►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group 5-13-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
so
welcome
everyone
to
our
may
13th
chaos,
a
common
working
group
meeting.
I
don't
know
if
you
could
hear
alexa
talking
in
the
background.
I
think
she
she
thought.
I
said
something
to
her
all
right.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
get
started.
I
can
share
my
screen
with
the
agenda.
That
might
be
helpful.
A
I
encourage
people
to
take
notes
because,
while
I'm
sharing
my
screen
and
clicking
on
stuff,
I'm
not
a
great
note
taker.
So
if
somebody
or.
A
Help
in
that
regard,
yeah
first
did
anybody
have
anything
to
add
to
the
agenda,
if
so
feel
free
to
just
drop
it
at
an
appropriate
place
in
the
in
the
agenda.
A
I
saw
beth
wrong
meeting
brain
all
right,
so
let's
have
a
look
at
the
issues
and
pull
requests
start
with
the
pull
requests.
Oh
look:
a
new
pull
request
from
ritik.
Thank
you.
Okay.
It
looks
like
this
is
the
one
for
standardizing
the
the
readmes.
D
Yeah,
I
can
talk
about
this
please,
so
this
is
a
sub
task
of
the
broader
aim
of
the
ongoing
standardization
of
the
working
of
repositories
and
this
pr
specifically
aims
at
standardizing
the
readme
in
the
focus
area
directory
and
also
it
standardizes,
the
readmes
for
each
focus
area
as
well.
So
group
common,
my
favorite
working
group,
is
the
first
one
to
get
these
updates
and
the
changes
and
the
changes
are
listed
in
the
pr
itself.
D
So
first,
I
implemented
the
specific
relative
path
format
for
pointing
the
focus
areas
as
well
as
the
matrix,
and
then
I
added
the
subheadings
of
focus
area
names
in
each
focus
area
readme
before
that,
actually
only
who
focus
area
was
having
this
subheading
and
lastly,
I
reordered
the
focus
area
and
matrix
in
the
lexicographical
order
to
match
the
way
github
display
these
files
and
folders
so
yeah.
That's
it.
A
Okay,
I
feel
like
I
feel
like
there
are
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
changes
to
look
at,
so
I
don't
want
to
merge
this
one
right
here
in
this
meeting
and
I'll
be
honest,
I'm
not
gonna
have
time
to
to
review
it,
because
I
have
one
more
meeting
after
this
and
then
I'm
taking
a
four-day
weekend.
So
does
somebody
else
want
to
volunteer
to
just
to
do
a
review
on
this
and
then
merge
it?
I
mean
at
first
glance
this
looks
this
looks
great.
E
I
can
I
can
take
a
look
at
it.
I'm
familiar
with
the
standardization.
A
A
I
probably
won't
go
through
all
these,
because
I
think
we
went
through
them
in
more
detail
last
week,
but
maybe
we
should
talk
about
this
new
one.
Do
we
have
do?
We
have
justin
on
the
call?
No.
A
So
it
looks
like
the
idea
is
to
create
a
metric
on
what
a
drive-through
contributor
means.
What
did
we?
What
did
we
decide
on
like
drive
through
drive-by
matt?
I
know
you
were
thinking
about
this.
Like
is
this
language-wise?
Did
we
come
to
any
kind
of
decision,
so
the
the
conversation?
Sorry,
let
me
back
up
the
conversation
was
you
know.
Drive-By
is
often
associated
with
some
some
negative
connotations,
and
so
is
that
the
best
word
for
this
should
it
be
called
something
else?
A
A
A
B
My
thought
in
the
meeting
yesterday
was
that
I
think
these
are
terms
that
are
established
in
different
parts
of
open
source
and
whatever
we
call
it.
We
probably
need
to
provide
a
set
of
synonyms
for
people
and
perhaps
a
statement
that
drive-by
has
negative
connotations
related
to
gang
violence,
in
los
angeles,
primarily
and
we'd
like
to
avoid
it.
E
This
convert
this
conversation,
kind
of
landed
in
evolution
the
other
day
as
well,
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
one
of
the
other
names
that
came
up
is
episodic,
episodic
contributions,
which
I
actually
prefer,
and
there
there
is
some
academic
literature
that
refers
to
refers.
Yeah.
F
F
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
are
familiar
with
the
inclusive
naming
initiative,
but
they've
been
their
language.
Work
stream
has
been
gathering
a
group
of
terms
of
concern
and
I
believe
that
spreadsheet
is
pub
is
publicly
available.
F
They
don't
mention
drive
by,
and
I
I
think
that
that's
a
good
good
addition,
so
I'm
gonna
put
that
in
there
and
they
don't
mention
drive-through
either.
But
I
love
that
there
is
a
term
that
I
can
offer
as
as
an
alternative.
Thank
you.
A
Cool,
thank
you.
Yeah.
I've
been
involved
in
that
initiative
off
and
on
less
so
lately,
but
it's
yeah
there's
some
great
work
happening
there.
So
that's
that's
fantastic!
Please.
A
I
didn't
prefer
episodic
or
drive
through,
so
I'm
going
to
leave
that
as
a
as
a
comment
and
it
looks
like
they've
created
a
google
doc.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
what
we
should
do
with
this
one,
because
we
don't
have-
we
don't
have
georg
or
justin,
and
they
seem
to
be
the
two
that
are
are
kind
of
driving
this.
So
I
think
maybe
we
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
for
the
next
meeting.
A
But
there
is
a
reminder
to
do
that
later:
okay,
anything
else
on
the
on
the
issues
or
pull
requests.
G
A
A
But
maybe
maybe
if
somebody
wanted
to
maybe
somebody
could
kind
of
pair
with
josh
and
yeah.
H
A
E
E
A
So
it
looks
like
I
mean
this:
is
it's
been
merged
into
the
templates
directory?
I'm
not
sure
who
reviewed
it
as
a
as
part
of
that
process.
G
A
Are
you
suggesting
kevin
that
he
should
send
this
template
out
to
the
mailing
list
and
see
if
people
have
feedback
on
the
the
template
itself
before?
Yes,.
G
A
Process
we
reviewed
it
here.
We
spent
a
bunch
of
time
in
the
last.
The
last
meeting
I
think,
reviewing
the
template.
Didn't
we
was
that.
D
B
A
What
do
people
think
those
of
you
that
worked
in
the
participate
in
more
working
groups
than
I
do
do
we
feel
like
this
has
been
reviewed
by
enough
people
that
it's
it's
probably
good
to
go
or
do
we
think
it
needs
post
to
the
mailing
list
for
more
review.
I
What
I
recalled
was
like
that
word
tempted,
which
initially
was
created,
was
reviewed
by
many
people
like
even
I
reviewed
it
and
added
my
suggestions
like
I,
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
people
have
reviewed
it,
but
as.
E
And
my
point
is
merely
that
this
is
a
this
is
a
community-wide
change,
so
yeah
it's
just.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
that
everyone
is
on
the
same
page
on
it
right,
yeah,.
E
E
To
interrupt,
I
was
gonna
say:
maybe
we
could
ask
the
the
working
groups
to
add
it
to
their
agenda
to
just
take
a
peek
at
it
to
see
if
it's
going
to
fit
with
their
their
working
group
as
well.
A
Cool
anything
else
on
the
templates.
A
Okay,
next
up
review
action
items
from
previous
meetings.
Thank
you.
Whoever
highlighted
that,
while
I
was
finding
my
place
in
the
notes,
it.
J
A
A
Yeah
but
we
have
a
new
action
item
for
that,
so
we're
we're
covered
and
then
sean
was
going
to
work
to
smooth
out
the
time
waiting
for
submitter
action
and
bring
it
back
to
the
group
to
talk
about
it.
B
I
A
Okay,
there
we
go
already
done
okay,
so
those
were
the
action
items
we
had
from
last
week.
C
So
I
added
the
I
added
the
blank
template
row:
19
for
ratio
with
bot
action:
oh
yeah
cool,
so
the
template's
there
it's
completely
empty
at
this
point,
but
this
has
come
up.
I
just
I
guess
I'd
like
to
say
that
the
bot
activity
has
come
up
several
times
now
in
a
variety
of
different
places,
and
maybe
it's
the
same
people
bringing
it
up,
but
nonetheless,
it's
still,
I
think,
really
interesting
and
I
would
love
to
start
working
on
this.
A
Okay,
now
we
have,
we
have
several
metrics
that
we
could,
that
we
could
talk
about,
looks
like
maybe
time
waiting
for
some
interaction.
We
should
wait
on
that,
because
shawn's
still
working
on
smoothing
that
one
out,
but
what
about
these?
These
other
three.
Is
there
one
of
these
that
we
want
to
look
at
right
now,
space
event,
location,
space,
collaboration
platforms
or
bot,
metrics
ratio.
A
C
J
A
Yeah
and
this
one
gets
interesting
because
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
earlier,
but
one
of
the
things-
that's
that's
interesting
is
that
you
have
human
activity
that
kicks
off
is
that
is
designed
solely
to
kick
off
a
bot
activity,
two
which
is
which
is
kind
of
interesting.
So
that's
like
a
human
activity,
but
it
triggers
a
right.
H
I'm
I'm
wondering
here
if
the
important
so
yeah,
the
the
key
thing
here
in
this
discussion
is
guessing
how
much
activity
is
run
by
bots
versus
human
activity,
because
then
we'll
be
more
accurate
when
tracing
the
human
activity.
B
B
Goal
another
goal:
I've
heard
other
than
what
you
said
danielle,
is
that
it
the
bots,
are
indicators
of
sort
of
progress
along
a
delivery
pipeline.
So
the
bot
activity
in
one
hand,
on
the
one
hand,
is
not
a
person,
that's
good
to
know.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
also
a
signal
of
progress
and
where
progress
might
be
getting
stuck
those.
So
that's
the
second
way.
I've
heard
people
using
bot
distinctions.
J
I
think
there's
also
that
social
aspect,
so
if
I'm
considering
contributing
or
using
a
project
well,
if
I'm
considering
contributing
to
a
project-
and
I
look
and
all
of
the
activity-
is
heavily
bought
and
there's-
maybe
three
humans
that
are
doing
the
work
like
that
would
be
different
than
if
the
volume
is
all
humans
like.
I
would.
I
would
prefer
that
as
a
contributor
just
me
personally,
I
don't
want
to
join
a
community,
that's
all
like
robotic,
but
so
I
think
that
there's
that
social
aspect
too,
I'm.
A
And
I
think
also
one
of
the
things
to
keep
in
mind
is
like
large
number
of
bot
activity
also
tends
to
be
an
indicator
of
you
know,
maturity
or
volume
in
a
project,
because
kubernetes
would
fall
apart
without
the
bots
like
like
we
rely
on
the
bots
to
actually
help
us
make
sure
that
we
get
the
get
the
work
done,
and
it's
just
it's
just
because
of
the
you
know
that
community
is
just
so
absolutely
massive
and
there's
so
much
going
on.
A
E
Sorry
to
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt:
oh
no
go
ahead,
kevin!
I'm!
I'm
not
completely
sure
that
looking
at
the
ratio
of
bot
activity
to
humans
is
appropriate
and
to
to
look
at
the
kubernetes
example.
E
One
of
the
one
of
the
main
functions
of
bots
in
kubernetes
is
to
add
labels
to
things
right
so
and
when,
when
a
bot
adds
a
label
to
something
in
kubernetes,
it's
usually
by
command
of
a
human,
so
that's
replacing
a
task
where
prior
someone
who
had
administrative
access
could
have
added
the
label.
Now
we've
got
two
entities:
adding
a
label,
so
we've
actually
doubled
the
number
of
entities
that
are
that
are
on
that
task
as
to
prior.
E
So
in
this
case,
it's
a
matter
of
the
bot
provides
access
and
it's
it's
not
really
a.
E
The
when
you
look
at
the
the
ratio
of
human
to
bot
activity,
what
are
we,
what
are
we
trying
to
get
at
here?
I
suppose,
is
the
question.
A
Yeah
and
just
to
add
to
that
kevin,
you
make
a
really
good
point,
because
one
of
the
main
purposes
of
the
pro
bot
that
is
used
by
kubernetes
and
other
projects
is
to
get
around
the
fact
that
github's
permissions
are
not
particularly
granular.
A
So
what
you
do
is
you
give
the
bot
a
bunch
of
permissions
to
do
things
and
then,
within
within
the
bot.
You
have
indications
of
who's
allowed
to
do
what,
based
on
various
roles
that
are
a
lot
more
granular
than
what
what
github
has
so.
So
in
this
case,
it's
you
know.
Yes,
it
helps
the
project
scale,
that's
a
big
big
part
of
what
it
does,
but
it
also
it's
also
a
way
of
controlling
the
permissions.
E
I
view
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
J
I
was
just
going
to
ask:
is
there
a
way
to
delineate
between
bots
that
are
initiated
with
a
human
interaction
or
bots?
That
just
happen
like?
Is
that
something
that
we
could
pull
out
separately.
J
E
Yeah,
I
think
the
one
way
to
look
at
it
is
the
automation
of
tasks
and
then
the
the
other
way,
the
the
part
that
that
I'm,
that
I'm
actually
more
interested
in
is
the
access
and
transparency
of
actions.
I
B
B
My
if
my
thoughts
are
not
aligned
at
all
with
what
you
all
were
thinking
then
just
say
sean.
We
don't
know
what
you're
talking
about
and
we
can
move
on.
H
H
People
are
yeah
exactly,
but
so
both
activity
is
important,
but
when
tracking
human
activity
we
don't
care
about
that
photo
activity.
The
only
moment
where
I
see
it
might
be
worth
exploring
both
activity
is
when
you
are
running
certain
things,
so,
for
instance,
how
long
does
it
take
to
to
build
something
in
the
testing
platform?
So
that's
that's
ram.
So
the
first
event
running
this
is
done
by
a
bot
and
then
it
takes
certain
time
and
then
you
know
this
is
this.
Is
this
is
sent?
H
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
really
good
point.
I
mean
that's
currently
the
I
think
a
lot
of
the
I
don't
know
the
the
work
in
the
tools
that
we
have
right
now
around
bots
is
in
removing
them
so
that
they
don't
get
mixed
in
with
with
actual
humans.
A
E
E
E
Looking
at
contributor
activity
or
if
I'm
managing
a
bot,
am
I
responsible
for
all
the
actions
that
the
the
bot
have
has
performed.
A
I
think
in
a
lot
of
cases,
maybe
no,
because
if
you
look
at
a
lot
of
the
bot
activity,
it's
like
like
kicking
off
ci
cd
stuff-
and
I
you
know
when
I'm
looking
at
community
metrics
like
what
you'd
find
in
the
grimoire
labs,
dashboard
or
auger.
I
don't
care
about
that.
I
don't
care
about
the
cla
or
dco
checks,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
I
just
don't.
A
C
H
Seriously,
I
think
the
one
of
the
the
comments
we
have
there
that
the
indication
of
maturity
is
it's
probably
something
to
have
in
mind
when
measuring
bots
and
perhaps
the
the
metric
or
or
a
simpler
metric.
We
can
go
ahead
with
is
number
of
data
sources
or
so
that
they
are
already
using
bots.
So,
for
instance,
now
in
slack
we
have
a
bot.
So
now
a
bot
is
making
elizabeth
happier.
Definitely
she
doesn't
have
to
focus
on
that
specific
activity.
H
Basically,
yeah
go
ahead.
You
know,
sorry,
I
don't
know
what
to.
I
Enter,
I
don't
know
how
you
finish
your
thoughts
and
then
so
maybe
what
I
was
seeing
is
like
even
reaching
to
the
happiness
point.
There
is
a
middle
point,
which
is
efficiency,
which
makes
you
happy
so
efficiency
throughput
like
how
bot
is
helpful
in
making
the
process
efficient
or
smooth
lining
the
process
in
that.
So
maybe
looking
at
the
board
from
like
how
bot
is
supporting
the
efficiency
of
work,
progress
in
achieving
that
ultimate
goal
or
happiness.
J
I
I
also
think
that
indication
of
maturity
could
be
questionable
and
I
can
be
convinced
otherwise.
But
you
know
I've
worked
on
super
small
teams
that
heavily
relied
on
bots
because
we
just
didn't
have
the
resources,
but
it
was
an
early
project,
and
so
it
was
super
not
mature,
but
the
bots
helped
us
kind
of
get
things
done
when
we
were
super
super
limited.
So
I
I
might
question
that
a
little
bit
yeah
I
do
too,
and
I'm
the
one
that
suggested
it.
J
A
Think
I
think
I
feel
like
it's
an
indication
of
maturity,
because
a
lot
of
projects
that
have
you
know
been
around
a
long
time
were
kind
of
the
first
ones
to
embrace
the
bots.
But
now
I
think
some
of
the
bots
have
gotten
so
easy
to
use
and
so
prolific
that
people
kind
of
expect
them
even
on
projects
that
are
smaller
and
less
mature,
especially
around
some
of
the
automation
related
to
like
the
ci
cd
systems.
C
F
J
C
C
B
You
might
want
to
if
you
have
a
chance
that
you
you
may
want
to
join
the
risk
working
group
and
and
bring
this
up
because
there's
been
a
good
deal
of
discussion
about
bots,
we
haven't
done
anything
about
it.
You
know.
Sometimes
we
just
chat,
but
but
there
has
been
some
discussion
of
bots
and
then
their
role
in
different
kinds
of
risk
management
activity.
A
Okay,
cool:
we
have
the
other
two
collaboration
platforms.
A
E
I
was
driving
that,
but
at
this
point
it's
kind
of
been
set
free.
I
think
it
lives
in
the
wild.
Now
I
think
we're
we're
nearing
the
end.
A
Setting
it
free
so
kevin,
let
me
ask
a
different
question:
is
there
is
there
any
feedback
that
you
need
from
from
this
group
on
this
before
we
kind
of
finalize
it
and
turn
it
into
a
pr.
E
So
I
think
the
last
time
we
had
worked
on
it-
daniel
was
not
here
and
daniel-
was
part
of
the
initial
discussions
on
this
metric.
So
I
would
be
interested
in
getting
some
feedback
from
daniel
specifically
because
we're
we're
using
a
a
visualization
from
viturgia
here.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
if
we
just
need
feedback
from
one
person,
let's
just
give
him
the
action
item
to
do
that
which
I'll
let
matt
do
because
he's
taking
notes.
We
keep
dropping
in.
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
E
J
C
C
If
we're
talking
about
events,
as
being
you
know,
sensitive
to
time
zones,
I
know
that
a
lot
of
virtual
events
have
done
that
recently.
I
think
that
just
happened
last
weekend,
didn't
it
with
kubecon.
Wasn't
there
like
attention
to
the
european
time
zones
or
ensuring
that
events
are
located
globally,
so
people
can
participate.
A
I
think
I
don't
think
that
so
I
I
see
this
as
a
common
metric.
I
think
that
the
the
dei
working
group
would
could
use
this
as
like
an
atomic
metric
as
a
part
of
some
more
specific
to
ei,
okay,
because
this
doesn't
really
have
anything
to
do
with
inclusion.
This
is
just
where
are
they
located,
and
then
there
could
be
an
inclusion
metric
that
kind
of
sits.
On
top
of
this,
that
looks
at
how.
H
Yeah
I
agree
with
this
and
then
it
came
to
my
mind.
Another
another
discussion
I
had
with
some
more
people
about
where
meetups
are
taking
place,
which
is
some
type
of
meetings
here
and
then,
depending
as
meetups,
are
kind
of
volunteer
driven.
Sometimes
then
companies
that
are
investing
in
open
source
they
may
decide.
Oh
there
are
people.
There
are
not
meetups
in
paris
in
france.
Maybe
so,
then
we
should
invest
some
resources
there
or
the
other
way
around.
H
J
B
I
am
not
unwilling
to
have
the
evolution
group
pursue
it
either,
but
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
experience
in
the
dei
group
in
thinking
about
events.
Even
if
this
isn't
a
dei
question,
maybe
it's
a
value
working
group,
or
maybe
it's
common,
I'm
a
professor.
So
I
just
all
the
answers
are
right.
F
E
And
to
don's
point
other
other
other
working
groups
can
use
it,
however
they
want
to,
but
I
think
we
we
can.
We
can
build
it
the
way
we
want
to
build
it
here.
A
Yeah
that
makes
sense
all
right,
so
we
are.
We
are
overtime.
So,
let's,
let's
stop
here,
but
we
can.
We
can
pick
this
one
up
again
next
week.
If
anybody
wants
to
work
on
it
in
the
meantime,
that
would
be
that
would
be
cool
anything
else,
quick
before
we
before
we
wrap
it
up.