►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group Meeting 3-4-21
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
All
right,
hi
so
welcome
to
the
chaos
community
meeting
or
for
common
march
4th.
So
today,
I'll
put
the
minutes
in
the
chat.
A
B
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
both
of
you,
so
your
one
of
you
is
about
the
other.
One
is
yeah,
that's
how
this
is
pronounced.
B
A
A
I
see
a
bat
in
a
manatee.
I
see
so
therefore,
I'm
the
bat
yes
gotcha,
so
so
right
now
we're
wrapping
up
the
like.
The
comment
period
is
over
for
metrics,
but
there's
one
in
common
that
is
outstanding
and
if
you
click
on
that
link
that
I
just
put
at
the
top
or
I'll
put
it
in
the
chat
here
too,
these
are
our
issues,
the
one
number
94
do
you
see
it
so
94
is
technical,
forex.
A
C
This
I
will,
I
will
say
this:
I
think
this
conversation
is
it's
not
a
new
conversation.
This
is
a
continuation
of
the
conversation
we
were
having
the
entire
time
we
were
working
on
this
metric,
so
the
technical
fork
name
itself
was
a
compromise
based
on
what
it
was
named
prior
and
I
forget
what
it
was,
but
it
was
the
it
was
kind
of
that
same
situation
where
the
term
fork
is
really.
C
It
means
a
lot
of
things
to
a
lot
of
different
people
and
there's
a
lot
of
when
you
say,
fork,
there's
a
lot
of
information
that
you're
kind
of,
including
with
that
kind
of
implicitly.
A
C
I
know
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
I
made
in
definition
of
this
metric
and
a
lot
of
the
text
I
wrote
was
trying
to
get
it
to
the
point
where
basically,
this
just
describes
a
copy
of
a
project
made
from
a
from
a
platform
right.
It's
it's
there's
no,
like
the
intentions
are
not
included
in
the
definition.
This
is
it's
a
copy
right,
so
forking
forking
implies
some
sort
of
intention.
So
that's
the
intention
to
contribute
back.
The
intention
to
you
know.
A
C
C
Just
I
think
what
what
ray?
What
rig,
what
ray
landed
on
is
the
same
thing
we
were
kind
of
talking
about
before
is
that
that
term
fork
is
a
loaded
term,
so
it
means
it
means
different
things
to
different
people
and
it
and
it
kind
of,
comes
attached
to
attention
intention
right.
So,
if
you
fork
something,
you
have
an
intention
to
do
something
with
it.
B
Yeah,
I
agree
with
what
kevin
mentioned.
There's
there
is
certain
intention,
but
if
I
would
even
that
depends
on
the
on
the
license
of
the
of
the
project
right
and
and
for
this
I
mean.
B
Forget
about
the
license
thing
I'll
start
with
something
else
before
so,
if
we
go
for
a
for
a
fork,
the
yeah
that's
that's
kind
of
so
it
may
have
two
meanings
and
perhaps
before
github,
when
you
fork
something
that
meant.
B
That
means
something
like
split
in
the
community,
not
something
negative,
but
something
like
there's
something
new
while
nowadays,
github
is
fostering
that
you
fork
projects
right,
because
that
means
that
there
is
certain
collaboration
or
so
which
is
kind
of
a
more
positive
meaning
for
the
same
world.
B
You
may
just
clone
the
repository,
because
then
you
are
working
with
branches
and
then,
instead
of
using
your
local
repository,
you
can
directly
create
a
branch
and
push
that
right
or
you
can
even
work
in
in
a
new
branch.
But
you
are
kind
of
cloning,
the
repo
but
directly
working
upstream,
as
we
can
change
markdowns,
for
instance,
in
github.
B
Well,
if
you
don't
have
great
access
to
that
repository,
the
process
to
contribute
is
going
through
a
fork
right.
If
I'm
not
wrong.
So
definitely
if
you
are
forking
the
project.
A
B
Means
something
else:
either
you
are
contributing
to,
or
you
are
forking
like
in
in
the
more
like
splitting
or
creating
something
new
like
the
all
the
old
meaning
so
going
to
the
discussion
of
the
technical
fork.
So
you
can
read
that
the
description
says
the
technical
fork
is
a
distributed
version
of
copy
of
a
project.
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
remember
having
some
some
discussion.
I
don't
remember
with
who,
but
it
was
related
to
what's.
What's
the
the
next
main
development
line,
a
project
that
is
kind
of
decaying
right?
B
So,
let's
imagine
we
have
the
history:
let's
bring
the
history
of
open
office
and,
let's
imagine
the
open
office
is
is
in
is
in
github.
So
now
there
is
a
fork
of
the
project.
That's
made.
Everything
is
in
the
same
repository
so
now
someone
forked
the
project
but-
and
we
know
that
there
is
certain
friction
between
the
community
right
and
the
and
the
company
hosting
the
project.
So
what's
next,
what
are
the
following?
B
B
So
that's
something
like
a
potential,
so
we
can
use
the
technical
forks
that
we
have
in
a
given
project
for
input
for
that
analysis.
At
some
point,
so
it
might
be
worth.
A
B
C
Well,
just
to
be
clear,
I
mean
I
am
actually
okay
with
the
term
technical
fork,
because
the
I
think
the
the
technical
part
acts
as
a
qualifier
to
say,
hey
it's
this,
this
one
thing
that
we're
talking
about
is
this
one
thing
that
may
seem
like
a
fork,
but
if
we
were
to
change
it,
I
suppose
I
would
say
technical
copy
would
be
would
be
my
choice.
A
So
I
listening
to
these
comments
from
daniel
and
you
kevin
I'm.
Maybe
we
need
to
also
remember
that
this
is
the
common
working
group
and
so
how
like
a
technical
fork
if
it's
applied
as
something
that's
positive
right,
just
the
way
that
github
works
or
it's
applied
to
something
that's
kind
of
splitting
the
community
I
mean,
maybe
that's
a
question
for
another
working
group
and
the
technical
fork
is
a
thing
that
happens
and
we're
just
saying
this
is
a
common
thing
and
we're
done
and
that's
really
what
the
common
working
group
is
about.
C
And
I
think
the
I
think
the
descriptions
and
the
objectives
which
are
which
are
very
simple
for
this
particular
metric
kind
of
get
at
that
point.
It's
it's
very.
This
is
very
simply
a
it's,
the
the
the
number
of
copies
that
occur,
and
it's
not
even
like
all
of
the
copies
that
occur.
It's
the
number
of
the
copies
that
occur
on
a
development
platform
right.
B
A
A
A
One
so
I'm
wondering
if
these
on
the
filters,
the
second
time
period
seems
like
a
totally
normal
filter.
In
this
case,
I'm
wondering
if
the
latter
two
filters
are
actually
metrics
unto
themselves.
C
C
All
right
so
there's
a
lot
of
tech.
There's
a
lot
of
text
that
could
be
written
under
both
of
those
under
the
last
two
bullet
points,
yeah
and
and
other
metrics
can
still
be.
Those
can
still
be
used
as
filters
in
in
other
metrics.
There's,
no,
there's
no
reason
they
can't
so
just
because
it's
a
filter
here
doesn't
mean
that
it
can't
be
a
metric
on
its
own.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
it
probably
does
need
more
definition
than
than
what
we're
seeing
here.
I
think
so
too
daniel.
B
Something
something
around
this
as
well,
so
it's
like
so
those
sounds
to
me
like
attributes
of
the
fork
so
that
we
can
use
them
to
filter
or
not,
but
perhaps
they
are.
They
are
more
for
the
other
working
groups,
not
sure
because
then
what's
what's
the
purpose
of
the
radius
of
contributing
fork
to
total
forks
or
so
it's
about
understanding
how
many
contributions
back.
We
have
from
others
right
organizations
or
individuals
and
if
so,
that's
perhaps
part
of
another
discussion.
Committee
engagement,
maybe
or
so
you
think
so.
Yeah.
A
So
kevin
you're,
comfortable
keeping
those
two
I
mean
at
this
point:
it's
looking
like
the
metrics
not
going
to
change
as
we
talk
through
this
but
you're
comfortable
keeping.
Those
two
second
bullet
points
around
filters
and
then
just
kind
of
knowing
that
those
might
lead
to
metrics
in
other
working
groups
is
that
right.
C
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
and
maybe
those
are
maybe
those
are
maybe
that
actually
is
evolution
code
development
efficiently.
Maybe
those
that's
where
those
metrics
belong.
Okay
or
maybe,
actually
I
could
see
non-contributing
non-contributing
or
could
if
it's
a
hostile
fork,
it
could
could
end
up
in
risk
right,
yep,
okay,
to
address
his.
Do
we
need
to
add
language
to
this
metric?
That
includes
the
term
clone.
C
B
C
Perhaps
yeah
so
that's
another
issue,
so
another
issue
we
have
is
that
clone
is
not
a
metric,
that's
been
defined
by
us
and
it's
also
a
term
that
people
have
it's
there's
a
a
clone
is
a
very
github
specific
thing
in
github,
so
we
know
what
a
clone
is
in
github.
What
is
a
clone
in
gitlab?
Is
it
the
same
thing?
Is
it
is
a
clone?
The
same
on
all
of
the
platforms
is
the
term
used
consistently.
A
C
So
cloning
cloning,
a
project,
is
different
than
a
technical
fork,
because
it
is
cloning,
a
project
onto
your
local
machine.
Is
that
my
that's
my
understanding
of
yeah?
Okay?
So
a
technical
fork
is
a
copy
of
a
project
on
the
same
code.
Development
platform
and
a
clone
is
a
copy
of
the
project
on
your
local
machine
or
on
a
on
a
separate
server
or
on
a
separate.
B
C
C
C
C
B
Well,
there
is
there:
is
this
thing
that
if
we
want
to
be
really
specific,
then
we
have
that
we
should
add
to
the
definition
of
the
fork
that
let
me
go
back
to
the
definition
that
I
don't
think
we
have
there,
but
well
my.
C
Videos
in
the
description
we
could
just
have
a
sentence
that
says
not
to
be
confused
with
a
clone
which
is
which
is
a
which
is
a
copy
of
a
project
to
your
local
2a
to
8.
B
A
So
we're
going
to
come
to
resolution
on
this
today.
I
promise
you
this
is.
This
is
the
one
thing
we
do
so
kevin
in
the
description.
Do
you
have
something
that
you
might
want
to
add?
It
would
say,
like
the
number
of
technical
forks
indicates,
the
number
of
copies
parentheses,
not
clones
or
downloads
or
downloads.
You
could
say
that
yeah.
B
A
A
C
Yeah,
I
don't
think
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
wrong
with
the
text
that
we
have
in
anything
incorrect
with
the
text
that
we
have
in
there
yep
and
and
honestly,
I'm
not
the
name
that
we've
landed
on,
doesn't
bother
me
a
ton
either.
It
doesn't
me
either.
C
C
C
Did
you
decide
so
we
decided
to
add
that
to
all
of
the
metrics
released
this
release?
Okay-
and
my
guess,
is
that
none
of
the
metrics
released
this
release
has
that
heading
currently,
and
I
would
I
would
further
say
that
they
don't
have
the
names
associated
with
it
either.
So
I
would
guess
that's
a
go
ahead.
C
A
C
A
C
Yeah,
I
was
just
thinking
about
the
even
even
just
going
through
and
figuring
out
who
contributed
on
the
metrics
without
looking
at,
I
suppose,
the
the
google
sheet
or
the
the
meeting
minutes.
I
suppose
that's
how
you
have
to
do
it
right.
A
A
Yeah
I'd
say
when
we
start
templating
new
things
like
in
in
dni,
I
just
templated
a
new
metric
for
onboarding
and
like
that,
would
that's
pretty
easy
right.
We
were
all
kind
of
there.
Well,
I
could
track
that
one
a
little
bit
more
easily.
A
So
we'll
just
add
it
add
it
from
now
on:
okay
yeah,
I
think
so
for
any
new
templated
ones:
okay,
okay,
okay,
so
that's
good
to
go!
Thank
you.
You
too,
I'm
serious
that
was
helpful
and
very
thoughtful
to
to
not
change
anything
which
is
good
and
then
also
to
kind
of
think
about
how
this
can
inform
the
future,
and
I
think
I
captured
that
in
a
minute
all
right,
I
guess
you
know
we
have
15
minutes
daniel.
If
you
look
at
the
the
minutes,
there
were
a
couple.
A
A
A
C
However,
I
think
there
are
other
places
it
could.
It
could
exist
in
risk
as
well.
It
I
think,
common.
The
way
common
is
running
right
now,
it's
it's
kind
of
it's.
You
can
kind
of
grab
whatever
you
want
right.
It's
because
you
can
make
the
argument
that
most
metrics
are
common.