CHAOSS DEI Working Group, 9 Jul 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: CHAOSS.D&I.July.8.2020

Description

CHAOSS.D&I.July.8.2020

A

B

Okay, if you have not I, think I'm, probably the only one added our names to the attendees list. That would be great and the first order of business is to find a facilitator for the next meeting. So who wants to do that.

B

B

So match now: okay- and really it looks like the only thing we have on the agenda- is to talk about the badging program. So yeah. Let's talk about badging program.

C

Also, we have some news so I'll. Let you talk about that. First.

D

Okay, so I think all of them were on the community colleges today. So everyone knows about the pilot testing. These. Could you but I'll just write it here.

C

So I can say: well you write that we are very scheduled from Friday to Monday of this week to next week, yeah. So it's it's! Oh it's Monday through Friday of next week, so we gave ourselves a little more time to to get those reviews in.

D

Okay, so there are definitely two new things under the DNI badging hitting.

D

C

I put those there I just wanted to talk a little bit about the release cycle, so we have kind of right now. The way we figured it out is the documentation was not updated for quite a while and github repositories and I think a release cycle kind of like what the chaos metrics would help kind of unify and, and we come out with new documentation that, in like lumps at a time, I want to talk a little bit about what we wanted. What kind of distance the time we wanted that cycle to be on it?

C

Maybe you could coincide with the chaos metrics release, so maybe be a kind of in the middle of that metrics release. We do also a release cycle for badging I wanted to get opinions on that.

C

What is the question about release? So so we want to have releases of the badging documentation so that people aren't referring to things that like if we change something one day the day before someone has something today after someone has something different and we want to be able to tell people. This is when we change your documentation and push things up from our Forks and things like that so documentation that would like change the way the process is described or.

E

C

Only that, but but changes in process and workflow yeah, but also just the ways that things are worded in the documentation, I think would be, would have to be put into a release as well, but I don't know, that's why we brought it here because we have.

C

We have some questions about it. Yeah.

E

I mean I would say that anything, that's minor, so grammatical I mean those can just be taken care of on the fly. If there's a fundamental shift in how the process works, then I would think you'd want to get that out there sooner rather than later, waiting for, like a because it's possible that you could wait to five months and 29 days to actually.

D

Get a documentation.

E

Up so I don't know, I would suggest that as documentation changes, the new applicants are just subject to that new documentation. Okay, that's my thought. Okay,.

C

So we'd have to add a disclaimer for that, in that case tell people that somewhere I don't.

E

See I mean I could be wrong. I, don't see any big fundamental shifts in process occurring.

C

E

We've thought through the process pretty well. We.

C

Have at this point, but between probably May and now we had a lot of changes and they hadn't been reflected in their repository. Yet it's more of a it's more of like a reminder that we need to push things back up to github I want to point or another, because a lot of our documentation was living on Google, Docs and hack indeed, and it wasn't making its way back up, which is that's it's just more of a conformance thing. Really: okay,.

E

So maybe it's just to put pressure on yourself, yeah.

F

Sure, that's nothing! It's back!.

E

Into the repo yeah.

C

And the other one was something: we've had a question about a lot, which is badge validity. We we're looking at this like I, think it was a Terms & Conditions document that had mentioned a one-year release cycle, so I've been kind of sticking to the are not really a cycle but a validity period and what you have to reapply and I think that's a good idea in general, but I wanted to bring it to the community here and talk about. One is one year a good amount of time, and that's really the question there. Okay,.

E

So just like so for events, obviously this isn't applicable, because events are a one time yeah. So from a project badging perspective, I think a year seems reasonable, like from a volume perspective, it would seem like anything less than a year might get kind of burdensome. You know just from a like from your perspective, yeah.

F

E

Running the process and anything over a year, I, don't know a lot changes yeah. If it was two years there's a lot of stuff, they could go down so.

C

Honestly, the hope is that we see people upgrading their badges within that period of validity.

F

C

Of downgrading, but it's it's for both ways.

E

Yeah I think a years seems totally reasonable, at least as a first first try. Okay,.

C

Sounds good well, I! Don't put that I, don't.

E

Know if other people have thoughts.

C

You put that onto the mailing list. You I'm not sure that's I.

G

I, like the idea of reviewing it yearly, just to make sure it's current as we get started, especially I, think your Lea is good to make sure as we're making changes, they're reflected in everyone's badge. Okay, yeah.

C

We will have probably a lot of changes in the next year. I would I.

E

Would also guess that you will probably have a different process by which renewal occurs than you do for initial application, and that process could be sorted out while we, while the Year approaches, yeah.

C

You know: okay, make sense me I.

B

Have two two questions about that? The first one is, do you first see, and this is to the group: do you first see that the requirements will be changing like?

B

Will we kind of change our minds on on how we classify things or do you think that this is pretty well set in stone so that you know I'm just kind of wondering how that will go? If, if someone gets a badge on the 2020 requirements and then 2021 rolls around and we like kind of review, what we're requiring people to do or to show then do we have to have everybody renew again like when we, if we change those requirements or is it like a one and done these?

B

Are the requirements, and maybe five years from now, we'll look at them again, but you know what I mean so like it's.

F

What's badging.

B

Well, we have to say they badged on the these set of requirements that were in place at that time. I see.

E

It's yeah it's kind of like when we accept students into a ph.d program. They live under the handbook by which they were admitted, and if the handbook changes they can opt to change handbooks, the student can or they can choose to stay with the handbook under which they were admitted, see them saying, I. Think.

B

E

Think that's your question. Yeah.

B

Essentially, yeah yeah, essentially.

E

Admitted under a certain set of rules, and if we keep changing the rules, then do they have to keep right engine with us exactly and.

A

E

Expect so it's a fair point and then I do expect the badging requirements to change over time, because when the DNI working group releases new metrics, say under event, DNI the badging program will accommodate those changes, because it's a now a more robust look at how we understand DNI at an event or within a project. So so I do expect it to change just to keep in sync with the release of metrics.

E

So so, yes, they will change and then.

E

Maybe we do what we do like in the ph.d program, which is you can stay under the rules under which you apply for some period of time, like you're, saying for like five years, you can't do it forever.

E

You can also choose to roll forward if you'd like.

C

You know so that sounds like a good opportunity to keep repository snapshot sound like a yearly basis or something like that. Just say these are the rules that they followed at that time. They.

E

Can subscribe to channel yeah? The challenge is gonna, be that like, if I submit a an event project badge right now and we only have five metrics and I get a gold, and then four years from now, Georg submits an event that has like fifteen metrics and he gets a gold.

E

Alright, they both look gold to me I.

C

Think the review would have to the new every time someone submits a new project within their period of validity. We'd have to test them on those new metrics, the new set of things that we test them on at whatever it is at that point. So when they submit.

E

A review they automatically go under the they.

C

Move up to the latest version, I think.

G

That is fair to say: every review has the current set of rules, and but you keep your badge for the duration of the validity, so keeping track of which rules someone falls under for the review. I think is too much overhead.

C

So it also gives us a good opportunity. It gives on projects and events a good opportunity to get a badge early on, like an incentive. I guess.

C

E

B

Gonna get harder right, Yeah.

E

Right, so we could almost put that as a disclaimer when somebody's applying say, listen, you're going under an application for this year under these metrics. Just so you know, if you plan on renewing this for your project in a year, it's quite likely the the bar is gonna, be a little bit higher.

E

You can go down in bad, you can go from gold, the silver or you can just try to work a little bit harder, yeah I think that's fine, I think a disclaimer would be fair. It's basically saying you're gonna have, as if you plan on reviewing or doing a review in a year, it's quite likely that the bar will have shifted and you're gonna have to be attentive to that bar and.

B

Then I did have another question I'm. So sorry, my other question was that will people be able to show the historical context around their badges? So if they got one this year, will they keep that kind of on their list or on their? You know, whatever on the repo or whatever, so that you could see like? Oh this person's been badged for five years. You know and every.

C

Time, someone pens to up to a list to the list the way it's built right now, at least though it and it will be automated later, but the way so on depends to a list right now.

C

They just add the project and the date and then and then that and then the badge level gets added by the reviewer or the system with reviewers, so I think that can be appended to every time we had we'd give a match to any of anyone like and it could be a long list and it may have to be organized later, but that's the hopeful so.

B

Even though a badge has technically expired, it would still show up that at one point, this project was badged and they've been badged every year for five years.

C

Expiration date, column two or we will be adding one, it's an experimental right now, but that would make sense because.

B

I think that would be something else to to maybe promote that. You know you get in on the ground level, and then you know five years from now your projects already been in the system. It's already like shown that we were we've been gold for five years. You know and someone new might be, you know I'm saying they might they.

F

B

That a little bit more than just like hey, we just got this new badge. I, don't know so.

E

In terms of my bad analogies so I, maybe it's like um I'm guessing you have like a best of Cincinnati like we have a best of Omaha, which.

F

Is like restaurants,.

E

And you it's, you, have this best of Omaha thing and then you kind of upend the years that you were on the best of Omaha list. So you can see that the company has.

G

E

There, since 1979 you're.

G

Like alright they're, probably doing a pretty good job.

E

D

E

Go ahead, hasta, sorry, a.

D

Little like maybe the tables can be like the badges from one year can be put in a separate file, and the subsequent years can come into this. Specifying.

C

That makes sense we could have some kind of organization by year by project, by kind of any kind of area like that we can even almost just have a front-facing list of projects, and then you can see all their old badges bite when you look in there. Something like that. But that's.

E

What I'm thinking like a front-facing list, where we not only categorize things that people could do a look up, but then we probably also want the image the badge image to be able to have years appended to it like, even if it's just hanging down below or something like that. Okay.

C

E

F

C

The next foundation wanted us to do some sort of bigger badge. I would work with the bigger bad. You think you can better yeah.

E

So I mean, as we start getting, we can kind of loop them back in I haven't talked to them for a while. Just because you.

C

E

On yeah, but we can get some imagery from them and make it explicit that we would like the ability to show the year. The badge was received and.

C

If they can build it for us, that's even better. They.

E

Can they they see yeah well, cuz I think they had build the other built, the other badges for like CII and I. Think open chain is having some conformance badges as well, so it should be pretty straightforward, I'm guessing it's kind of a stock look yeah.

D

E

C

Okay, I want to put conformance documents in here.

E

It might be a mystery, a mystery online either. So the thing that's kind of coming from this discussion is that there's a process I think there's a couple processes. So one is the process. That is an initial application which I think you and hasta have been spending a lot of time on. There's then gonna be the process that is a renewal or review a year down the road and then I think there's, there's probably gonna need to be a process of kind of managing the information of approved projects and approved events.

E

So like once once a badge has been awarded, then what so? What.

F

E

With that information like, where does it go, how do we make sure people can see it? How do we that kind of stuff, okay and.

C

Something solid brought to the table is, there's a way of making it so that only certain domains can host a batch, which I think is a really good idea, but don't know how to implement it. What does that mean so like speaking of where to use the badge where the badge can be put I think I might have trailed off on that, but basically the we were talking about early on. We were talking about.

C

If you take a badge that says gold, you can just use that SVD like anywhere, but if we share that in a way that it's domain-specific it refers to our website or something and then and then and then only if it's a certain domain, it will post that badge stuff like that, but I had to keep people from using the badges on their own without getting the vege, but it might have been a tangent based on what you were saying.

E

No I I get the point. It's super hard right, so we could. We could either trust people in cybersecurity. That's.

B

C

The idea anyone.

E

It just it if it's an easy solution to engineer than fine I, just it sounds like I could get pretty tricky like I mean I can just take a screenshot of anything and put.

C

E

C

Think I think Trust is the best option to you. It's something that if the Linux Foundation can do, then we can do it, but I think otherwise. I would not put the time into it. Myself, I think.

G

People would start getting into the kind of system that they built for the CIO best practice badge where the badge is loaded dynamically from the website, and then you can click on it to go directly to the entry for that project and if the status changes then the image that is being pulled changes, and so it doesn't matter where the badge is being displayed.

G

What matters is that the project that is linked to maintains its badge, that's.

E

A good idea, so in that case, if somebody just took a screenshot of the badge and put it on their site, it obviously would have no link I mean it would still appear there and there's not much. The CIA I can do about that. I think.

G

Because we have the trademark, we can ask them to remove it, and so that is part of what we are working with a lawyer on the conformance policy. Okay,.

E

With Steve and.

G

So the way to display the badge is by having that dynamic link and the dynamic image that is served directly from our platform, and if they do anything else, then, and we find out about it, you.

E

G

Ask them to remove it, but I think that is too much overhead at this point and we should focus on the process just.

E

B

Does the batch show the name of the project or event in it, because I.

A

B

Think, like okay I, think.

E

To garrix point it links to the entry, no.

B

I meant, like are the one that we were gonna do no.

E

Okay, it was just gonna, say: Kaos, DNI, Gold, okay, that's it!

E

So then that would be to garrix point I'm. Maybe it's just easiest to talk to folks at the LF as to how they set that up logistically and like what an entry looks like at CI. I this.

C

Makes me wonder if we want to have some kind of badging link, or at least to the repo on casts that community website have anything right now? What do you mean? um So if you have well I know chaos that community. They have a lot of headings right now and a lot of things under those headings that drop down. But if we have something for badging I, don't know, that's just something I wanted to campaign for for a while, but is.

G

There a website for the badging, no.

C

We want to have one eventually, but I, just think to link to the repo at this point, but at the same time we were eventually gonna need a front-end that we can that people can fill out the form for and instead of doing on, github.

C

E

C

A pull request, so maybe we're.

E

Waiting for that.

C

Site to go up yeah.

E

Once it's ready for primetime I think that's a no-brainer to include a path web page yep.

G

E

So I met. Did you have a Rasta? Do you have other stuff on this because I had a thing too, on badging.

E

I'm good so I'm going to share I'm going to go back to the conformance documents.

E

So I know, Bjork has obviously seen these and Elizabeth.

F

I, don't actually.

E

Think you've seen these ever.

E

So we as part of the badging program we've had conversations to a Steve Winslow who's, he's a lawyer at the Linux Foundation about setting up the badging program, which he calls a conformance program. But setting up the badging program at the Linux.

F

Foundation I mean.

E

That's because we're in our life project kind of what goes into doing that if we're gonna, actually certify we're gonna start our certifying projects and events. The LF was like. We need to make sure we're doing this kind of properly.

E

So the documents that you have here are kind of, I, wouldn't say boilerplate, because they've been tailored a bit but they're a bit boilerplate in terms of, but I think our other conformance documents that the LF has used with CII and maybe open chain, and so the idea here is that we need as part of the process. We need to make sure this information. First of all that that these two documents read the way that they're supposed to read in relation to the Kaos badging process.

E

So, for example, if you take a look at the chaotic, informant participation form.

E

You see three then I here I'll share my screen.

E

So, for example, this the participant confirms that it has submitted or will submit to the Ally for its designee, which is us the required self certification document and our test results so I mean some of these are like the test results, meaning that you had written a piece of code and you've submitted it against a test, a unit test, and it passed the unit test, and you submit the results that you got a pass so like, for example, this is not applicable to us because we're not asking people to write code and it's a minute against a test.

E

So we do need to start going through these documents a little bit so that they read in accordance to the process that Matt and hasta have been putting together and one of the reasons we were waiting to make. Some of these changes.

F

E

We didn't want to make the changes and then the badging program processes we're.

F

E

Out and then we just have to go back in and change this document later, so we're kind of you know it's like the.

E

What comes first is chicken or egg kind of thing, so we were just kind of waiting for the process to come to fruition. So we do need to go back through these two documents here and just kind of make sure they read the way that we want them to read for the badging program or for the badging process. We do then need to make them. This is format and hasta make these documents available as part of the review process.

E

You know that I'm I agree that I'm participating in this program I agree that what I tell you it's true.

D

E

That you know I'll be faithful to the use of the watermarks to garrix point or the images and all that kind of stuff, and that they essentially sign off on this when they submit their PR. So we had talked to Steve that we didn't want people to actually fill out of this document, sign it and send it in when they're trying to get a badge that a PR would serve as agreement to this. So we need to think about one how these documents are written best for the Kaos badging program.

E

Now that I think it's at the point that it is about ready to go, live and then to how we make sure that these documents are observable to people who are applying for a badge. So it may be something when they submit a PR. A bot needs to come back and say: hey. Please take a look at the conformance documents. These are things that you have to agree to and issuing this pull request and something along those lines.

E

So does that make sense and I don't mat you've known about these documents for a while.

C

Make sense to me.

B

Matt gee, how much leeway do does our group have to make changes as.

E

Much as we would like as long as Steve approves it. Okay.

B

Okay, like cuz, it seems like it's pretty, you know airtight and if we just sort of like no I, don't like that part, take it out, you know like is that okay, like do they care, or they.

E

Will care about whole parts being removed? Okay, but.

B

We don't have to like call our program that conformance like we can. No, yes,.

E

Exactly I got from and then it'd be things like removing the unit or the testing. Why just those kind of things and then I would suggest as we finalize these changes, we can reconnect with Steve at the LF and just say: hey, here's kind of where we're at and here's how we propose to include access to these documents for applicants.

C

Should I should I be sharing these documents in the meeting minutes? Is that fine, so I can work on them later, yeah.

E

C

That's totally fine I just want to make sure yeah.

E

And so hasta I know that you have been writing BOTS as part of the application process, it's probably worth, including in those BOTS. You know like thank you for your submission. You could just sample like just print these two office PDFs and have them on the repo. Let's say here to PDF documents that describe the program by submitting the PRU something along those lines.

D

The board already gives links to the important guidelines.

D

E

Perfect great and we can just work out the details that say things like when you submit the PR, because these documents don't say it. But by submitting the PR, you agree to say the terms and conditions of the conformance program.

E

For matching program.

E

And then and then we're kind of I think legally covered or why we would need, but we're legally covered for some odd reason in this program. So basically we've done our due diligence with the LF. We've been open and upfront and we'd like to issue badges and we've been given the okay.

C

I, don't think I'll ever understand legal, but that sounds great. So just do what you're told exactly.

C

We have one more item in here right at the bottom. Sorry I'm not facilitating.

B

No, that's: okay, cuz I lost the tab so again with the tabs. I really need to get better at that ya know. So we want to what's left release. Update address feedback. Is that what we need to still talk about? Yeah.

G

I added that, because we are in the review period, and so all the working groups should have an item on their agenda to see if there have been any feedback on the metrics that they are currently having under review and to address any feedback that comes in and that that's what this is about.

B

Yeah that makes total sense.

F

Money anything each I.

B

Did not hear that to anyone else, I.

G

Couldn't understand Lauren, could you repeat that again, please.

F

I had a small note like this DNA patching is only for the project in the event, a as also.

F

Or do we going to apply for the recognized education.

C

I'm sorry I couldn't hear I couldn't tell you saying how do you think you might be a vertebra.

E

C

Was you know, I imagine only fermenting project? Yes, it is at the moment yeah.

B

Okay, so do we want to take this time to look at those? They look at the feedback on the metrics so far, yeah.

E

You're in the chat.

G

It looks like Armstrong reviewed the metrics and provides some good feedback and the documentation usability here. I'll share my screen, so we're all. On the same page, oh good,.

G

So, on documentation, usability Armstrong, said, looks good to me. I gave a nice reaction, so I, don't think, there's anything else. We need to do on the other release candidate, metrics issue label, inclusivity.

G

Armstrong said this metric seems too broad. Is it capturing how a particular project is inclusive and then Matt just replied as it's working to capture if the labels it is work to capture if the labels associated with issues can be used to improve inclusiveness of the project, so I think that is sufficient. The answered thank you Matt mm-hmm, and then we have inclusive leadership where Armstrong asks overall I think this metric is about most importance. However, I have one concern on the inclusive leadership cycle: six structured principles: surface.

G

That checklist are those related to the six listings below, moreover, I don't know if there are sequential steps. For example, you must start from step one and step two is that right, clockwise I think it's important to know the flow of things.

G

So, let's review the metric.

G

So this circle does not show any directionality.

E

G

I think he's referring to this. The first step is to understand the principles of inclusive leadership. By asking some questions, this is structured in six principles which serve as a checklist I, don't.

C

See the connection between the inclusive leadership cycle picture and the six points I don't see a direct connection between them, where they might be out of order.

G

Review renewal as step for distribution of leaders, yeah you're right I- think we may have renamed the categories.

C

The categories and they were there- were questions and then I, just when I went through the questions and turn them into statements. I just took the most important parts of the sentences. So as a project, there is a system there for reviewing and renewing leadership roles and then I just turned it in the review and renewal, because that was the most important part of it. That I could turn into a statement.

G

So maybe just remove this figure altogether. Yes,.

C

Also, I think the other point he had was that the that Sena and like there's a number before each point in this, so you in renewest rebuke, is accountability. He was asking like. Is this I think he was asking? Is this a sequential thing, or is it just that they're numbered by section that isn't specified either I propose.

G

To remove the numbers and to remove the faker in response to Armstrong's I think.

E

Removing the figure will actually address two of his concerns. Yeah.

B

Cause it says cycle so you're expecting it to be sequential and go around, but yeah yeah.

E

And then those the gears working on now did map to the figure yep.

B

G

I'm, removing the numbers as well yeah.

C

A

You know live coding.

E

Something exciting I think.

G

It's called pair coding.

G

G

Oh I did not create the DCO sign off because I just reinstalled Firefox no I.

B

Was just gonna say that I that has bit me like I, don't know how many times like four times: okay,.

G

I'm gonna stop sharing my screen fix that okay.

F

G

Can all move on I.

B

Think that was the last one to review so I think that were we're finished.

G

B

Has anything else crossing I.

H

Just wanted to use the time just to introduce myself, I, say Cho and Layton. It's my first time joining the meeting, because I always have a conflict. So I was.

H

I have a regular meeting I'll try to join as soon as I can. So, if you don't mind.

B

No, we don't mind at all we're glad that you're here, thank you for coming.

E

They didn't see you on that call yesterday as well I'm. The community call so yeah right thanks for joining yeah.

B

There's also a mailing list to, if you're, not on that, which I think is pretty light, but yeah I think.

H

I I subscribe to it, but I'll check again: Thanks thanks. Everyone thanks.

E

Nice to have you all.

B

Right I think that's it then I'm gonna stop recording and yeah. Everybody have a great day. Likewise,.

E

See you later talk to y'all soon.