►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Common Working Group 6/9/22
Description
Links to minutes from this meeting are on https://chaoss.community/participate.
A
A
A
A
D
A
B
B
B
So
so
types
of
contributions
is
the
metric
I
went
through
and
I
identified
five
issues
that
need
to
be
fixed.
The
two
simplest
ones
were
probably
just
the
general
update
the
template
and
add
the
revision
date
to
it.
I
think
all
the
metrics
that
we
that
we
revise
are
going
to
have
that
in
the
collect
trace
data
section.
B
B
E
And
then
the
the
oh
just
made
a
comment
on
that.
Yes,
so
agreed,
particularly
because
this
metric
has
come
up
as
one
that
we
would
like
to
use
in
project.
Badging
is
how
we
recognize
the
different
types
of
contributions
or
how
our
project
recognized
the
different
types
of
contributions.
So
that'd
be
a
good.
It
seems
like
a
very
sensible
statement
to
add.
B
But
but
otherwise
the
it's
it's
a
fairly
well-written
metric
and
I
didn't
see
too
many
issues
I
do
think
there's
a
there
is
a
a
fair
amount
of
work
on
this
one.
So
I
know
the
the
process
of
revising
these.
We
often
assign
them
to
someone,
but
the
the
amount
of
work
on
this
one.
We
might
consider
pulling
it
into
a
google
doc
and
just
working
on
it
together.
B
E
E
A
A
A
B
B
E
B
B
B
B
So
I
just
kind
of
jumped
through
these
working
group
focus
area.
Metric,
composite
metric
metric
model,
implementation,
initiative
and
filter
are
all
terms
that
have
come
up
before
I've
got
tag
on
here
as
well,
but
I
think
you
can
kind
of
ignore
tag
for
a
while.
I'm
going,
that's
that's
what
what
I?
What
I'm
proposing
we
use
for
the
website
knowledge
base
and
kind
of
the
that
dynamic
presentation
of
metrics
and
models
to.
C
B
D
B
C
C
B
This
is
this
is
about
having
shared
definitions
for
the
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
the
the
the
way
that
we're
working.
So
this
is
not.
This
is
not
really
for
the
user.
This
is
so
that
we
can
have
so
that
we
understand
what
a
focus
area
is
across
working
groups
when
we're
defining
focus
areas
or
when
we're
building
metrics
within
focus
areas,
so
that
we
understand
what
we're
building
when
we
define
a
metric
versus
a
model.
F
F
B
B
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
same
way
that
other
people
define
them.
So
this
is.
This
is
really
a
great
opportunity
for
you
to
say
hey.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
your
definition
of
metric
is
good
enough.
This
is
what
I
think
a
metric.
Is
it's
a
it's
a
good
place
to
to
talk
about
what
a
metric
model
is.
A
I
also
wonder
if
there
might
be
some
visualization
that
would
help
people
think
about
this
too,
because
the
way
the
way
I
the
way
I
kind
of
look
at
this
is
you
know,
you've
got
you've,
got
a
metric
or
you've
got
a
working
group.
A
working
group
has
one
or
more
focus
areas.
The
focus
areas
have
you
know
one
or
more
metrics
composite
metrics
have
multiple
metrics
metrics
models
have
multiple
metrics
and
or
composite
metrics.
A
B
So
the
idea-
the
idea
here
is
that
the
the
working
groups
are
these.
These
volunteer
associations
of
people
who
have
come
together
to
work
identifying,
metrics
and
models
that
measure
some
sort
of
similar
phenomena
right
and
then
focus
areas
would
be
descriptive
context
areas
cut
similar
to
the
way
common.
Does
it
now,
where
we
have
place
people
time
things
of
that
nature.
So
my
proposal
is
that
we
take
these
focus
areas
and
make
them
common
across
all
working
groups.
B
So
there's
so
we
we
end
up
having
a
little
bit
of
that
confusion
between
what's
a
model
and
what's
a
focus
area
or
and
then
additionally,
the
focus
areas
aren't
they're
different
across
working
groups.
So
we
don't
have
a
kind
of
a
shared
way
of
understanding
the
relationships
between
metrics
and
models
across
working
groups,
and
then
I
see
hands
are
up,
so
I
will
be
quiet,
matt
or
dawn.
E
I'll
go
so
this
is
kind
of
to
lucas's
question
earlier
kind
of
the
audience
for
this
so
part.
Is
that
slide
number
two,
which
is
like
defining
the
terms
you
know
like
all
the
metric
and
metric
model,
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
I
I
I
mean
I
agree
with
kevin.
This
is
about
kind
of
defining
the
things
that
we
use,
sometimes
pretty
loosely
within
our
working
groups
and
then
the
second.
E
A
A
B
A
And
I
assume
that
by
by
initiatives
we
so
I
was
just
looking
at
kind
of
our
overview
presentation
and
it
talked
about
programs,
it
talked
about
badging,
it
talked
about
models
and
it
talked
about
something
else.
So
I
assume
we're
just
renaming
programs
to
initiatives
which
actually
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
B
B
These
are
actual
products
that
people
can
use
and
it's
maybe
a
little
bit
different
from
an
implementation
in
the
working
model
in
the
models
working
group,
because
an
implementation
in
the
working
miles
group
is
this
very
specific
thing:
it's
a
it's
a
jupiter
notebook
and
it's
maybe
a
proof
of
concept
for
the
metrics
model
that
offers
a
potential
utility
for
users,
but
it's
not
a
kind
of
finished
product.
The
same
way
that
that
an
initiative
is.
A
A
B
D
Okay,
important
project,
okay,
then
I
mean
chaos
software.
I
guess
I
mean
explaining
what
it
is
and
defining
it
like.
It's
just
like
a
miracle
occurs.
If
we
don't
do
a
little
conceptual
explanation
of
what
gremore
lab
and
auger
do.
Okay,
how
about
how
about
you?
You
can
tag
me
with
putting
the
other
draft
definitions
of
that
and
they
would
each
have
their
own
thing.
Oh
yeah,.
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
Editing
and
editing
of
these
definitions
right
so
once
again,
this
is
just
this
is
how
I
think
about
them,
and
it's
not
necessarily
it's.
It's
probably
not
the
same
way
as
sean
thinks
about
these
terms.
It's
not
the
same
way
don
thinks
about
them.
It's
not
the
same
way.
Lucas
thinks
about
him.
So
could.
E
We
go
to
slide
three,
then
yes,
so
what
are
people
see
that
the
middle
one,
where
it
says
possible
examples,
governance,
project,
community
people,
software
like
that
kind
of
stuff?
And
what
are
people's
thoughts
on
so
the
proposal
is,
is
that
each
working
group
would
use
any
number
of
these
focus
area
names.
E
E
B
Understanding
it
that's
correct,
and
then
we
can
we
can
also.
So
we
can.
We
can
tag
by
context
and
then
we
can
tag
by
phenomena
and
that
allows
us
to
cross
the
matrix
rather
than
having
just
the
verticals
and
horizontals
right.
It
basically
allows
the
user
to
dynamically,
create
their
own
organizations
and
categorizations
of
metrics.
E
B
Okay
with
the
possible
examples,
I
yeah,
I
wouldn't
know
it's
it's,
however,
we
decided
to
define
it
right,
so
project
could
be.
The
project
could
be
inclusive
of
the
like
governance.
Software
could
be
related
to
the
artifact
we
we
could
choose
to
not
use
either
of
those
terms
or
use
one
or
the
other.
I
don't
know
they
were
just
okay,
just
example:
context
areas.
So,
okay,
one
of
the
one
of
the
context
areas
that
the
metrics
model
working
group
wants
to
use
is
ecosystem,
which
describes
a
large
context
area.
B
A
The
one
thing
that
I
find
confusing
on
this
on
this
graph
is
the
models
column,
because
we
have
models
in
like
each
of
the
focus
areas
and
because
you've
combined
multiple
things
into
the
the
models.
Like
the
you
know,
the
initiatives
app
ecosystem,
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
understanding
how
that
visualization
works.
B
B
So
the
reason
that
a
model
would
belong
to
a
focus
area
and
a
vertical
working
group
is
purely
because
that
working
group
is
the
one
that
did
the
work
on
the
model
and
put
it
into
that
that
focus
area
right.
So
the
a
model
can
have
multiple
metrics
in
it,
and
those
metrics
can
come
from
different
focus
areas
and
they
can
come
from
different
working
groups.
B
B
A
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
include
the
models
kind
of
you
know
as
you
have
them
there
on
the
roads
within
the
focus
areas
that
to
me
makes
sense,
but
then
this
models,
this
model's
column,
doesn't
look
to
me
like
the
models
working
group
work,
and
I
think
maybe
I'm
just
misinterpreting
it,
but
you
know
it
talks
about
like
I
feel
like
this
column
is
trying
to
do
too
many
things
at
once.
I
think
maybe
is
my.
Is
my
feedback,
because
you've
got
that
badging
in
there
you've
got
initiatives.
B
B
C
A
E
B
B
B
E
A
Well,
the
other
thing
you
could
do
is
you
know
when
you've
got
the
the
box
or
the
line
under
measurable
phenomena
phenomena.
I
think
we
could
put
like
a
box
right
above
that,
but
just
like
just
that
area.
That
says
like
software
and
initiatives,
because
those
feel
like
they
cut
across
all
of
the
all
of
the
different
working
groups,
but
they're
not
they're,
not
focus
areas
so
like
a
different
color
and
maybe
smaller
just
over.
You
know
kind
of
scoped
to
the
measurable
phenomena
section.
B
I
think,
similarly,
to
the
knowledge
base,
the
the
software
the
software
is
going
to
it's
the
it's
like
the
45
degree
angle
across
the
matrix
right.
It
connects
everything
together.
So
then
the
knowledge
base
and
the
software,
those
those
those
those
not
the
vertical
or
the
horizontals.
It's
the
those
45
degree
connections
between
which
we,
which
we
don't
want
to
visualize,
because
it
would
really
overly
complicate
everything,
but
it's
the
way
that
it's
the
way
that
we
connect
everything
together
right
from
from
a
user
standpoint,
I.
E
B
A
A
F
F
B
B
The
verticals
are
the
the
working
groups
or
the
the
associations
of
people
that
create
the
artifacts
right,
so
the
models
aren't
just
they.
They
aren't
just
built
by
the
models.
Working
group
models
can
be
built
by
any
of
the
working
groups
as
an
as
a
matter
of
fact,
most
of
the
working
groups
probably
have
some
models.
They've
already
created
that
are
kind
of
that
are
currently
kind
of
listed
as
as
metrics.
E
B
Yep,
oh,
I
would
repeat
the
the
call
for
if
anyone
wants
to
help
edit
this
or
share
their
thoughts
on
the
definitions,
that
would
be
incredibly
helpful
and
then,
regarding
the
this,
this
slide
here,
if
this
is,
if
this
is
the,
if
this
organization
makes
sense,
if
this
image
makes
sense,
we
do
need
to
start
thinking
about
what
focus
areas
could
exist
across
working
groups,
and
maybe
comet
is
the
best
place
to
figure
that
out.
I
don't
know.