►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group Feb 16 2023
Description
Minutes from this meeting can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xsii5tfmmDwWpuhrFcBJMeYeT3RipJdiCdHrbi0NalQ/edit
A
Welcome
to
the
chaos
it's
Common
working
group
meeting
a
little
bit
of
a
change
thanks
for
turning
on
transcriptions,
so
Don
and
I
are
switching
in
terms
of
kind
of
leading
the
different
working
groups.
So
I'm
going
to
take
over
leading
the
Common
working
group
and
Don
is
going
to
leave
the
ospo
working
group,
so
that's
kind
of
a
switch
we'll
have
going
into
the
future
I.
We.
A
We
I'd
like
to
talk
just
a
little
bit
about
some,
not
really
fundamental
changes,
but
things
I'd
that
I'd
like
to
put
in
front
of
everybody
for
the
Common
working
group.
So
right
now,
we
we
have
obviously
our
metrics
models
that
we
develop
and
it's
pretty
common
we're
finding
that
the
metrics
models
don't
have
all
the
associated
metrics
developed
for
them.
A
So,
for
example,
Don
I
even
think
the
starter
metrics
model
that
you
had
put
together
was,
like
short,
one
metric
out
of
the
five
or
four,
and
so
we
had
kind
of
in
the
past
around
metrics
models.
We
had
kind
of
played
around
with
the
idea
that
we
would,
if
we
needed
a
metric,
developed,
that
we
would
put
that
issue
in
what
we
believe
to
be
the
respective
working
group.
So
we
would
put
an
issue,
for
example,
in
evolution
and
say:
hey
Evolution.
We
need
this
metric
developed
or
hey
Dei.
A
We
need
this
metric
developed
that
that
didn't
seem
to
be
taken
up
so
well,
because
we
I
feel
like
we're
kind
of
pushing
the
the
effort
out.
We
weren't
really
centralizing
that
effort
to
produce
the
metrics.
So
what
I'd
like
to
propose
is
that
that
we
in
the
Common
working
group
take
on
that
effort
to
help,
at
least
like
start,
the
metrics
development
for
the
the
metrics
model
group
or
for.
A
The
group
that
needs
that
that
metric,
so
we
could
at
least
try
to
get
our
our
head
around
what
a
metric
might
be
so,
for
example,
in
Don's
case
I,
don't
even
remember
what
it
was.
You
know
what
I
mean,
but
what
the
metric
was,
but
like
I,
think
one
that
shows
up
often
in
metrics
models
is
CI.
There's
something
about
CI
development
time
or
something
like
that.
That.
C
A
A
C
D
This
working
group
as
a
place
to
kind
of
fill
in
the
gaps
where
some
of
the
common
metrics
that
were
used
across
lots
of
different
lots
of
different
things
that
didn't
fit
naturally
into
one
working
group
and
and
now
you
know,
we
kind
of
have
the
metrics
models
which
are
being
defined,
which
are
now
generating
gaps
and
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
natural,
a
natural
place
to
at
least
start
filling
those
gaps.
And
then
you
know,
use
the
expertise
from
the
other
working
groups
as
we
need
to.
E
B
E
A
All
right
and
then
I
I
think
too
that
we
can
assist
with
just
as
that,
as
we
kind
of
share
it
with
the
other
working
groups
and
finalize
on
what
it
can
be.
We
can
help
with
the
publication
the
whole
release
process
as
well
to
get
them
the
metric
out
and
published
the
other
kind
of
to
the
to
this
point
as
well.
A
You
know
I
think,
as
we
form
these
kind
of
focus
groups
like
with
the
to
do
group
or
osmo
plus,
plus
that
I
don't
have
a
sense
that
some
of
these
groups
want
to
spend
time
developing
metrics.
That
seems
like
a
maybe
not
the
best
ask
for
for
the
ospo
group
that
we'd
spend
time
developing
a
metric,
I.
A
A
A
G
A
So
that
they're
available
through
search
yep
makes
sense,
so
we
have
some,
but
not
all
so
I'm
hoping.
Maybe
we
could
just
take
a
little
bit
of
time
today
and
type
some
keywords
that
we
think
would
be
appropriate
for
a
search.
It's
not
a
very
hard
task,
but
just
get
a
few.
Would
everybody
be
okay
with.
A
A
B
B
C
B
D
So
I
was
just
working
on
the
occasional
contributors
and
I
as
keywords
I
put
in
all
of
the
things
that
we
decided
not
to
call
this
metric.
It's
a
good
idea,
but
we
should
talk
about
that.
Like
do
we
do.
We
want
to
have
drive
by
as
a
keyword
in
case
people
try
to
search
for
it,
or
do
we
not
want
to
have
that.
A
B
D
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
E
B
A
E
A
A
F
D
So,
look
sorry,
I'm
gonna
derail
for
just
one
second,
one
thing
that
would
be
super
helpful
for
me
is
when
I'm
looking
on
the
website
and
I
see
a
metric
called
development,
responsiveness
and
I'm.
Looking
at
this
page,
I,
don't
know
which
working
group
it
belongs
in
so
then
I
find
myself
digging
through
the
working
group
repositories
to
try
to
figure
out
where
the
metric
came
from,
so
that
I
can
fix
the
formatted
issue
in
the
markdown
file.
E
B
G
B
E
One
of
the
discussion
I
recall
we
were
not
trying
to
keep
aligned
with
the
working
group
for
all
the
metrics
is
because
working
groups
are
evolving
changing
constantly
like.
Even
if
you
look
at
the
structure
now,
working
groups
are
getting
more
focused
on
the
need
or
the
contact
space
rather
than
you
know,
other
things.
So
that
is
where
we
thought
not
to
keep
the
working
group
in
that.
E
G
B
E
B
A
G
F
G
A
D
G
B
B
G
G
So
right
at
the
bottom
of
that
page,
there's
there's
going
to
be
two
kind
of
URL
messages
right.
So
the
one
message
is,
you
know
for
a
stable
link
to
this
metric
use
this
URL
and
then
the
other
message
would
be
to
edit
to
edit
this
document
or
request
a
request
and
edit
or
whatever
here's
the
GitHub
URL
right.
All
right,
I
like
that.
G
A
With
that
and
this
shouldn't
be,
you
know,
it'll
just
take
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
we
do
have
I
mean
the
spreadsheet
at
least
is
I,
think
well
up
to
date
with
the
links
to
the
GitHub
stuff.
So
it
shouldn't
take
too
long
to
to
track
these
down.
You
know
what
I
mean
just
tab
by
tab:
okay,
great
okay.
So
just
in
terms
of
thank
you
for
for
going
through
and
identifying
the
metrics
that
are
in
here
that
have
yet
to
be
defined.
A
G
G
A
A
I'm
not
saying
that
real
well,
but
I
think
some
of
these
some
of
these
have
probably
been
placed
in
working
groups
where
we
think
they
should
go
so
I'm
guessing
something
like
issue
comments.
There
might
be
an
issue
in
the
evolution
working
group
already
that
was
probably
while
ago
and
if
I
I'd
like
to
kind
of
understand
which
ones
have.
A
G
G
B
A
A
That
well,
these
are
often
referred
to
as
vanity
like
they
do
have
utility
in
them,
but
maybe
we
could
just
have
a
single
metric
called
like
vanity
or
something
like
that.
I
know
it
sounds
terrible,
but
yeah
it's
without
making
a
metric
for
stars
and
a
metric
for
Badges
and
a
metric
for
likes,
like
that
seems
like
a
lot
of
work
for
a
pretty
tiny
set
of
metrics
yeah.
C
A
G
G
B
A
G
B
G
A
This
is
really
helpful.
Okay,
this
is
really
helpful.
Thank
you,
so
I
think
we
have
the
keywords
done.
Thank
you
and
I
think
real
quickly.
We've
identified
all
the
metrics
from
the
metrics
models
that
probably
need
to
be
developed
like
I,
said:
I
have
these
two
action
items
to
explore?
What
metrics
are
indeed
missing
and
then
also
that
that
issue
thing
I
do
think
we
left
today
also
with
some
nice
things
about
a
stable
URL
link
for
those
who
want
to
reference
the
metric
and
those
who
would
like
to
contribute.
A
E
I
have
created
the
archive
or
you
can
you
can
even
click
it
and
see
if
they
are
shareable
or
visible
to
others.
I
was
not.
What
do
you
want
me
to
do?
Yeah
go
to
the
top
of
the
page.
I
have
created
the
archive
of
the
minutes
for
the
period.
Can
you
just
check?
Are
these
like
visible,
or
can
anyone
open
it
because
all
my
system,
it
was
yes.
D
And
then
the
other,
the
other
thing
we
might
want
to
look
at
before
we
end
the
meeting
is
if
we,
if
we
go
down
to
the
January
meeting,
there
were
a
couple
of
metrics
that
were
kind
of
in
progress.
Okay,
so
we
did
the
metrics
model.
I.
Think
Sean
had
said
that
he
was
going
to
work
on
contributor
location.
F
D
E
A
So
these
are
working
groups
that
are
intended
to
bring
people
together,
who
are
trying
to
talk
through
challenges
associated
with
with
metrics
and
using
metrics,
and
how
does
metrics
help
make
decisions?
It
seems
like
these,
these
types
of
working
groups
or
these
focus
groups,
whatever
we
want
to
call
them
that,
there's
probably
not
efforts
to
get
down
into
the
details
of
creating
and
Publishing
metrics
that
it
can
be
a
discussion
more
about
things
that
are
strategically
important
for
a
common
group
of
people
in
a
particular
context.
A
So
that's
like
full
full
stop
kind
of
on
those,
and
then
the
Dei
working
group,
at
least
recently
has
been
doing
a
lot
of
work
in
supporting
the
badging
effort.
So
if
there's
a
model
that
comes
out
of
the
Dei
working
group,
that's
completely
fine.
If
there
are
particular
metrics
that
come
out
of
the
Dei
working
group
also
still
completely
fine.
E
Question
I
have
is
so
if
those
groups
are
doing
some
discussion,
bringing
some
ideas,
how
do
we
materialize
those
in
form
of
creating
metrics
or
models
like
they
are?
They
are
not
developing
the
metrics
or
models.
They
are
sharing
the
ideas
or
needs
that
they
want
to
see
as
a
community
solving
us.
So
now
there
is
a
gap
like
we
as
a
developer
are
developing
those
metrics.
How
do
we
Bridge
those
gaps
like.
A
E
That
one
suggestion
that
like
to
ask
people
in
this,
especially
in
this
group,
are
attending
many
of
the
different
working
groups.
So
maybe
one
of
us
are
representing
in
those
groups,
collect
those
ideas
and
develop
a
metric
and
bring
it
here
for
the
development
and
then
bring
it
back
to
that
Community
for
the
feedback.
That
was
even
my
first
question.
How
if
we
develop
something,
we
need
the
feedback
back
from
the
community
who
has
generated
those
ideas
or
given.
A
A
E
A
D
Well
and
I
think
when
this,
when
this
comes
up
so
when,
when
we're
sitting
in
the
hospital
working
group
meeting-
and
somebody
is
kind
of
requesting
a
metric
I-
think
we
treat
it
as
action
items.
The
same
way
we've
done
in
in
this
working
group-
and
you
know
maybe
I
would
take
an
action
item
or
you
would
take
an
action
item
to
to
bring
it
to
the
Common
working
group
and
create
an
issue.
So.
B
D
A
F
I
think
Armstrong
was
pretty
interested
in
keeping
it
around,
even
if
it
just
meets
monthly
I
think
he
really
feels
strongly
that
it
should
exist
in
some
fashion.
Just
for,
like
those,
you
know,
detailed
questions
or
issues
that
come
up
that
relate
to
you
know,
Evolution.
You
want
some
place
for
those
those
conversations
to
happen
where
folks,
who
have
that
expertise
can
get
together.
F
C
B
A
F
I
will
also
say
that
that
group
is
is
pretty
lightly
attended,
usually
it's
Armstrong
and
myself,
but
we
could
like,
if
we
need
more
folks
in
that
group,
we
could
certainly
you
know,
promote
it
a
little
but
I
think
just
to
have
that
that
space
is
is
important.
Just
like
for
the
reason
you
said,
Matt.
B
E
E
A
A
A
A
D
D
No
I
think
that's
definitely
interesting,
because
that's
that's
a
big
problem
that
Osco's
face
I
mean
that's,
that's
a
big
problem
that
we've
faced
at
VMware
I
mean
we've
been
sort
of
Sean's
scale
test
because
we
have
we
have
so
much
data,
so
many
repositories,
so
I
think
that's,
definitely
something
that
that
would
be
interesting.
The
other.