►
From YouTube: CHAOSS DEI Working Group Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
So
welcome
to
the
april
21st
dei
ksdei
worker
meeting
the
minutes
are
in
the
check.
So
if
you
could
add
yourself,
that
would
be
awesome.
A
A
couple
things
here
today
that
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
get
some
feedback
or
just
some
thoughts
on
people.
So
I
have
been
kind
of
as
a
action
item
from
last
week
to
kind
of
go
work
group
by
work
group
to
take
a
look
at
particularly
some
of
the
older
metrics
that
we
have
because
it
actually,
some
of
them,
I
think,
were
actually
released
under
the
under
an
old
template
that
hasn't
been
updated
fully
or,
as
I
mentioned
last
time,
you
know.
A
Sometimes
you
write
something
and
it
makes
sense
at
the
time
and
then
you
read
it
six
months
later
and
it
doesn't
make
a
ton
of
sense.
You
know
you
get
away
from
it
a
little
bit.
You
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
talk
your
way
through
a
narrative
and
so
just
reading.
The
text
is
a
little
bit
tricky.
A
A
We're
often
asking
questions
around
gender
identity
or
rate,
that's
ethnicity,
disability,
and
this
metric,
as
it
was,
seemed
to
have
two
things.
One
was
asking
questions
around
those
particular
items,
but
it
was
also
asking
questions
around.
B
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
that.
I
think
I
remember
I
remember
when
we
worked
on
this
this
metric,
but
I
don't
think
I
I
didn't
really
think
about
it
at
the
time
and
I
think
you're
I
think
you're
right,
I
think
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
what
we
would
call
the
other
metric,
but
I
don't
think
it's.
I
don't
think
it's
part
of
the
demographics.
A
Okay,
elizabeth,
although.
B
C
A
So
the
original
question
was
the
current
form
of
the
attendee
demographics
metric
kind
of
has
what
feels
like
two
parts
to
me.
One
is
asking
attendees
particular
demographic
questions
and
then
here
in
the
data
collection
strategies,
we
were
also
asking
people
like:
did
the
event
meet
your
dei
expectations.
C
C
I
agree
and
actually
that
kind
of
was
the
comment
I
was
making
above
kind.
I
I
mean
if
you
scroll
up
to
the
top,
I
I
suggest.
Oh
it
didn't
show
up
there.
C
C
A
Okay,
so.
A
I
okay
cool
sounds
like
we're
getting
some
agreement
here.
I'll
recommend
that
I
I
I'll
take
a
look
at
what
you
suggested
elizabeth,
but
what
you
just
described
makes
sense
and
then
pulling
this
out
the
questions
about
dei
like
feelings,
about
dei
from
the
attendees,
perhaps
into
a
different
metric
and
matt.
Would
this
help
you
on
the
badging
too,
because
then
attendee
demographics
really
just
be
becomes
about
asking
opt-in
questions
about
demographics?
A
E
A
A
E
C
So
if
we,
if
we
break
out
the
the
inclusivity
part
or
the
like,
how
do
you
feel
questions
would
it
would
it
be
something
like
an
experience
metric
like
an
attendee
experience
or
something
like
that,
yeah.
A
A
C
E
E
And
then
just
and
then
you
can
point
everything
for
events
that
are
related
to
demographics
at
this
demographics
metric
or
you
could
point
it
at
if
you're
looking
at
the
the
project
in
general,
you
could
point
it
at
demographics.
That
way,
I
think,
there's
I
think,
there's
a
little
too
much
specificity
in
in
saying
attendee.
Demographics
versus
demographics,
because
the
it's
gonna
basically
be
the
same
thing.
C
E
A
A
Registration
is
where
demographic
questions
get
asked.
So,
to
your
point,
kevin
like
we
have
two
metrics
that
are
basically
doing
not
even
basically
they're
doing
the
exact
same
thing
at
the
moment.
One
is
focused
on
attendees
and
one
is
focused
on
speakers
and
there
may
not
be
any
value
in
separating.
E
And
at
some
point
we
may
do
a
project
inclusivity
or
project
diversity
metric
where,
where
we
would
need
to
be
able
to
point
at
demographics
again,.
C
Yeah,
I
think
we
kind
of
touch
on
this
in
project
leadership
like
we
ask
you
know
how
diverse
is
the
project,
leadership
or
or
those
in
rules
of
influence.
So
I
mean
there
is
something
to
be
said
for
having
one
central
demographic
metric
and
then
it's
you
know
whatever
lens
you
want
to
look
at
it
like
whatever
segment
of
whatever
you're
looking
at.
You
would
apply
that
demographic,
but
I
don't.
C
E
I
think
the
like
the
data
collection
are
just
strategies
right,
so
they're
not
they're,
not
completely
linked
to
the
metrics
definition.
E
The
the
metrics
definition
is
probably
the
important
part
that
could
carry
over
and
then
collection
strategies
can
be
different.
Based
on
the
the.
A
That,
as
a
first
step,
maybe
I
could
take
speaker
demographics
like
event
speaker,
demographics
and
event,
attendee
demographics
and
draw
those
together
into
a
single
metric
called
event,
demographics
for
the
time
being
and
with
maybe
a
longer
horizon
where
we
start
thinking
about
demographics,
more
broadly
like
within
a
community,
but
this
would,
I
think
this
would
move
us
forward
in
the
right
direction
kevin
without
maybe
going
too
far.
How
does
that
work?
For
you.
A
Cool
all
right,
all
right
cool.
Thank
you
good
conversation,
the
next
one
that
I
took
a
look
at
was
inclusive
leadership.
A
C
A
Okay,
so
I'll
share
my
screen
here.
This
one
came
up
last
time
this
this
one,
this
one
kind
of
like
this
whole
idea
came
when
we
were
developing
the
health
short
stories.
That's
what
I'm
calling
them
now
and
I
was
trying
to
include
some
metrics
and
I
was
reading
this
one
really
was
problematic
to
me.
A
So
so
this
metric
a
little
like
attendee
demographics,
was
doing
two
things
to
me:
we're
kind
of
signaling,
two
things
one
was
allowing
communities
to,
and
I
put
them
in
the
objectives
allowing
communities
to
reflect
on
their
own
leadership
practices,
so
how
a
community
can
think
about
inclusive
leadership
kind
of
within
their
project,
but
we
didn't
have
that
as
an
objective.
What
we
had
as
our
objective
was
to
signal
to
external
folks
that
this
community
is
provides
an
opportunity
to
be
successful
and
take
on
leadership
roles
within
the
community.
A
A
If
you
see
on
the
left,
there
signal
the
newcomers
that
everyone
is
welcome,
but
if
I,
if
you
scroll
down
on
the
metric
itself,
it's
it's
really
a
lot
about
kind
of
actions
that
can
be
taken.
This
doesn't
show
at
all,
but
like
understanding,
inclusive
leadership
within
your
community.
Let
me
back
out
here:
well,
it's
about
understanding
it's
about
kind
of
reflecting
and
it's
about
implementing.
A
D
I
really
like
the
change
from
specific
examples
of
people
who
are
leaders
to
more
the
broad
definition
of
like
people
in
this
type
of
role
as
a
leader,
people
with
merge
access,
it's
a
lot
more
inclusive,
I
guess
is
the
best
word
for
it
to.
D
A
A
A
C
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
the
way
the
question
reads
about.
C
We're
asking
how
well
is
a
project
or
community
set
up
for
diverse
leadership,
but
then
the
metric
is
inclusive
leadership
and
I
think
those
two
things
aren't
quite
the
same,
and
I
I'm
not
sure
how
to
kind
of
reconcile
that,
because
I
know
that
they're
obviously
related.
But
I
don't
know
if
if
it
means
that
we
need
two
separate
metrics
around
them
or
if
we
just
need
to
be
a
little
more
consistent
in
our
language.
I'm
not
sure
I'd
like
to
hear
what
others
think
about.
B
B
I
tend
to
think
about
the
two
very
differently,
like
I
tend
to
think
about
inclusive,
as
you
know,
like
you
know,
you're
welcoming
people,
you're
sponsoring
people,
you're
pulling
people
into
leadership
positions
from
from
diverse
backgrounds
and
then,
as
a
result,
you
end
up
with
with
diverse
leadership
as
a
part
of
that
those
inclusive
activities,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
to
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
write
that
into
the
metric.
But
I
think
that
makes
a
good
point.
Elizabeth.
A
E
A
Totally
agree
with
you,
and
I
totally
agree
with
you
too
don.
I
do
see
them
as
two
different
things
and
I
do
I.
I
think
we
kind
of
confound
these
terms,
often
in
our
metrics,
to
not
to
our
benefit
at
all.
A
A
C
I
find
it
I'm
curious
that
we
we
offer
the
steps.
I
don't
haven't
seen
that
before
in
other
metrics
I
know
I'm
newish,
but
especially
like
the
step
three.
I
it
just
seems
different
than.
B
A
A
You
know
we
have
data
collection
strategies,
we
could
say
things
like
sample
questions
include,
you
know
what
I
mean
and
just
kind
of
bring
it
together.
We
do
that
a
lot
like
here's,
a
sample
survey
item
that
you
could
use.
Here's
a
sample
interview,
question
that
you
could
use
here's
some
sample,
reflective
questions
that
you
could
use,
so
we
can
bring
it
together
a
little
bit
more.
D
A
Don
is
correct,
I
mean
this
was
one
of
the
first
metrics
we
put
together
and
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
you
remember
matt
or
kevin.
You
remember.
I
think
our
first
sets
of
metrics.
They
had
a
tendency
of
being
pretty
like
detailed,
and
I
think
we've
gotten
away
from
that
in
a
good
way
to
just
say:
here's
a
metric,
here's
something
here's
how
it
can
be
defined.
Here's
why
it's
useful
here
are
some
ways
that
you
can
kind
of
explore
this
metric
end
of
story.
So
I
think
that's
been
better
for
us
and
moving
forward.
A
E
I
will
say
for
for
a
lot
of
the
dna
metrics.
I
think
the
implementation
sections
are
larger
because
there's
often
not
software
associated
with
it,
that's
right.
The
other.
The
other
working
groups
have
the
benefit
of
easily
easily
captured
metrics
through
auger
and
gremore
lab
right.
C
E
A
D
Would
do
like
the
the
auger
code
what
to
put
in
the
database
all
that
stuff
yeah.
C
A
B
A
Next
thing
I'm
guessing
this
is
yash.
You
want
to
talk
about
yes,
standard
structure.
F
F
A
I
do
the
one
and
it's
not
I
wonder,
about
contributors,
probably
the
most,
not
for
not
for
the
structure
that
you
provide,
but
I
just
wonder
out
loud
about
us
tracking
contributors
in
a
readme
file.
It's
the
most
dynamic
part
of
the
list
that
you
have,
because
I
think
things
like
intro
participate
contributing.
You
know.
Metrics
will
change
a
little
bit,
but
the
rest
of
them
are
pretty
stable
components
of
a
readme.
E
I
would
link
out
to
the
the
handbook
and
create
the
the
contributing
section
there
if
it's
not
already
there-
and
I
believe
there
is
some
stuff-
that's
already.
E
There
and
the
same
thing
with
the
participate
I
might
link
to
the
I
might
actually
link
to
the
website
participate
page
because
that's
the
that's
kind
of
the
definitive
place
for
that.
D
So
history
also
history
has
shown
that
that
we've
had
people
that
have
been
wanting
to
contribute
and
go
to
the
participate
page
on
the
website,
and
they
have
trouble
finding
out
how
to
participate
from
that
page.
So
it
might,
we
might
just
be
able
to
provide
some
guidance
that
is
working
very
specific
on
like
what
you
can
do
to
participate
and
then
link
out
to
the
page
if
they
have
any
other
questions.
E
D
E
Fair,
I
would
say
the
the
issues
with
the
participate
page
are
not
necessarily
with
people
having
trouble
participating
with
the
working
groups.
The
primary
issue
is
that
they
are
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
participate
with
auger
and
gremore
lab
and
they're,
not
getting
the
information
they
need.
There.
D
A
I'm
a
little
with
kevin
that
like
right
now
we
have
our
participate
information,
for
example
on
the
dei
working
group.
We
have
that
information
on
the
participate
page
and
we
have
that
information
in
this
document
right
here
right
at
the
top
and
if
we
have
it
in
the
readme
too,
it's
just
a
third
place
that
we
have
to
track
it.
A
E
Little
bit
that
stuff
gets,
it
becomes
out
of
out
of
alignment
pretty
fast
when
you
have
it
in
multiple.
A
E
E
Maybe
the
maybe
the
the
agenda
document
itself
is
the
best
place
to
point
to
this.
B
E
A
E
F
F
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
Yeah
yep
exactly
yeah,
and
I
would
say
that
page
needs
to
be
in
the
handbook
and
the
same
for
each
working
group
unless
there's
a
very
specific
difference
for
the
working
group
and
then
and
we
point
to
it
in
the
readme.
So
we'd
actually
be
able
to
remove
contributing
from
the
working
group
repositories
and
we're
just
capturing
that
contributing
document
in
the
governance,
repo
and
the
handbook.
E
Yeah,
so
any
any
document
that
needs
to
be
recreated
across
working
groups
like
the
license
or
the
contributing
or
the
code
of
conduct.
Those
things
should
all
be
kept
in
a
central
repository
and
we
just
point
to
them
so
they're
just
being
changed
in
one
place.
That
would
be
the
the
idea.
C
E
Some
documentation
in
the
governance
repo
itself
as
well,
that
is
more
explicit,
but
every
time
every
time
I
need
to
give
someone
someone
directions
on
that.
I
do
actually
have
to
go
and
search
for
that
document,
because
I'm
not
exactly
sure
where
it's
at.
A
E
C
C
Oh,
I
just
went
to
the
main
main
link
here
and
it's
on
the
table
of
contents
on
the
left,
so
I
can
drop
it
yeah.
D
E
We
could
probably
use
a
little
attention
on
the
handbook
as
well,
so
did
it.
They
did
a
really
nice
job,
putting
it
together,
but
it
probably
needs
some
tweaking
and
optimizing
right.
No
joshua.
B
C
E
Yeah,
I
I
agree,
and
as
part
as
as
part
of
the
standardization,
the
the
website,
repo
itself
will
use
this
this
same
structure
to
to
point
to
it.
Once
once
we
have
once
we
have
a
structure
to
point
to
so,
but
but
yeah
you're
right.
I
I
should
definitely
add
a
add
that
information
to
the
participate
page.
F
A
F
A
F
E
E
E
E
If
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
people
were
being
identified
so,
but
as
far
as
I
know,
that's
the
only
place,
we're
capturing
contrib,
a
contributor
list.
E
Oh
yeah,
I'm
sorry
and
I
navigated
away
from
that
page.
E
Right
now
I
know,
george
is,
and
I
believe
you
are
by
default
because
you're
an.
A
E
And
auric
maintenance
yep,
so
all
of
those
all
of
the
org
maintainers,
so
probably
otherwise,
nicole
nicole
houston.
No,
it's.
E
Yeah
yeah
and
technically
I'm
an
org
admin,
so
I
would
be
an
a
maintainer
there
as
well.
However,
I
do
not
consider
myself
a
dni
maintainer.
A
E
Maybe
we
just
add:
maybe
we
just
have
like
two
people
that
are
the
contact.
People
die
like
that
better,
so
to
contact
these
two
people
for
whatever
you
need
for
questions,
yeah.
E
Better
and
that's
easier
to
that
can
rotate
too
right.
We
can
swap,
we
can
swap
those
people
out
and
right
and
then
we
don't.