We've
got
software,
we
have
chapters,
we
have
all
this
stuff
going
on
and
I
felt
like
there
wasn't
a
really
clear
definition
of
how
all
of
these
things
kind
of
come
together
and
who's
responsible
for
what
so
I.
So
this
is
really
kind
of
taking
a
shot
at
defining
what
we
have
now
and
the
way
that
we
think
it's
going
to
work
moving
forward
with
the
idea
that
we
should
keep
this
as
simple
as
possible,
because
changes
to
governance
will
require
governance
board
approval.
D
But
this
is
the
way
it
looks
right
now.
We've
got
three
different
kinds
of
working
groups:
we've
got
the
the
two
software
sub
projects,
and
then
we
have
the
geographical
chapters
and
I
added
this
bit
about.
You
know:
feedback,
loops
and
participation
with
the
governing
board,
providing
kind
of
the
overall
oversight
into
the
project,
and
that
that
graphic
is
something
that
someone
with
some
graphics
skills
should
replace
for
me,
because
that's
that's
not
it's
not
very
pretty,
but
but
I
wanted
something
there.
D
So
people
could
kind
of
get
the
big
picture
and
if
we
think
that's
right,
then
we
can
have
somebody
do
some
gratifying
of
of
my
little
silly
chart
thanks
Elizabeth
super
simple
but
yeah.
So
so
this
is
kind
of
defines,
defines
the
working
groups,
the
three
different
kinds
of
working
groups:
the
fact
that
each
of
them
should
have
a
chair
at
least
one
chair,
and
then
we
have
optional
kind
of
new,
well,
a
new
role
which
is
Liaisons
and
then
maintainers
as
well.
So
those
are
kind
of
optional.
C
C
Underworking
groups
or
you've
listed
context
is:
is
the
the
Science
University
in
osbo,
yep
kinds
of
stuff
and
I?
Think
your
fair
member
from
some
of
our
earlier
discussions.
You
don't
have
those
explicitly
in
there,
because
when
they
change
or
be
added,
we
have
to
change
our
governance
documents.
So
it's
best
to
keep
it
more
ambiguous
in
this
document.
D
It's
it's
best
to
keep
it
at
higher
level
and
focus
on
kind
of
what
that
group
should
be
what
those
types
of
groups
should
be
doing.
So
it's
not
it's
not
ambiguous.
It's
it's
specific,
but
it's
not.
C
D
The
idea
is
that
it
just
talks
about
what
they're
responsible
for
and
then
there'll
be
a
link
to
where
you
can
get
the
current
list.
C
C
I'm
the
person
under
chaos
Community,
who
just
made
a
comment
about
changing
one
word
like
the.
C
The
liaising
piece
I
guess
because
I
think
I
think
it's
the
it's
the
context
to
Civic
working
groups,
specifically
that
we
want
to
make
sure
there's
a
chaos
liaison
involved
like
some
someone
that
knows,
chaos
and
then
embed
themselves
in
the
context
of
University
science
and
ospo,
to
an
extent
where
we
can
have
that
flow
of
metric
and
Metric
models
and
understanding
the
needs
of
those
communities
and
translating
those
into
new
metrics
or
new
metrics
models,
and
then
software,
so
that
those
groups
see
the
live
action
of
chaos,
liaising
with
them
having
value
and
and
I
I.
C
E
C
D
No
I
think
I
think
so
we
should
we
should
strive
to
have
Liaisons
for
all
of
the
working
groups.
The
reason
it
says
may
in
here
is
because
what
we
don't
want
to
be
is
like,
if
we're
temporarily,
we
don't
have
one
or
between
Liaisons
right.
We
don't
want
to
be
in
violation
of
our
governance
structure.
C
D
So
in
the
context
of
risk,
you
know
you
might
have
a
liaison
that
when
you,
when
you're
working
on
defining
a
new
metric,
maybe
they
you
know
get
in
touch
with
the
auger
project
and
the
Grimmer
Labs
project
and
make
sure
that
we
we
actually
have
some
kind
of
a
maybe
a
file,
an
issue
for
implementing
it,
or
you
know
maybe
interfacing
with
the
osbo
working
group,
because
maybe
this
new
metric
is
something
that
would
be
really
interesting
to
people
who
work
in
ospo's.
D
So
you
know
maybe
bringing
that
into,
and
you
know
mentioning
it
in
the
hospital
working
group.
So
so
these
people
would
would
really
be
because
we
all
get
busy
right.
But
if
you
have
a
person
who's
responsible
for
thinking
about
the
the
stuff
that
you've
just
talked
about
and
what
other
teams
within
the
project
need
to
need
to
be
aware
of
it.
You
know
in
particular
things
like
the
website.
The
Communications
groups
I
think
these
Liaisons
will
help
us
better
communicate.
What
we
do
keep
keep
things
in
sync.
E
So
so,
like
Sean,
when
we've
when
we've
talked
about
this
in
the
past,
I
was
I.
Think
all
of
the
discussions
were
really
around
the
Liaisons
just
going
to
the
context
working
groups.
E
So
the
the
way
I
had
been
kind
of
thinking
about
it
was
that
the
Liaisons
would
be
members
of
the
metrics
working
groups
that
work
with
the
context
working
groups
as
a
liaison,
so
the
so
rather
than
common,
for
example,
having
a
liaison
common
would
send
a
liaison
to
science.
D
So
that
would
be,
but
in
order
for
that
liaison
to
stay
connected,
they
would
have
to
also
attend
the
Common
working
group.
So
they'd
be
the
Common
working
group
liaison,
but
then
maybe
they
would
also
liaise
with
science,
but
we
don't
want
to
send
you
know
we
don't
want
to
have
like
five
Liaisons
in
each
one
of
them.
D
B
A
B
And
the
reason
was
was
so
that,
like
folks
in
that
ospo
working
group,
don't
need
to
understand
the
details
of
how
chaos
works
and
somebody
could
help
so
like
if,
as
an
example
like
you
know,
Claire
when
she
like
wanted
to
do
the
thing
after
chaoscon
and
Brussels
like
she,
the
liaison
could
just
bring
that
to
the
chaoscon
committee.
You
know
like
Clara
doesn't
have
to.
She
doesn't
have
to
worry
about
that.
She
just
can
say
to
the
liaison.
B
Can
you
bring
this
to
your
people
and,
and
we
can
sort
it
out
and
then
kind
of
like
what
we're
doing
in
the
metrics
model?
Working
group
right
now,
like
a
lot
of
that
discussion
is
coming
from
here
from
ospo
and
the
liaison's,
not
official
yet
but
they're
kind
of,
like
you,
you
know
like
they're
they're
us
who
are
attending
that
hospital
working
group
and
the
metrics
model
working
group
yeah.
B
So
that
was
the
original
intention.
That
said,
this
conversation
actually
reminds
me
of
wherever
it
is
the
conversation
that
I
think
Kevin.
You
had
kind
of
brought
up
I
feel
so
maybe
it
was
like
a
year
or
two
ago
as
to
how
do
we
continue
to
ensure
that
we
have
coordination
between
the
different
working
groups,
because
that
can
be
a
real
challenge
sometimes,
and
we've
tried
a
different,
a
variety
of
different
ways,
which
is
like
placing
issues
in
the
working
group
or
just
kind
of
talking
about
it
in
the
community
meeting.
F
B
Issue
in
another
working
group
and
then
that
first
working
group
just
kind
of
washes
their
hands
and
they're
like
I,
did
my
job
there.
You
know,
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
work
real
well,
so
it
the
a
liaison
from
each
working
group
is,
is
interesting
because
it
might
be
able
to
help
that
just
at
a
human
level,
like
social
engineering
kind
of
thing,.
C
B
People
be
that
point
of
contact,
I,
don't
I,
guess
and
then
listening
to
you
talked
on
like
I
think
we
do
need
to
think
be
careful
about,
like
liaison
proliferation,
that
we
that
we
have
a
variety
of
different
people,
kind
of
like
ships
in
the
night
like
one
from
common
and
one
from
metrics
model
and
they're,
both
kind
of
I,
don't
know
so
I
would
I,
don't
know
how
to
sort
that
out.
Quite
yet.
D
And
I
think,
with
with
the
way
it's
defined
in
this
right
now,
with
the
you
know,
groups
may
have
Liaisons
that
gives
us
flexibility
as
to
where
we,
where
we
start
those
Liaisons
and
see
how
well
it
works,
and
then
we
can
figure
out
which
which
groups
really
need
them
and
maybe
which
ones
which
ones
don't
but
I,
think
the
the
other
way
to
think
about.
D
This
is
that
you
know
this
is
another
way
for
people
to
get
engaged
in
the
project
in
a
deeper
level,
and
so
I
think
that
these
Liaisons
provide
opportunities
for
for
people
to
move
into
areas
of
increasing
responsibility,
and
you
know
be
able
to
do
more
and
more
within
the
project.
So
I
think
it's
important
to
think
about
from
both
perspectives
like
what
what
do
we
need
these
people
to
do,
but
also
thinking
about
it
as
a
growth
opportunity
for
community
members,
100.
B
D
Yeah,
so
that
what
I
tried
to
do
there
is
this,
this
that
first
paragraph
that
they're
liaising
with
other
groups
writing
input
to
the
other
groups
as
needed
and
being
able
to
keep
keep
things
in
sync
and
creating
these.
These
feedback
loops
between
our
working
groups
and
the
software
projects.
D
So
so
let
me
let
me
let
me
clarify
something
too
what
I
think
we
should
actually
have
for
each
of
these
roles.
D
In
addition
to
just
having
this
General
description
is,
we
should
actually
have
roll
handbooks
that
are
part
of
the
website,
part
of
the
handbook
process
and
have
detailed
descriptions
of
the
roles
that
we
can
then
link
to
from
from
this,
so
that
you
know
if
we,
if
the
re,
if
the
Liaisons
end
up
doing
something
slightly
different,
then
it's
not
it's
not
a
big
deal,
because
what
we
have
here
is
kind
of
a
you
know,
an
overall
description
of
of
the
expectations,
and
then
you
would,
you
would
link
to
more
details
so
so
the
whole
the
whole
idea
behind
this
governance
document
is
you
have
enough
that
people
can
understand
the
expectations
and
and
what
what
people
need
to
do
and
what
you
know
what
types
of
working
groups
we
have,
and
so,
like
the
basic
information
that
people
need,
along
with
how
the
decisions
are
made.
D
D
B
Okay,
so
this
this
makes
sense,
and
so
what
I'm
thinking?
What
is
at
a
minimum
at
a
minimum
level?
Let's
assume
that
we
wanted
to
have
a
liaison
for
every
working
group
at
a
minimum
level,
the
liaison
would
attend
the
working
group
to
which
they
are
a
liaison,
for
they
would
attend
the
community
call
at.
A
B
B
D
So
keep
in
mind
is
when
you,
when
you
specify
that
level
of
detail
in
the
governance
document,
You
Are
by
the
nature
of
the
types
of
meetings
that
we
have
restricting
this,
these
roles
to
people
in
specific
geographies.
D
If
you
put
specific
meeting
attendance,
so
I
do
have
that
for
the
chairs,
because
the
chairs
do
need
to
attend
the
meeting
of
which
they're
responsible
for
Liaisons
probably
should
attend
the
meeting.
But
the
community
meeting
is
problematic
because
that
really
does
restrict
the
Liaisons
to
you
know
basically
North
America.
You
know
North
and
South
America
Europe
yep.
F
We
have,
we
do
have
recorded
videos
and
meetings
meetings,
so
the
Asian
should
really
be
current
with
the
current
discussion
that
is
happening
with
the
community.
One
thing
that
I
just
want
to
add
is
we
should
look
at
our
community.
Are
we
looking
at
this
gospels
the
science
as
a
lot
Loosely
coupled
group
or
other
a
kind
of
coordinated
group
that
would
change
the
arrow,
the
dependency
of
the
lesions?
F
For
example,
if
you
see
a
good
number
of
projects
and
ecosystems
that
have
have
this
liaison
things
happening,
if,
for
example,
we
have
the
common
working
group
as
the
groups
that
the
the
main
group
that
will
will
serve
as
a
coordinated
group,
then
those
working
groups
that
are
detached
will
have
a
lesson
to
understand
and
to
report
back
because,
for
example,
if
we
say
Don
is
the
chair
of
the
common
and
then
she
wants
to
coordinate
one
or
two
multiple
groups,
she
cannot
be
there
all
the
time.
F
She
cannot
be
at
multiple
places
at
the
same
time,
so
whatever
they
are
doing,
they
should
have
somebody
that
that
relates
with
with
the
main
group.
Now,
if
we
are
going,
let's
say
to
science,
we
should
have
someone
who
is
more
not
just
interested,
who
understands
that
language,
the
lingo
in
that
that
domain
knowledge
in
that
in
that
space,
because
if
there
is
a
discussion
happening
transmitting
it
from
one
meeting
room
to
another,
they
can
it
can
really
information.
Theory
will
tell
us
it
can
corrupt.
F
So
not
only
the
enthusiasm
will
belonging
to
the
attending
meeting
that
others
qualifying
space
should
also
be
part
of
it.
So
we
really
need
to
this
to
decide
or
to
to
make
it
clear
what
kind
of
couplings
those
gospel
groups
the
science
group
should
have
with
chaos.
Then
we'll
see
the
liaison
Direction
clearly
in
that
we,
because
the
liaison
is
like
an
ambassador
of
that
is
representing
whatever
the
state
or
the
group
or
whatever
is
a
kind
of
Ambassador.
E
Thank
you
so
I
guess,
I
guess,
I
I
think
we're
we're
overly
complicating
what
what
a
liaison
is.
So
when
we,
when
we
first
started
talking
about
it,
the
the
reason.
The
reason
we
wanted
to
have
Liaisons
in
those
context
groups
is
because
this
context
groups
aren't
really
in
a
situation
where
it's
going
to
be
easy
for
them
to
Define
metrics
or
to
to
build
models,
which
is
the
the
work
that
we
do
so
the
so
the
liaison
is
actually
those
individuals
are.
E
Are
there
to
help
connect
those
context
groups
with
the
work
that
we're
doing
so
to
the
to
the
point
I
made
earlier
it.
It
still
makes
the
most
sense
to
me
to
have
connections
between
the
the
working
groups
and
the
context
group,
CIS,
Liaisons
and
I
I.
Don't
know
that
like
Risk
working
group
doesn't
need
a
liaison
because
the
people
that
are
in
Risk
they
they
know
how
to
define
metrics
they're
they're
part
of
the
they
know
how
chaos
works,
I'm
thinking,
maybe
the
the
person.
E
You
also
have
this
this
other
idea,
that's
that's
being
added
where
we're
reporting
to
community
and
that's
almost
that's
almost
a
different
thing
and
I
think
the
the
chair
would
actually
be
the
the
person
best
suited
to
report
to
community
on
what's
Happening
and
then
the
the
liaison
would
be
the
the
best
person
to
to
really
help
coordinate
work
around
metrics
that
need
to
be
created
around
these
discussions.
D
Yeah
so
I
think
I
think
that
we're
we're
starting
to
over
complicate
this
I
agree
with
Kevin
that
we
should
definitely
start
with
the
context
working
groups,
because
that's
the
most
clear
place
to
have
the
Liaisons
and
then
I
think
we'll
quickly
see
whether
or
not
we
really
need
to
have
Liaisons
for
other
groups,
and
we
can
see
the
value
in
it
and
then
we
can
decide
we
can
decide
later,
but
I
think
also
getting
back
to
Matt's
Point.
D
What
I,
don't
want
to
specify
in
the
governance
document
is
specifically
how
they
must
do
their
work.
So
this
is
why,
when
you
look
at
the
becoming
a
liaison
section,
if
they,
if
they
can
participate
in
discussions,
contributions,
reviews
and
meetings
for
a
period
of
time,
if
they
have
that
ability
to
collaborate
with
the
team,
if
they
understand
how
the
working
group
actually
conducts
its
work,
then
they
can
effectively
perform
this
role,
regardless
of
which
meetings
they
happen
to
attend.
D
So
I
think
it's
more
important
to
specify
kind
of
what
that
person
needs
to
demonstrate
and
having
them
demonstrate
it
over
a
period
of
three
months
gives
us
a
feel
for
whether
or
not
they
can
actually
do
the
role
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
for
them
in
their
time
zone
and
their
geography
in
their
particular
situation.
I
think.
F
F
F
How
does
those
two
dissimilate
in
entities
fit
into
the
same
platform?
That's
where
the
complication
level
comes
in,
and
we
need
to
make
it
very
simple:
by
making
a
model
that
will
not
only
sustain
when
done,
is
there
when
Matt
is
there
when
Sean
is
there
when
any
arbitrary
person
X
is
there,
it
will
sustain
that
Simplicity
to
my
understanding,
but
if
we
make
something
that
only
a
particular
person
or
a
structure
that
is
right
now
understand
it,
it
is
not
sustainable.
F
So,
let's
forget
about
that.
The
complex
or
the
smooth
functioning
of
certain
things
and
say:
okay,
let's
say
an
X
is
happening
here.
What,
if
this
variable
change,
will
you
still
sustained?
Will
it
work?
Is
it
working
now?
Will
it
always
work
if,
through
there,
it
will
work?
So
we
can
start
with
one.
F
F
B
So
okay
I
mean
it's
I,
think
actually
the
text
doesn't
change.
I,
think
that
which.
B
To
your
point,
where
I'm
drawing
and
thanks
Kevin
and
everybody's
gone
for
this
conversation
that
we
can
start
with
the
context
working
groups-
yes
with
the
Liaisons-
but
it
probably
just
makes
sense
to
keep
this
here.
C
D
Or
we
could
find
that
this
whole
concept
of
Liaisons
just
backfires
on
us
entirely,
in
which
case
as
a
governing
board
we
can.
We
can
vote
to
remove
this,
remove
this
role
so,
like
so
I,
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
none
of
this
none
of
this
is
permanent
and
it
is,
it
is
to
Armstrong's
point
it's
going
to
be
a
learning
process
right,
so
we're
gonna
figure
some
of
this
along.
You
know
as
we
go
along
how
how
well
it
works
and
what
works
and
what
doesn't.
So.
D
The
idea
is
to
have
this
as
kind
of
a
you
know
as
a
as
a
starting
point
for
what
we
think
that
we're
going
to
need
in
a
structure
that
we
think
is
going
to
serve
us,
hopefully
for
for
a
while,
but
it
you
know
some
of
this
may
or
may
not
may
or
may
not
work
the
the
context
working
here.
This
may
or
may
not
work.
The
chapters
may
or
may
have
worked
well.
I
think
we'll
learn
a
lot
over
the
next
next
year
or
two.
F
D
You
know
we
can.
We
can
always
vote
to
amend
this
change.
It
go
in
a
different
direction
if
we
need
to.
C
D
E
Yeah,
yes,
I
was
gonna,
I
agree
with
what
Sean
said.
It's
really
good
work.
I
do
have
one
question
about
the
So.
Currently,
the
the
Common
working
group
is
a
metrics
working
group,
but
it
is
also
a
operations
working
group.
E
D
Where
we
can
probably
address
that
since
we're
going
to
pull
the
names
of
the
working
groups
out
of
this
document,
we
can.
We
can
make
a
note
that
in
because
that
we
have
like
a
I,
forget
Elizabeth
link
to
it.
It's
like
a
teams
document
or
something
roles,
something
like
that
and
we
can.
We
can
put
a
note
under
the
Common
working
group
that
it
also
handles
some
operational
activities.
I
think
we
can
make
that
a
bit
more
clear,
so
I
think
this,
oh
yeah.
Thank
you.
D
Matt
I
think
this
news
just
needs
a
complete
overhaul
and
we
can
restructure
this.
According
to
the
governance,
once
we
have
kind
of
the
approval
on
the
governance
document
and
restructure
this
according
to
that
and
make
it
a
better
format,
because
this
one's
a
little
bit
hard
to
read.
A
I
have
a
quick
question
about
that,
so
this
document
could
we
at
we
could
add
teams
without
having
to
have
them
in
the
governance
document?
Is
that
right?
Okay,
just
I'm
thinking
of
like
like
sub
projects
or
ad
hoc
projects
that
come
up
that
we
usually
put
on
okay,
yeah.
A
D
Are
always
going
to
be
new
ones?
Changes
I
mean
if
you
look
at
what
just
in
the
last
three
months,
we've
changed.
You
know
the
value
working
group
to
osbo
we
kind
of
rolled
Evolution
into
this
working
group.
We've
we've
made
a
lot
of
working
group
changes
over
the
last
six
months
and
we
do
not
want
to
vote
on
the
governance
doc.
D
Every
time
we
do
that
and
to
Elizabeth's
Point,
there's
loads
of
like
temporary
stuff
that
pops
up
where
people
are
working
on
something
for
a
period
of
time
and
then
disbanding
and
we
can,
we
could
put
it
under
the
structure
here.
Without
you
know,
without
any
problem
we
could
call
those
you
know
we
could
put
them
under
the
operational
working
groups,
for
example,
or
or
something
like
that.
Yeah.
D
C
A
B
Would
would
you
be
all
okay
to
bring
this
up
in
the
community
call
also.
D
B
D
C
C
The
agenda
at
the
upcoming
governance
board
meeting,
which
we're
working
on
setting
a
date
for
but
will
not
be
at
OSS
n
a
because
the
time
zones
to
get
to
involve
Asia
Pacific
are
pretty
brutal
for
people
who
are
in
Vancouver
yeah.
So.
D
And,
and
to
be
honest
when
it's
when
it's
that
split,
there
are
maybe
what
less
than
half
of
us
that
I
think
are
going
to
be
at
ossna,
or
maybe
it
kind
of
makes
it
a
miserable
experience
for
everybody
to
have
some
of
us
in
person
and
some
of
us
remote,
so
I
think
it's.
You
know,
I
think
that
the
doing
it
in
person
at
events
and
dialing
people
in
works
all
right.
If
it's
like
two
or
three
people
that
need
to
call
in
yeah.
C
D
C
C
Was
like
a
natural
tendency
to
try
to
accomplish
that,
but
Nicole
and
Elizabeth
and
I
talked
yesterday
and
abandoned
that
notion.
Yeah
I
proposed
a
date
on
the
discourse.
Channel
and
I'll
send
an
email
out
about
potential
8
A.M
time
the
week
after
that
and
just
sort
of
see
what
that
conflicts
with
and
when
we
can
get
everyone
together.
A
B
Okay,
so
I
wanted
to
talk.
We've
talked
a
little
bit
about
our
readme
structure,
so
just
so
you
know
to
for
those
that
weren't
in
the
Dei
meeting,
all
the
codes
of
conduct
have
been
updated
across
all
repositories.
So
thanks
Don
for
providing
that
information
and
everything
is,
is
straightened
out
now
we
had
a
variety
of
different
codes
of
conduct
across
the
variety
of
different
repositories,
but
it's
all
it's
all
squared
away
now,
so
we're
good
there.
B
E
B
The
readme
structure,
and
so
at
doing
the
codes
of
conduct.
Obviously
the
repositories
are
vastly
different
from
one
another,
and
the
way
that
readmes
are
probably
structured
across
them
will
vary.
I,
don't
think
that
we
can
have
a
standardized
readme,
the
way
that
we
have
a
standardized
code
of
conduct,
and
so
this
was
the
first
readme
just
as
a
proposal
to
simplify
things
for
the
the
metrics
working
groups
and
I'm
going
to
be
real
honest
even
within
the
metrics
working
groups.
B
There's
probably
some
variability
based
on
that
conversation
that
we
just
had
between
context,
working
groups
and
operational
working
groups
and
metrics
working
groups,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
to
sort
that
out.
Quite
yet,
but
this
was
kind
of
aimed
at
say,
for
example,
Dei
you
know:
risk
common,
these
types
of
the
metrics
working
groups
so
as
right
up
here,
some
early
participate.
D
I
have
two
comments
on
this.
I
would
not
list
the
time
in
U.S
and
UTC,
because
UTC
changes
every
six
months
when
we
change
daylight
savings,
because
UTC
does
not
move
with
daylight
savings,
so
I
would
really
put
like
whatever
the
canonical
time
zone
is.
I
would
put
that
and
not
convert
it
for
people,
because
that's
that's
where
we
create
problems,
because
nobody
knows
what
the
actual
time
zone
is.
This
is
where
I've
had
problems
with
the
Asia
Pacific
meeting.
B
D
Then
my
other
point
Sorry
before
my
other
point
on
the
times
is:
do
we
do
we
want
to
list
the
time
of
the
meeting
and
every
readme
or
do
we
want
to
link
to
the
calendar?
You.
F
Math,
just
one
little
contribution,
you
know,
as
chaos
is
growing
bigger.
We
are
moving
away
from
the
perspective
of
a
project
to
a
more
ecosystems
and
then
you
start
see
differences
within
working
group,
so
it
might
reflect
in
some
areas.
That's
pretty
much
fine,
but
the
common
things
will
always
be
there.
For
example,
somewhere.
A
B
F
B
Just
much
more
variable
yeah,
so
then
a
background.
Just
a
quick
two
to
three
sentence:
overview
of
the
working
group
focus
areas.
If
you
recall
on
a
lot
of
the
metrics
working
groups,
we
used
to
have
a
focus
area
table,
and
that
was
quite
out
of
sync,
often
with
our
spreadsheet
and
so
like.
The
suggestion
here
was
to
just
link
out
to
the
spreadsheet.
B
It
is
a
modifiable
document,
so
we
are,
you
know
linking
out
to
a
document
that
can
be
like
Changed
by
anyone
that
has
the
link
because
it
is
publicly
accessible,
but
at
least
it's
a
little
bit
more
consistent.
B
The
released
metrics
from
the
group,
it
was
just
a
link
out
to
our
released
metrics
just
generally
out
to
the
website
new
contributors.
It's
just
a
link
out
to
the
getting
started
page
on
chaos,
so
we
don't,
we
just
say:
go
over
there.
The
maintainers
is
a
list
of
approximately
two
people
with
GitHub
profiles,
if
available
core
contributors
and
other
two
people,
if
appropriate,
with
merge
rates,
yeah.
D
You
can
I
what
what
I
would
really
like
to
see
on
this
is
the
chair
and
or
chairs,
and
then
maintainers
are
good
too,
but
not
everybody
has
chairs
maintainers
and
Liaisons.
So
if
you
just
have
them
list
all
of
the
roles,
they
don't
necessarily
need
to
be
in
separate
categories.
A
B
F
D
It's
it's
more
chairs
is
the
way
I
would
put
it.
A
B
B
A
A
D
B
B
Oh
this
prompted
this
whole
review
of
read
me
so
Don
had
provided
a
couple,
different
suggestions
that
came
from
guidance
from
the
LF
for
a
long
time.
We
had
had
our
copyright
associated
with
a
year,
so
we
would
always
update
it
and
the
guidance
was
just
to
stop
doing
that
and
just
provide
more
General
language
around
copyright.
B
What
I'm
gonna
do
is
I'm
gonna,
probably
kind
of
take
a
look
at
each
of
those.
The
metrics
working
groups
like
the
ones
that
you
have
listed
in
because
I
think
it's
applicable
there
and
then
what
I'm
going
to
start
doing
is
taking
a
look
at
like
maybe
the
operational.
C
B
B
You,
the
I,
just
want
to
just
a
note
the
chaos
Dei
dot
MD
file
is
coming
along.
Could
we
Elizabeth?
Do
you
have
her
inclusive
leadership
and
newcomer
experiences?
The
URL,
the.
B
B
Have
a
lot
of
time
left,
but
I
was
looking
at
the
templates
page
in
the
knowledge
base
and
I'm
proposing
a
few
things
here
and
I
guess:
I
will
just
say
them
in
the
three
minutes
that
we
have
so.
A
E
B
The
page
I
just
took
a
screenshot
of
that
page
and
one
of
what
what
prompted
this
was.
Do
you
remember
this
discussion
when
going
to
the
metric
model
or
the
metric
template
that
it
okay,
so
that's
I,
think
I
think
it's
great
that
we
can
just
link
out
to
the
GitHub
the
markdown,
because
that's
ultimately,
what
people
want
the
question
I
had
for
for
Kevin
or
Elizabeth
is:
if
can
you
this
rectangle?
E
B
B
B
B
A
D
B
D
E
You
just
create
a
new
page
and
we
and
we'd
connect
to
it.
There
alternate,
alternatively,
the
the
other
thing
we
had
discussed
when
we
were
doing
this
was
actually
adding
the
adding
that
link
to
the
GitHub
repo
at
the
very
top
of
the
template.