►
From YouTube: CHAOSS DEI Working Group May 3 2023
Description
Minutes from this meeting can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MzDk84BL7FfHDxbFxJz39M72V2Hfc5Y6oCPhOl6woxo/edit#
A
A
C
D
A
A
E
B
E
Like
anyway,
that
can
I
mean
it
will
increase,
also
the
level
of
complexity,
what
we
can
also
do
like
using
the
natural
language
processing
techniques
like
topic,
modelings
and
where
we
could
put
these
people
each
person.
Like
a
note,
yeah,
the
number
of
Channel
like
the
vertices,
just
to
show
I
mean
it
will
increase
the
level
of
complexity
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Are
we
really
to
pay
the
price
for
that
to
see
those
kind
of
things?
So
it's
the
kind
of
compromise.
B
D
E
Because
if
we
go
for
the
let's
say
the
the
channels,
if
we
let's-
let
me
just
say,
for
example,
the
the
mailing
list,
even
though
we
are
migrating
out
from
there
I've
just
giving
it
as
an
example.
If,
for
example,
Matt
sent
a
message
to
the
community
requesting
something
or
bringing
up
a
topic,
and
somebody
replies
that
message
then
it
goes
on
and
on
we
could
see
the
number
of
people
based
on
their
email
addresses
that
we
say
like
two.
E
We
could
know
how
many
people
were
involved
in
that
discussion
and
what
they
were
discussing
like
the
main
topic
that
can
we
can
easily
visualize
that
we
can
go
to
slack
to
see
the
number
of
active
participants
who
so
we
could
say
for
the
past.
Let's
say
three
months:
it
might
be.
You
are
in
that
channel,
but
you
have
never
participated
in
any
of
the
communication.
So
no
activity
will,
if
you
are
not,
you
are
not
to
be
an
isolated
note,
so
there
are
a
couple
of
ways
we
can
do
this.
E
Yes,
this
is
also
I
really
like
this
I
commented
on
this.
This
one
is
also
good
to
show
the
different
channels,
because
at
this
point,
if
you
want
to
tell
people
that
we
are
migrating
from
mailing
list
to
a
different
Channel,
when
you
will
look
at
the
volume
of
communication
for
that
channel,
it
might
be
so
scanty
and
then
it
becomes.
It
becomes
evidence-based
that
oh
yeah,
there
is
just
like
a
once
one
kind
of
traffic
going
on
here:
zero
volume.
It
makes
sense
at
that
point,
everybody's
looking
in.
E
E
E
C
E
E
D
E
A
A
E
Okay,
yeah,
then,
just
like
an
aside
for
this
thing.
You
know
there
are
certain
regions
in
the
world
like,
for
example,
the
Great
Walls
of
China.
Some
communication
channels
are
are
not
really
they
are
like
censored,
then
in
Africa
we
also
suffer
this
problem
of
Internet
censorship,
which
affects
Communication
channel
so
sometimes
asynchronous
versus
synchronous.
We
really
need
to
do
some
kind
of
thing,
because
people
used
to
have
this
VPN
to
bypass
all
those
things.
E
If
we
look,
we
are
really
blessed
in
North,
America
and
Western
world,
where
we
have
this
plenty
of
internet
everywhere
and
not
no
censorship
at
all.
It's
not
true
in
a
distributed
system,
so
just
to
keep
in
our
mind
that,
in
terms
of
equity
and
transparency,
sometimes
we
might
accommodate
people
with
difficulties
in
certain
kind
of
communication.
If
we
choose,
let's
say
a
channel,
that
is
like
slack,
people
do
not
respond
immediately.
E
If
you
see
our
our
members
in
Nigeria,
sometimes
they
have
difficulties
connecting
they'll
tell
you.
The
internet
is
not
stable.
I
understand
that,
because
I've
lived
in
those
situations.
So
if
we
see
a
delay
in
communication,
sometimes
I
mean
there
are
things
we
can
just
you
know
understand
where
they
are
coming
from.
A
D
We
could
include
that
I
like
including
just
as
a
note
like
think
about
these
things
here
when
you
were
talking,
are
strong
I
mean
to
the
point.
I
can
think
of
you
know
many
people
who
join
these
Zoom
calls
without
video
drop
off
several
times
throughout
the
call
yes
going
back
in
during
the
call
they're
clearly
on
their
phone,
for
example,.
C
C
C
A
C
A
A
C
C
D
D
A
C
E
E
E
C
D
C
D
D
D
C
D
C
C
C
A
E
B
D
B
D
C
E
D
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
D
C
D
Really
exactly
yep
and
I,
don't
know
how
many
chunks
that
would
be,
but
so
I
really
like
this
and
the
nice
thing
is.
Is
you
can
share
these
in
slack
really
easily,
so
not
even
pin
them
but,
like
you
know,
on
a
two-week
basis
like
that,
could
be
your
Cadence
by
saying
like
to
welcome
everybody
again.
D
D
C
B
D
D
C
D
C
D
D
C
A
B
A
D
C
D
D
That's
me
so
I
have
a
I
put
something
in
the
badging
Channel
this
morning.
I
was
thinking
about
project
batching
and
I
had
a
concern
that
I
would
like
to
talk
through
so
with
respect
to
the
Dei
dot.
Md
file,
I,
don't
have
any
concerns,
so
somebody
puts
that
onto
their
repository.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
they
put
it
in
their
GitHub
repo.
We
scan
for
its
presence
and
then
we
award
a
badge
accordingly.
My
concern
came
with
the
delivery
of
the
report,
and
so
the
concern
came
not
from
the
ability
to
do
it.
B
B
D
There
certainly
is
and
like
the
dei.md
file
doesn't
really
have
to
live
on
that
so
much
that
Assumption
of
trust.
There
is
at
least
a
I
think
less
so
so,
as
an
example
like
would
it
be
possible
for
somebody
to
apply
for
a
badge
against
a
project
that
has
a
Dei
file
that
exists
already
and
then
I
get
the
report
and
I
want
to
use
the
report
as
a
as
a
weapon.
I
want
to
prove
that
this
is
in
fact
toxic
and
that
I
have
been.
B
To
so
in
that,
in
that
specific
case,
the
the
way
that
Enoch
and
I
have
designed
the
badging
processes
you
would.
The
person
who
applies
would
have
to
have
some
kind
of
commit
privileges
on
the
repository.
So
you
couldn't
apply
unless
you
were
able
to
Grant
commit
access
to
the
repository
so
that
we
could
modify
or
read
the
dei.md
file
and
certify
it
so
that
that
assumption
does
exist.
Okay
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
hard
for
a
bad
actor
to
have
that
kind
of
privileged
access.
What
could.
B
A
B
B
When
you,
when
you
submit
the
application,
the
intention,
then,
is
that
the
person
would
be
logged
into
GitHub
and
we
would
have
access
to
their
GitHub
email
address
and
then,
because
of
that,
we
would
be
able
to
send
and
intend
to
send
the
report
directly
to
the
email
associated
with
the
GitHub
account
that
makes
the
application
and
since
that
GitHub
account
has
to
have
access
to
the
repo
at
a
maintainer
level.
There
is
this
I
think
there
is
a
certain
degree
of
insulation.
B
However,
these
are
technical
details
that
Enoch
and
I
have
discussed,
and
we
haven't
discussed
them
in
light
of
they're
really
needing
to
be
this
kind
of
policy
in
place.
So
we
would
this
I
think
it
would
just
create
a
constraint,
not
a
bad
constraint,
just
a
constraint
that,
instead
of
this
being
kind
of
how
we
want
to
do
it
technically,
I
think
it
becomes
the
right
way
to
do
it
in
order
to
preserve
the
Integrity
of
the
process.
The.
B
D
B
D
B
Our
Our
intention
would
probably
be
to
rely
on
the
on
the
GitHub
account
that
makes
the
application
and
and
that
email
only
because
scanning
the
file
creates
the
possibility
of
getting
it
wrong.
It's
it's
much
higher
probability
that
some
way
the
name
is
expressed
in
the
file
will
differ
from
the
way
it's
expressed
on
GitHub.
B
Scanning
the
file
is
like
a
bunch
of
regular
expression,
processing
and
I
think
the
likelihood
that
we
get
that
right
in
each
case
is
much
lower
than
trusting
the
the
GitHub
account,
but
we
can
do
it
like
I
could
mention
it
Enoch
and
we
could
talk
about
it.
Yeah
that
would
make
I'm
not
I'm,
not
saying
no
I'm,
just
like
I.
D
That's
what
I
think
who
helps
work
on
this
doc?
Yes,
it
would
be
whatever
we
have,
those
four
metrics
listed
and
the
things
that
they
are
doing
to
address
those
four
metrics,
and
then
there
will
just
be
a
new
subsection
kind
of
like
our
metrics
yeah.
They
would
say
contributors
and
it
would
just
be
a
list
of
everybody
that
contributed
to
that
file.