►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group 5-27-21
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).
C
B
C
No,
you
don't
need
to
see
all
of
my
other
secret
documents.
Yeah.
C
A
C
Yeah
exactly
okay,
so
first
thing
on
the
agenda
is
to
review
action
items
from
previous
meetings.
So
we
had
some
action
items
last
meeting
so
so
josh
you
and
sean
we're
going
to
work
together
on
the
readme
with
the
new
template
and
send
something
out
to
the
mailing
list.
You
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
D
C
E
I
think
that's
actually
what
yash
was
just
talking
about.
He
sent
the
he
sent
out
an
email
to
the
entire
community
about
the
readme.
I
think
that's
what
that
was
about.
C
Okay,
yes,
here,
here's
what
I
think,
here's
what
I
think
happened.
I
think
we
had
dueling
note
taking,
because
I
think
that
these
are
kind
of
duplicative
of
the
action
items
above
this.
D
Yeah,
okay,
not
exactly,
I
think,
the
focus
areas
they
also
have
been
proposed
to
be
standardized.
So
it
was
an
action
item
to
review
that
pr,
and
that
has
been.
E
Oh
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
okay
long
ago.
C
It's
amazing
what
could
happen
in
two
weeks:
okay
and
then
the
template's
been
added
to
the
governance
repository.
So
I
assume
this
one's
done
as
well.
D
C
Okay,
cool
sean:
did
you
get
a
chance
to
look
at
the
time
waiting
for
submitter
action.
C
A
C
Let's
see
we
have
an
action
item
for
for
daniel
to
do
a
review
of
this
metric
and
he's
not
on
the
call.
So
I'm
just
gonna
again
move
that
one
up,
sorry,
which
one
was
that
was
that
collaboration
platforms.
C
D
C
All
right,
so
we
got
through
the
action
items.
Let's
look
at
the
open
issues
and
prs.
C
C
Yeah,
okay,
so
this
is
has
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
changes.
D
D
D
D
They
will
be
the
chairs-
I
guess-
and
I
needed
some
info
on
the
background
of
the
working
group-
couldn't
really
find
anything
to
put
there
like
you
know,
for
example,
when
was
the
working
group
formed?
Who
were
the
initial
members
like
how
the
working
group
differs
and
the
way
it
currently
is
from
the
way
it
originally
was
or
any
other
info?
You
may
think
we
can
add
here
in
the.
C
Yeah,
maybe
so
that's
that's
the
section
right
here
I
would
say
I
would
say
josh,
maybe
we
just
maybe
we
just
delete
this.
These
bullet
points
in
the
heading.
D
C
Okay,
so
why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
make
that
change,
and
then
one
of
us
will
we'll
go
ahead
and
merge
it
later.
Yeah.
D
C
And
if
one
of
us
doesn't,
if
one
of
us
doesn't
merge
it
in
the
next
few
days,
ping
us
on
slack
and
remind
us,
because
I
am
my
github
notifications
and
my
email
get
overwhelming
and
I
miss
things.
E
Do
we
do
we
want
to
add
email
addresses
to
the
chair
information.
E
C
Okay,
so
that's
our
only
full
request
issues
we
have,
we
don't
have
justin
or
gayork.
Do
we.
C
A
E
Actually,
I
think
that
conversation
is
still
happening.
I
prefer.
A
A
C
E
A
E
A
E
E
C
C
On
that
note,
I
don't
know
that
we
really
need
to
talk
about
the
the
issues.
I
think
that,
once
we
merge
the
pull
request,
we
can
we
can
close
this
one.
I
feel
like
we.
We've
talked
about
the
issues
recently,
so
maybe
we'll
does
anybody
want
to
talk
about
any
of
these
issues
specifically.
B
F
I
was
supposed
that
I'm
doing
now
by
the
way
to
review
the
collaboration
platforms
document.
B
E
What's
the
what's
the
distinction
between
time
to
first
response
time,
waiting
for
submitter
action
and
time
waiting
for
reviewer
action?
I
can
go
with
this.
F
So
the
time
to
close
is
or
time
to
merge.
If
we
talk
about
upload
request
this
total
time
that
it
takes
since
someone
sent
a
pr
and
then
this
is
review
it,
and
then
this
is
merged
into
the
main
branch.
The
time
waiting
for
a
submitter
action.
The
time
waiting
for
a
reviewer
action
is
the
time
between,
for
instance,
I'm
the
submitter.
You
are
the
reviewer
kevin,
so
I
sent
something,
but
this
is
on
on
the
platform.
Let's
say
about
publicly:
this
is
the
time
till
someone
the
reviewer
is.
F
F
A
A
pr
in
the
gremore
lab,
I
wait
10
minutes
for
you
to
do
your
work,
and
then
you
wait
three
weeks
for
me
as
the
submitter
to
make
the
changes
that
you
recommended
and
then
I
wait
another
10
minutes
for
you
to
review
it
and
tell
me
if
it's
mergeable
or
if
there
are
more
changes.
Basically
right,
it's
this
exchange
between
submitter.
F
F
That
there
is,
there
is
not
the
interest
there
is.
There
is
too
much
workload,
perhaps
for
reviewers.
So
maybe
the
community
needs
some
more
case.
The
other
way
around.
If
the
time
waiting
for
a
submitter
action
is
too
high
or
it's
increasing,
maybe
submitters
need
certain
training,
for
instance,
or
maybe
some
more
tools
to
do
a
proper.
A
E
A
So
first
response
and
closes
that
whole
window
of
I
submit
it
daniel
says
I
need
these
changes.
I
make
changes,
we
go
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
and
at
some
point
it's
closed.
So
that's
the
whole
window
of
activity
these
these
time.
Waiting
for
some
interaction
is
the
size
of
each
of
the
windows
within
that
whole
frame.
E
A
E
So
for
reviewer
action
are
we
actually
talking
about?
Are
we?
Are
we
talking
about
a
action
within
a
pull
request,
or
are
you
talking
about
the
reviewer
like
actually
reviewing
the
code
and
remember
that
in
in
github,
for
example,
there's
there's
a
difference
between
a
pull
request
and
a
review
right.
A
review
exists
within
a
pull
request
and
it's
a
separate.
F
Yeah
they
are,
they
are
different
things,
but
once
you
have
the
pull
request,
then
you
expect
to
to
have
a
review
at
some
point.
F
So
once
you
get
the
review
in
place,
that
total
time
between
the
proof
request,
time
and
the,
and
that
review
is
the
time
to
review,
maybe
the
reviewer,
the
real
review
only
took
like
I
know,
10
minutes,
but
in
real
time
it
took
like
three
weeks
because
maybe
the
reviewer
didn't
have
the
time.
So
the
time
we
are
measuring
here
is
the
three
weeks.
E
So
so
review
reaction
wouldn't
be
a
pull
request,
comment
or
or
or
or
adding
a
tag
to
a
to
a
pull
request,
or
something
like
that.
That
wouldn't
be
that
wouldn't
be
a
reviewer
action.
F
E
The
reason
the
reason
I
asked
by
the
way
was
because
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
needed
to
edit
the
names
of
any
of
those
previous
metrics,
that
that
deal
with
a
time
to
to
kind
of
match
that
naming
convention.
B
I
was
multitasking
during
this
I've.
I
cleaned
up
a
few
things.
For
example,
row
32,
the
name
was
off,
we
had
called
it
burstiness
of
something
and
I
just
got
it
aligned
with
the
actual
name
of
the
released
metric
and
then
column
d
for
our
released
metrics.
We
provide
a
link
to
the
markdown
and
a
few
of
those
are
still
pointing
to
the
google
back,
and
so
those
are
all
located
now
too.
Thank
you.
C
So
I
know
matt,
you
said
you
hadn't
done
any
more
work
on
the
bots,
so
let's
not
talk
about
that
one.
So
it
looks
like
language.
Distribution
is
ready
for
the
group
review.
Also.
What
about
collaboration
platforms
daniel?
Is
that
one
ready
for
us
to
review.
F
I
I
was
indeed
reviewing
the
dark,
so
it
is.
I
do
have
a
question
so
if
we
are
focusing
here
then
I
I
have
a
question.
If
not,
then
we
can.
I
can
leave
the
question
for
in
as
a
comment.
C
So
the
question
is
which
one
do
we
want
to
focus
on
in
this
meeting?
First,
do
I
focus
on
do
a
look
at
collaboration,
platforms
or
language
distribution.
C
Sort
of
leaning
towards
collaboration
platforms,
since
there
was
an
action
item
from
last
week
in
there-
and
you
said
daniel,
you
had
a
question
about
this.
F
Yeah
well
indeed,
two
questions.
I
I
left
in
general.
I
agree
so
the
question
that
the
actual
item
I
had
last
two
weeks
ago
was
hey.
Please
review
this
and
then
we
can
see
if
this
is
okay
to
go.
So
there
are
two
comments.
First,
one
at
the
at
the
top
of
the
of
the
document.
We
say
collaboration,
collaboration
platform,
message,
count
we
don't
have
to
so.
F
This
is
not
only
focused
on
messages,
so
what
I
suggested
in
another
as
a
comment
is
messages
or
traces
left
by
by
someone,
because
it's
not
only
about
messages,
as
maybe
you
you
sent
an
email
but
traces
that
you
can
leave
as
a
commit
that's
activity
in
one
collaboration
platform.
F
Yeah
yeah
collaboration
platform,
so
what
we
have
to
fire
here
is
message
count.
I
would
go
for
collaboration
platform,
trace
activity
or
or
activity.
C
So
what
do
we
use?
Let
me
just
ask
the
question
differently
across
the
other
working
groups.
Do
we
typically
refer
to
those
as
events?
Do
we
refer
to
them
as
activities?
A
So
we
we
identify
in
evolution,
messages
explicitly.
However,
you
can
have
like
you
can
from
the
github
api
and
the
gitlab
api.
You
can
get
the
discrete
message
and
you
can
also
get
an
event
stream.
That
includes
the
event
of
a
message
without
the
content
of
the
message,
so
it
would
be
the
time
stamp
and
that
it
was
a
message
on
this
pull
request
or
this
issue.
A
So
there's
an
so
like
the
platforms
are
providing
an
event
stream
and
you
can
just
look
at
the
event
stream
or
you
can
like
messages,
are
a
one
example
of
a
discrete
thing
where
you
can
get
more
data
than
just
the
event
like
for
labels.
You
can
get
the
color
of
the
label,
like
I
had
a
student
project
on
label
color
distribution
across
github
projects.
This
semester,
which
didn't
tell
me
anything
useful
but
was
cool.
C
Okay,
so
it
sounds
like
maybe
activity
yeah,
it's
getting
some
consensus
in
the
chat,
mm-hmm,
okay,.
A
A
F
A
Oh
yeah,
those
really
aren't
filters.
Those
are
they're
like
you
can
count
the
number
of
people
who
have
performed
an
event
in
a
repository
of
some
kind,
and
you
can
count
the
number
of
messages
and
count
the
number
of
comments.
But
those
aren't
filters.
I
think
you're
saying.
F
A
F
E
E
I'll
go
and
look
at
the
template,
real,
quick
to
see
where
aggregators
fits.
I
do
think
I
think
we
need
to
address
the
this.
Is
the
question
to
reflect
the
the
comments
that
daniel
had
made,
though
I
don't,
I
don't
think
the
question
matches
what
we
were
talking
about,
or
the
the
name
change
to
collaboration
platform
activity.
D
C
E
E
And
just
just
to
make
sure
everyone
is
included.
A
E
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it
addresses
the
the
comments
that
daniel
had
made
so
now
that
we're
now
that
we
are
talking
about
collaboration
platform
activity,
the
question
focuses
directly
on
the
number
of
messages
right,
counting,
counting
messages
and-
and
I
don't
believe
that's
what
we're
talking
about
now-
right
we're
talking
about
a
little
bit
more
than
that.
E
C
A
A
A
D
C
The
filters
that
we
think
are
probably
the
most
likely,
but
let's
let's
focus
on
the
question
for
just
a
minute:
do
we
sorry
sean's
getting
distracted?
Do
we
think
that
I
mean
is
this?
Is
this
what
we're
looking
at?
Do
we
or
is
it
activity,
counts,
let's
just
spot
him
out
on
the
question
so
that
daniel
can
go
and
clean
the
document
up
for
the
next
meeting.
A
A
A
Is
it
the
number
of
activities
in
our
number
of
activities
in
total
and
of
specific
types?
Perhaps
so,
for
example,
somebody
one
project
may
be
interested
in
just
a
sum
of
all
of
the
activity,
whatever
it
is,
and
another
project
may
be
interested
only
in
comments
and
pull
requests
related
things.
Wouldn't
that
be
a
filter.
A
E
C
A
Yeah,
it's
I
think,
just
critical
commenting
is,
I
mean
it
was
fairly
well
developed.
Matt
had
made
some
comments
back
in
september
that
I
addressed
and
giorg
added
gremore
lab
visualization
and
the
looks
like
somebody
accepted.
A
The
changes
that
I
made
earlier,
which
is
cool
but
so
under
objectives
matt
had
suggested,
and
I
I
think
it's
useful
to
provide
an
example
of
how
this
metric
may
be
useful
to
different
work,
different
working
groups
and-
and
so
I
elaborated
from
this
brain-
only
some
ideas
under
the
in
value
evolution
and
then
below
that.
If
is
I,
I'm
making
note
of
ospo
interest
just
in
general
of
their
portfolio
like
what
languages
are?
A
C
A
C
A
C
C
A
My
only
thought
on
time
that
is,
you
know
this
is
data
that
can
be
gathered
as
often
as
you
like,
and
it
can
be
maintained
over
time,
and
one
of
the
examples
I
use
is
is
it's
in
it's
helpful,
sometimes
to
know
the
projects,
maybe
like
what
I
see
happen.
Sometimes
the
project
will
be
heavy
python
and
then
they'll
do
a
lot
of
front
end.
Work
and
it'll
become
more
heavy
javascript
and
those
changes
over
time
can
be
useful.
A
I
don't
know
if
pro
hospitals
look
at
stuff
like
that
at
all
daniel
or
don
might
be
able
to
indicate
if
a
temporal
view
of
our
temporal
filter
on
program,
language
distribution
is
useful
or
not.
A
A
C
A
I
it
lets
you
like
the
commit
data,
the
pull
request,
data
lets.
You
look
at
your
process
and
this
is
really
a
point
in
time
inventory
and
you
can
see
changes
in
your
inventory
of
language
distribution
across
a
collection
of
repositories.
There's
a
word
whatever
you're
responsible
for.
A
A
C
So
we
want
to
just
take
a
few
minutes
and
and
leave
leave
comments
and
then
maybe
maybe
circle
back.
We
don't
have
that
much
time
left.
I
think
we
have.
A
B
D
A
Oh
yeah,
oh
yeah,
oh
yeah,
should
I
just
create.
Should
I
make
that
into
a
url
that'd,
be
fine.
A
A
B
A
You
mean
for
language
distribution.
I
know
you
have
a
number
of
different
tools
and
different
repositories.
Do
I
just
refer
people
to
grammar
lab.
F
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
C
A
There's
like
this
giant
piece
of
markdown
that
we
put
at
the
top
of
it
to
say
that
it's
a
in
between
formal
metric
release,
so
release
candidate,
really
scary,
yeah,
it's
so
they
get
to
the
website
so
that
people
can
see
them
and
use
them.
But
we
designate
with
the
giant
piece
of
mark
down
at
the
top
that
it's
you
know
go
through.
A
C
E
Yeah,
I
believe
we
treat
that
as
a
third
or
a
hashtag,
so
there
is
a
little
bit
of
inconsistency
in
how
that's
done.
I've
seen
it
italicized
a
couple
times,
but
I
believe
a
third
level
heading
is
appropriate.
I
I
don't
have
a
preference.
C
B
This
was
this
was
me,
and
this
just
came
up
in
the
dei
working
group
just
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time,
taking
a
look
to
make
sure
the
focus
areas
are
still
appropriate
and
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
great.
The
answer
is
yes,
but
just
though
that
we
don't
like
kind
of
institutionalize
these
things
forever,
because
they
were
named
a
long
time
ago,
that's
all.
A
C
Would
I
would
look
at
the
history
of
the
doc
okay,
so,
in
addition
to
the
people
here
that
have
been
making
comments
on
the
call
also
just
make
sure
you
didn't
miss
anybody
who
contributed
early
in
the
day.
E
Got
it
got
it
also?
I
think
some
of
the
onus
is
on
them
to
to
add
themselves.
So
if
we
don't,
if
we
do
miss
them,
I
think
we
need
to
try
to
encourage
people
to
not
be
shy
about
adding
their
names
to
these
documents.
A
Yeah
yeah,
this
is
frankly
the
first
metric.
I've
worked
on
that
we've
had
this
heading
so
for
that
at
least
it's
going
into
release
at
some
point
soon.
So.
C
Okay,
all
right,
I
think,
we're
I
think,
we're
in
good
shape.
So
thanks,
everybody
and
we'll
see
you
in
two
weeks,
all.