►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group July 20, 2023
Description
Meeting minutes are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xsii5tfmmDwWpuhrFcBJMeYeT3RipJdiCdHrbi0NalQ/edit#heading=h.n3rh3l1y6dv7
Meeting summary is here: https://chaoss.discourse.group/t/common-working-group-meeting-summary-july-20-2023/215
A
A
B
Okay,
so
just
real
briefly,
the
Metro,
the
Common
working
group
is
what
we've
kind
of
talked
about.
Is
the
working
group
that's
responsible
for
kind
of
moving
forward,
metrics,
but
probably
more
metrics
models
that
maybe
don't
fit
clearly
within
a
working
group
or
are
they
originate
from
some
of
our
context?
Working
groups
where
we're
not
necessarily
asking
those
context,
working
groups
to
to
kind.
C
D
B
In
a
template,
form
and
kind
of
authoring,
the
metric
or
metric
model,
and
that's
I-
that's
part
of
the
process,
so
I
say
that's
all
good,
but
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
is
good,
so
historically,
prior
to
metrics
of
the
working
group,
so
just
kind
of
develop
their
own
metrics,
which
was
great
and
like
I,
was
saying
before
we
did.
The
recording
here.
Many
working
groups
still
do
that,
which
is
completely
fine
as
part
of
that
release.
C
B
A
couple
metrics
that
need
to
be
developed
and
they
really
came
from
the
they
were
group.
So
that
still
does
happen
to
me.
The
biggest
challenges
from
the
context
working
groups
so
those
context
working
groups
are
the
ospo
working
group,
the
corporate
Hospital
working
group,
The
University
Hospital
group
and
the
scientific
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
ask
these
for
these
context
groups.
B
One
of
the
things
we
asked
these
contexts
is
to
not
worry
too
much
about
the
inner
workings
of
the
chaos
project
that
they
can
just
kind
of
speak
freely
about
things
that
they
would
like
to
see
within
those
context,
working
groups
and
I
still
like
that
premise.
I
think.
Sometimes,
if
we
get
down
into
the
details,
we'll
lose
some
of
the
people
who
attend
those
calls,
and
so
it'll
just
become
less
interesting
for
some
people.
B
And
so
the
idea
was
is
that,
as
those
context
groups
talk
openly
about
metrics
models
here
in
the
Common
working
group,
we
would
help
develop
those
they
would
kind
of
roll
into
this
group
and
I'm
not
terribly
concerned
about
like
how
we
identify
those
that
should
roll
into
this
group.
That
seems
to
be
okay.
We
seem
to
have
enough
at
the
moment,
over
a
lot
of
people
that
attend
the
different
context,
working
groups
or
the
context
groups
and
attend.
B
Seems
to
be
pretty
good.
My
concern
is
that,
out
of
those
context,
working
groups,
there
could
be
a
situation
where
the
those
context
groups
just
kind
of
speak
openly
about
metrics
models
and
it
becomes
like
9
or
12
or
15
metrics
models,
and
they
just
kind
of
roll
into
here
and
we're
kind
of
like
we're.
Also
doing
other
things
as
well,
and
so
anyway,.
A
A
B
Ready
to
go-
and
it
probably
has
eight
metrics
and
I-
just
I-
said
exactly
what
you
said
like:
don't
we
we're
trying
to
keep
these
kind
of
small,
just
so
they're
kind
of
these
incremental
First
Steps
and
the
response
was-
and
it
was
I-
thought
a
good
response
for
this
particular
metric
model.
Like
a
lot
of
these
metrics
say
around
licensing
are
just
kind
of
derivations
of
one
metric
or
some
of
like
the
activity,
they're
kind
of
derivations
of
things
around
issues,
and
so
there's,
at
least
for
that
model.
A
Maybe
the
so
maybe
we
have.
Maybe
we
have
that
discussion
around
each
metric
or
each
model
that
we
that
we
look
at
is
just
I'll
get
there
is
there
is
this?
Is
this
trying
to
be
too
much?
Is
this
relevant?
What
are
the
questions
like?
Does
someone
actually
need
this
metric,
or
are
we
or
are
we
kind
of
creating
it
just
because
the
we
have
the
ability
to
measure
it?
Yes,.
B
C
B
A
I
think
when
we,
when
we
initially
talked
about
that
today,
liaison
I
think
that
was
kind
of
the.
That
was
that
that
was
actually
part
of
the.
Why
we
were
talking
about
it
right.
So
the
the
liaison
person
would
be
that
that
person,
who
would
kind
of
connect
from
the
working
group
to
the
context
group
and
be
that
point
of
contact
to
bring
the
metric
into
the
working
group
and
maybe
to
provide
feedback
back
to.
B
C
B
Be
this
group
and
then
the
respective
context
group
that
would
be
the
liaison
for
and
I
know.
Oh
sorry,
go
ahead,
I
was
just
gonna
say
I.
There
seemed
to
be
a
number
of
people
who
have
an
interest
in
finding
different
ways
to
participate
and
contribute
to
the
project.
Maybe
if
we
did
an
open
call
for
this,
we
might
get
some
people
within
an
interest.
A
A
E
Good
question
sorry
I
was
just
wondering
if
so
I
I
mentioned
the
template
and
there's
it's
clear.
The
metrics
are
templated,
but
I'm
wondering.
Is
there
documentation
elsewhere
about
the
start?
Sorry,
the
models,
I
meant
to
say
the
models
I
do
that
constantly,
if
there's
so
just
because
when
I
look
at
them,
so
there's
some
models
where
there's
a
there's
like
a
great
deal
of
narrative
about
like
we
investigated
this
in
this
way.
E
I
also
wondered
a
little
bit
if
you
know
if,
if
you're
not
throwing
in
eight
metrics
or
trying
to
keep
it
small,
that
might
also
give
you
more
room
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
why
those
metrics
or
in
the
cases
where
you
like
we're
talking
about
the
the
this
whole
thing,
where
you're
trying
to
figure
out
the
contributor
attribution
and
how
hard
that
is,
and
so
you
might
have
three
metrics,
because
you're
saying
this
is
what
you're
trying
to
get
to
it's
really
hard.
Here's
three
possible
Avenues.
B
B
That's
the
end
of
that
model,
full
stop,
and
then
there
are
other
models
that
have
they
have
that
and
then
they
have
a
whole
section
below,
which
is
to
your
point,
which
is
more
about
implementation
details
for
you,
Jen.
Is
there
one
of
those
more
useful
for
you
or
like
that?
You
look
at
and
you're
like
I
can
understand
this.
E
That's
hard
to
say,
I
I
think
that
the
question
that
I
keep
coming
back
to
you
for
these
groups
in
general
is
like
the
audience
of
like
who
we're
trying
to
talk
to
in
different
places
and
whether,
like
you're
looking
at
something
about
the
models,
sort
of
presents
itself
potentially
as
like.
Here's
like
a
solution-y
thing,
and
so
it
seems
like
it
might
make
sense
to
have
more
information
there.
E
But
obviously
you
can
also
go
read
the
metrics,
so
I
guess
I'm,
not
it's
not
I
I,
maybe
I'm,
not
sure
whether
one
is
totally
I
do
appreciate
the
idea
of
validation
and
like
where
that
is
coming
in,
especially
if
you're
like
just
generating
lots
and
lots
of
metrics
like
that
that
so
I
guess
I,
don't
feel
like
there's
one
right
answer.
Just
that
the
the
inconsistency
sort
of
makes
you
kind
of
wonder
about
the
right
way
to
do
it.
B
C
E
B
Guess
I
100,
agree
and
based
on
this
conversation,
I
mean
my
inclination,
for
the
models
is
to
actually
remove
the
implementation
and
say
Here's
the
here's,
the
model.
It's
when
you
talk
about
audience
Jen,
it's
like
you're,
an
osmo
manager
at
a
university
or
you're
part
of
a
scientific
software,
I
mean
whatever
it
might
be,
but
this
is
meant
to
prompt
thinking
and
how
to
approach
a
particular
problem.
B
And
then
the
ways
that
it
gets
gets
implemented
could
be
found
to
your
point
in
the
metrics
themselves,
because
we
do
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
to
to
do
that
in
the
metrics
themselves
and
gosh
I
mean
there
are
so
many
different
tools
and
approaches
that
people
take
that
here's,
the
starter
like
it,
helps
you
move
out
of
the
gate.
That's
my
inclination,
yeah.
E
A
C
A
A
B
One
last
comment
on
the
implementation,
at
least
with
the
metric.
When
we
were
doing
metrics
implementations,
we
found
the
the
metric
that
self
has
some
stable
narrative
to
it.
Like
there's
a
story
about
the
question
that
it
was
approaching,
or
you
know
the
why
you
care
about
this
metric
same
with
metric
models,
we.
C
B
Always
run
into
these
issues
where,
like
maintaining
that
implementation
part
of
the
metric,
was
pretty
impossible.
It's
you
know
it's
like
I,
don't
know
it
just
it
moved
a
little
bit,
it
would
change
over
the
years
and
we
couldn't
really
keep
up
with
managing
that
part
of
the
metric.
So
that's
why
we
removed
it
too.
I
think.
A
D
I
think
our
rationale
there
was
that
we
would
take
comments
anytime,
and
so
we
put
them
out
there
and
also
like
this
discussion
of
creation
is
also
public.
So
there
was
enough
time
for
folks
to
really
weigh
in
and
look
and
like
after
the
fact
like.
If
somebody
had
a
comment
on
a
metric
we
released
three
years
ago,
we
would
still
resurface
that,
like
we
would
entertain
their
comments
and
it's
not
like.
Oh
nope,
sorry,
you
missed
the
cutoff.
D
A
It
was
just
I
was
contemplating
if,
if,
if,
for
example,
the
the
Common
working
group
could
be
a
mechanism
for
review
of
models
before
they're
released
or
something
along
those
lines,
and
then
and
then
that
got
me
thinking
well,
what
would
that,
if
we're
doing
that
for
models,
maybe
we
should
contemplate
doing
something
like
that,
the
metrics
too?
So
what
would
that
look
like
for
metrics?
A
B
A
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
D
Be
like
sorry
you're
on
your
own,
but
we
have
a
group.
That's
focused
on
kind
of
keeping
up
with
tools
and
helping
that
helping
facilitate
that
piece
of
it
because
I,
you
know
in
you
know,
I
thought
you
just
for.
As
an
example,
I
got
several
questions
about
how
to
implement
the
data
and
implement
the
metrics,
not
so
much
even
like
what
metrics
should
we
be
looking
at?
It
was
how
do
I?
C
We
have
a
high
level
overview
of
how
they
are,
which
is
quite
good,
but
on
the
line
data
structure
even
like
when
we
were
discussing
about
the
communication
with
Sean.
He
told
us
that
ago
and
I
think
other
things
don't
have
that
structure
to
capture.
If
you
really
got
an
implementation
trust
me,
we
will
need
to
redefine
a
lot
of
things
and
try
making
a
kind
of
templates
and
a
kind
of
middlewares
which
is
really
outside.
That
will
really
be
more
on
software
engineering
kind
of
work.
D
You
know,
because
I
think
our
ultimate
goal
is
to
improve
Community
Health,
to
help
people
improve
Community,
Health
and
so
by.
You
know
just
leaving
that
as
a
gap
and
not
addressing
it
at
all.
I
feel
like
that
I
mean
I,
totally
understand
what
you're
saying
Armstrong
and
I
do
agree.
I
do
agree
that
it's
it's
like
a
huge.
It
would
be
a
huge
evolutionary
step,
I
think
in
chaos
to
kind
of
take
that
piece
on
to
the
level
that
it
needs
to
be
taken
on,
but
I
don't.
A
I
I
agree
that
in
the
in
the
past,
we
have
taken
that
stance,
but
I
I
do
think
that
we
are
starting
to
kind
of
transition
into
a
more
active
active
role
on
the
implementation
side,
so
we're
I
think
we're
moving
to
a
place
where
we
want
to
maybe
start
to
be
able
to
predict
outcomes
based
on
these
metrics.
We
want
to
see
how
these
metrics
are
are
working
for
organizations
for
people
in
contexts
so
well.
A
B
I
think
this
is
all
fair
I
do
know
that
one
of
the
things
seems
Seems
related
to
this.
That
Don
has
talked
about
in
her
role
as
the
Director
of
data.
Science
is
kind
of.
First
just
trying
to
answer
the
questions
for
people
as
to
when
auger
is
the
right
tool
to
use
and
when
grimoir
lab
is
the
right
tool
to
use
and
why
you
know
it's
kind
of
the.
Why
and
I
to
me.
That
seems
like
a
really
good
entry
into
this.
C
Okay,
for
that
reason,
I
think
I'm.
Okay,
with
with
the
approach
that
Kevin
also
mentioned,
I
just
want
to
add
that
in
that
case
they
need
to
add
a
layer
of
responsibility
to
Don,
because
data
science
alone
is
not
addressing
this
kind
of
problem.
They
need
data
engineering.
These
are
two
different
concepts.
B
C
C
B
C
C
A
Where
we
talk
about
kind
of
reviewing
new
metrics
and
new
metrics
models,
adding
that
kind
of
adding
that
task
to
Common
that
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
test
for
common
and
I.
Think
that's
directly
related
to
the
the
comments
that
that
Jen
made
about
maybe
con
consistency
around
the
models,
yeah
and
even
the
metrics,
and
then
and
taking
it
a
step
further
kind
of
the
the
rigor
and
validity
around
those
as
well.
A
A
All
right
is
the
Spectrum
going
to
be
useful
for
someone,
so
I
think
that's
I,
think
that
would
be.
That
might
be
even
fair
to
take
back
to
the
the
working
groups,
Dei
and
risk
working
groups
and
even
the
context
groups
right
are
we
just?
Are
we
just
creating
this
this
metric
because
we
have
the
ability
to
measure
it
or
are
we
defining
this
metric
because
someone
needs
it
and
it
will
tell
them
something
useful
about
their
project
I?
Think
in
the
in
the
past.
B
A
B
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
D
A
A
D
So
quick
question:
how
do
we
handle
the
auto
merge
functionality
from
GitHub,
because
people
have
reached
those
requirements
so
you're
not
talking
about
like
it's,
not
a
review,
but
it's
not
a
self-emerge
necessarily
because
they
would
have
to
have
reached
some
requirements.
Do
you
know
what
I'm
talking
about
anyway?
D
C
B
E
D
D
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
Even
sure
it
needs
to
be
two
metrics.
Maybe
it's
just
like
going
back
to
what
we
were
talking
about
earlier
like
do
we
need
to
do.
We
need
a
self-merge
metric
and
a
merge
without
review
metric
is,
is
self-merge
a
useful
metric.
If
we
take
out
the
review
bit
or
is
it
only
useful
when
review
is
included?
If
it's
only
useful,
when
reviews
included,
then
it's
probably
just
one,
it's
just
one
metric
is
what
we're
looking
at.
Let's
merge
without
review
yeah.
D
A
It
will
will
Don
be
back
from
vacation
by
then
or
I
believe
so,
yes,
okay
and
I'm,
assuming
gray,
maybe
but
I,
saw
the
dates
for
Reyes
I
think
he
may
be
back
as
well,
so
I
will
I
think
he
had
made
a
comment
in
slack,
so
I
will
I
will
reach
out
to
him
and
let
him
know
we
we
reviewed
it,
and
hopefully
you
can
join
us
next
meeting
to
discuss
him
all
right.
Awesome.
Thank.