►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Common.June.13.2019
Description
CHAOSS.Common.June.13.2019
A
B
Obviously,
my
main
concern
is
that
I
I've
not
done
one
of
these
before
like
filled
out
a
metric
in
terms
of
like
building
a
standards
document
and
I
could
not
find
an
end
result
because
I
don't
think
we've
made
any
yet.
So
my
big
challenge
here
and
question
for
everybody
is,
you
know
it
doesn't
look
complete
enough
and
if
not,
what
things
are
missing?
I
did
have
Toby,
do
some
feedback
on
it.
So
there's
some
work
from
him
in
here
as
well.
Okay,.
C
B
C
B
C
You
did
this,
we
had
where
ant
commits
and
merges
and
I
had
an
affiliation,
University
and
governance
structure,
because
I
suspect
that's
a
leading
indicator
for
overall
diversity
like
if
I
wanted
to
enjoy
the
guess
how
much
engagements
gonna
be
be
garnered
for
multiple
tech
companies.
I
think
if
it's
a
very
small
set
of
people
like
one
organization
or
two
that
govern
the
project,
that
the
likelihood
that
other
organizations
are
gonna
commit
to
it,
I
think
becomes
low.
You
know
it
is
less
likely
to
happen
in
the
future,
would
be
my
guess
so.
C
B
D
B
Because,
just
because,
like
so
RedHat
owns
all
the
copyrights
for
fedora,
but
we
are
only-
and
this
always
surprises
people-
our
employees
are
only
at
about
15%
of
participation.
I
think
you
know,
we
I
think
the
numbers
a
little
higher,
because
the
way
we've
been
finding
that
is,
we're
fine-tuning
their
methodology
but
yeah.
So,
yes,
it
could
be
in
there,
but
III.
Don't
know
there
might
be
enough
contraindications
I'm,
not
sure
it
would
be
useful,
I,
I,
think
I.
Think
Shawn's
point
about
the
governance
model
is
certainly.
D
That
might
be
more
of
a
towel
in
there.
I
think
I
think
you
have
sort
of
a
point
in
there
mean
I
think
that's,
maybe
a
useful
tidbit,
but
I
mean
irregardless
of
who
owns
that.
If
the
governance
is,
you
know,
designing
me
more
broad
versus
like
corporate
own
governance.
That's
that's
probably
more
of
the
indicator
then
right.
B
Because
I'm
going
down
the
list
of
all
the
projects
that
we
have
and
we
yeah
it,
it's
a
problem
with
a
lot
of
our
projects
that
don't
have
that
diversity,
because
our
governance
is
all
red
hat
ya,
know
and
it
shows
up.
But
but
again,
not
always
Fedora
seems
to
be
the
counter
counter
point
to
all
this,
because
everybody
on
the
Fedora
technical
council
is
a
Red
Hat
employee
because
they
just
came
up
in
our
elections,
because
people
were
upset
about
that.
All.
C
B
B
D
The
only
thing
that
I,
the
only
reason
this
really
becomes
very
interesting
these
because
we're
starting
to
see
a
higher
number
of
tech
M&A
is
happening
and
even
of
larger
organizations.
I
see
this
especially
on
the
data
big
data
world
and
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
there
could
be
interesting
before
and
after
sort
of
snapshots
of
that,
and
whether
that
has
impact
on
community
diversity
and
growth,
and
things
like
that.
Well,.
B
B
D
A
tricky
one
I
mean
I
know
we
manage
it.
We
try
like
a
lot
of
the
Foundation's
I
work
with
we
mate.
We
try
to
manage
that
just
from
a
diversity
perspective
of
making
sure
that
you
know
you
don't
have
you
know
one
affiliate
group
of
companies
dominating
the
governance
structure
but
and
yeah
it's
even
sort
of
tricky,
because
you're
sort
of
relying
on
them
to
be
honest
about
it.
B
Know
right
so
right
and
again,
I
keep
falling
back
on
what
I
know
you
know
eventually,
I
be.
We
will
be
a
wholly
owned,
subsidiary,
I
with
IBM
and
we're
wrestling
with
okay.
So
how
do
we
represent
ourselves
on
foundation
boards?
Do
we
maintain
our
thing
or
are
these
or
should
we
just
let
IBM
do
it
if
there
are
ready
on
the
board
already
or
you
know,
maybe
the
foundations
are
just
the
site
for
us,
even
though
we
are
committed
to
being
a
completely
independent
body.
Yeah.
C
D
I
mean
I
think
it's
a
very
fair
point,
because
I
think
also
I
think
to
your
point.
Co-Owned
affiliated
probably
has
different
meanings
for
every
single
organization
scenario
like
if
I'd
go
back
to
the
pivotal
VMware.
All
of
that
I
think
there
is
probably
a
little
bit
more
cross
mingling
where
it
sounds
like
the
right
had
IBM.
It
does
sound
like
there's
going
to
be
a
ton
of
independence,
yeah.
B
D
B
D
B
Ok
right
so
hold
on.
We
might
be
overthinking
this
trick.
Why
don't?
But
if
I'm
the
community
manager
in
VMware
I
know
all
this
stuff
already,
if
I
go
in
and
say
oh
yeah,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
being
where
people
and
pivotal
people
in
here
say:
there's
a
mints:
I
can
be
determinate
and
say
yes
or
no
that's
healthy
right.
B
So
we,
the
software
toolmaker
metric
maker.
We
don't
really
have
to
judge
that
on
that
level,
because
that
person
could
make
the
argument
either
way
and
say:
well,
yeah
we're
45%
being
we're
and
45%
pivotal
to
an
outsider.
That
looks
like
you're
very
diverse,
because
you've
got
two
big
players
in
there,
but
really
only
one
yeah.
C
My
my
comment
was:
if,
with
refis
liaison
and
diversity,
it's
like
okay,
how
many
CFOs
does
it
take
to
kill
the
project?
If
you
have
eight
companies
but
they're
all
subsidiaries
of
the
same
entity,
you've
got
one
CFO
who
can
cut
it
all
off,
so
I
think
to
the
question
that
what
John
had
about
you
know
how
many?
How
do
we
count
affiliated
cowan
companies
I?
Think
that's
that's
important
that
we
keep
track
of
that
to
the
extent
we
can
yeah
yeah.
D
But
I
think
you're
right.
It's
like
it's,
not
a
there's,
one
half
of
keeping
track
of
them
and
there's
another
half
of
like
understanding,
okay.
Well,
what
does
this
metric
mean
in
real
life
and
the
yeah
really,
let's
context,
yeah
a
lot
of
its
context,
and
you
also
have
to
see
it
like
who
the
reader
is
going
to
be
to
put
it
in
like
if
it's?
D
If
it's
like
your,
if
it's
like
the
VMware,
you
know
open
source
programs,
office
right,
they're,
gonna
know
the
context
of
how
to
read
this
and
how
to
appropriately
whatever
it's
Cloud,
Foundry
or
CN
CF,
or
someone
like
that.
They're
gonna
know
the
context
of
probably
how
the
reader
or
how
they
would
discuss
it
as
well,
right
so
yeah
and
really
it's
just
probably
just
a
grouping.
So
it's
almost
like.
B
Yeah,
that
would
be
it
yeah.
That
could
be
a
thing.
I
can
see
that
this
is
not
this
this.
This
is
the
place.
It
always
fascinates
me
it's
like:
where
does
our
job
end
and
where
does
you
know?
Community
Managers
begins
sure
you
know,
and
this
is
this
is
the
part
where
you
know
doing
a
metric
is
interesting
to
me
because
I
don't
know
where
we
stop
yeah
I'm.
B
B
A
B
A
C
B
B
A
B
A
C
B
A
B
A
B
A
I
mean
you
just
have
to
ask
people
and
I.
Think
after,
if
you
ask,
you
know,
say
40
or
50
people
Danford
or
so,
like
you
had
mentioned
that
that
fedora,
if
I
heard
you
right,
Red
Hat
is
a
contributes.
15
percent,
looking
just
at
the.
If
you
looked
at
the
commits
I'm
guessing
yeah,
but
then
you
could
also
ask
the
question:
is
you
know,
what's
the
level
of
influence
that
red
head
carries
on
fara
and
given.
A
So
right,
you
might
get
a
different
story.
If
you
ask
people
versus
just
looking
at
the
quantitative,
metrics
yeah,
the
other
one
and
I,
don't
know
John
and
maybe
Brian
you
can
chime
in
on
this.
Do
you
care
about
things
like
stewards
of
projects?
So,
for
example,
say
in
the
case
of
fedora
and
with
Red
Hat
I
would
suspect
that
Red
Hat
is
kind
of
considered
to
be
a
steward
of
this
project.
Yeah.
B
A
B
A
They
may
actually
appear
as
a
core
contributor,
but
the
reality
is
they're
not
right
so
I
mean
classic
example.
Maybe
when
Microsoft
dropped
hyper-v
into
the
kernel
years
ago,
mmm-hmm
I
mean
god
I
know:
I
wouldn't
have
called
Microsoft
a
real
steward
of
the
kernel
at
that
point.
No,
but
they
appeared
in
the
top
10
from
that
year.
B
D
B
It
doesn't
matter
because
the
government's
model
on
the
work
flow
of
the
kernel
itself
is
that
Lemus
Torvalds
approves
everything
right,
there's!
No,
it
doesn't
just
flow
in
there
the
maintainer
model
and
dictates
that
it's
got
to
be
Lena's
who
doesn't
and
he
wants
for
the
Linux
Foundation
who,
by
the
way,
co-owned
or
Co,
manage
the
trademarks.
Yes,.
C
B
B
C
B
D
In
an
ideal
world
it
shouldn't,
because
boards
are
really
there
to
make
sure
like
the
fiduciary
stuff
is
like
taking
care
of,
and
maybe
a
touch
a
strategy,
but
really
the
technical
communities
are
driving
where
the
technology
direction
is,
but
in
an
ideal
world
that
also
opens
the
other
question
of
any
non
ideal
world.
When
that
split
doesn't
happen
is.
C
The
well
another
way
that
I
might
look
at
this
is
that
if
so
so,
I
think
the
boards
I
mean
I,
know
I'm
not
very
into
the
Linux
Foundation
board,
but
I.
Think,
for
example,
when
something
like
kubernetes
came
along
and
there
was
an
industry
strategy,
I,
don't
think
the
technical
team,
the
maintainer
--zz,
had
any
role
in
not
letting
that
project
take
off.
C
I,
think
the
board
allocated
resources,
time
support
for
something
that
was
strategically
a
shared
interest
for
the
way
and
maybe
Linux
Foundation
is
really
too
big
of
a
scope,
but
but
I
think
the
board
does
get
to
choose
where
the
resources
are
directed
and
that
does
affect
what
people
work
on.
That
is.
B
And
the
problem
is,
is,
and
I
always
get
yelled
at
for
this
one
Colonel
is
a
ballad
community
in
in
in
its
in
the
scope
in
which
we
are
talking
its
inertial
at
this
point.
Well,
it
never
did.
It
was
never
meant
to
be
a
community.
It
was
a
bunch
of
technical
people
getting
together
to
create
a
project.
You
know,
and
the
only
thing
they
did
was
build
infrastructure
to
facilitate
communication.
So
they
don't
merely
you
know
they
they
brought
in
mailing
lists.
They
you
know
they
they
freaking
built.
B
Yet
you
know,
but
then
that
was
it.
You
know
the
Linux
Foundation
came
along
after
the
fact
something
like
kubernetes
was
started
as
a
groundswell.
This
is
a
really
cool
project.
We
ought
to
get
involved
in
this
and
a
much
earlier
on
in
that
the
the
companies
and
the
Foundation's
decided
to
form
around
and
Bill
the
community.
B
C
B
A
My
I
think
I'm
the
right
now
with
organizational
affiliation
as
a
metric
personally
I
think
this
is
pretty
well
worked
out
and
represents
something
that
could
be
a
candidate
metric
I.
Think
to
me,
I
think
it's
fine
and
I
mean
this
is
for
version
one
right,
so
the
question
would
be:
can
this
change
from
version
two?
Of
course
it
can
so
does
this
begin
to
capture
how
organizational
affiliation
is
better
understood.
Yeah
I
think
I
think
between
the
work
that
Brian,
who
you
work
with
on
this
frame,
was
look
Toby,
Toby,
yeah.
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
The
way
I'm
looking
at
it
is
is,
is
this
bringing
organizational
affiliation
to
a
finer
point
to
help
people
understand
how
they
should
think
about
organizational
affiliation?
Yes,
and
the
answer
is
yes
to
me,
looking
at
this
document
and
I
think.
B
C
A
C
C
D
C
A
C
They're
defined
in
evolution
and
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sufficiently
aware
of
where
the
evolution
group
is
act
because
I
don't
maintain
that
yesterday,
no
I,
don't
think
so
either.
C
So
the
question
is
I
mean
I,
think
they're
useful
metrics
to
define
their
living
in
those
repos.
If
we
think
they're
important
than
we
could
ping
that
group
and
ask
them
or
we
could
just
take
them
on
I
mean
I'm.
It
depends
how
critical
we
think
they
are
and
if
we
have
the
bandwidth
to
take
that
on
I
know,
the
discussions
within
the
evolution
working
group
are
different
than
the
discussions
in
this
working
group
in
terms
of
the
granularity
of
how
they
wanted
to
find
that.
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
I'll,
maybe
I'll
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
just
tack
on
to
the
issue
that
Danielle
opened
up
so
there's
this
issue.
A
resolution.
Efficiency
is
so
she
went
in
34
and
they're
working
group
I'm,
not
working
with
what
common
working
group.
So
here,
I
think,
two
weeks
ago,
discussion
on
submiss,
metrics
I
see
so
I'm,
just
gonna
post,
something
like
a
respond.
Okay,.