►
From YouTube: CHAOSS DEI Working Group 10-6-21
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
All
right
welcome
to
the
october
6
2021
dei
meeting
elizabeth
is
not
facilitating
today.
B
A
A
Before
we
get
going,
would
there
be
any
volunteers
to
facilitate?
Next
week
we
like
to
rotate
facilitation
in
this
group.
D
As
like,
if
nobody
else
wants
to
take
it
during
the
meeting,
I
can
take
it
for
next
week.
D
A
Do
it,
I
put
you
down
matt,
thank
you
all
right,
so
welcome.
We
have
a
few
things
that
we
need
to
do
today,
so
we.
A
A
People
have
comments
on
on
the
work
that
the
groups
have
done.
The
different
working
groups
have
done
and
we
try
to
incorporate
that
that
feedback.
So
I
do
believe
that
our
response
window
is
two
weeks.
So
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
any
responses
that
we
have
to
the
metrics
that
come
from
the
dei
working
group,
and
we
can
do
that.
A
All
right,
so
it
looks
like
we
have
a
few
with
respect
to
some
of
them
are
fairly
old.
We
still
have
an
event
diversity,
so
it
looks
like
we
have
feedback.
It
looks
like
we
really
have
one
comment
I
can
see
this
is
eight
days
ago
and
it
came
from
matt
cantu.
D
Look
this
up
in
an
issue
and
I
I
just
incorporated
it
into
the
it's
just
a
very
small
change,
so
I.
A
D
A
Okay,
this
seems
pretty
straightforward
to
me.
Does
anybody
have
comments
on.
D
It
might
be
worth
mentioning,
I
was
talking
to
lucas
and
he
went
through
like
pretty
much
every
metric.
That
was
up
for
release
and
there
were
some
small
changes,
but
like
there's,
definitely
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
input
he's
given.
So
I
figured
I'd.
Add
them
as
well.
A
Thanks
for
that
matt
all
right,
could
somebody
merge
this
while
I
kind
of
move
forward
matt
can
do
you
have
the
ability
to
do
that?
Much
not
too
much.
A
This
was
the
metric,
I
think
we're
just
gonna
close
this
one
without
merging,
just
because
we
had
so
many
changes
with
respect
to
event,
diversity,
metrics,
or
was
this
not
that
somebody
take
a
look
at
this
with
me.
I
feel
like
we
keep
looking
at
this
one.
D
This
is
oh
project,
community,
stuff
right.
Our
leadership.
A
With
event,
demographics,
do
you
remember
that
into
just
event
like
just
as
a
as
a
whole
thing?
So
I
think
the
the
some
of
the
suggestions
here
are
to
we
have
survey
attendees
and
speakers,
which
is
what
we
have,
and
it
was
the
suggestion
to
just
remove
the
end
speakers
part,
but
we
actually
want
to
keep
that
in
there,
because
it
is
both.
C
A
C
Well,
you
the
you,
might
have
to
put
it
actually
in
the
comments.
Okay,
close
it
and
put
it
in
the
comments
that,
due
to
more
recent
changes,
this
is
no
longer
valid.
If
you
still
see
these
issues
in
the
new
stuff,
then
create
new
pr.
B
F
I'm
I'm
looking
at
this
pull
request.
It
does
look
relevant.
F
F
Event,
demographics,
so
that
yeah,
so
the
so.
The
second
bit
is
asking
specifically
about
speakers
and
the
questions
there
are
about
presentations
and
recordings,
so
that
is
that
is
relevant
directly
to
speakers
in
the
part
above
we're
talking
about
surveying
attendees,
now
a
speaker
can
be
an
attendee
as
well,
so
for
in
that.
For
that
first
part
where
we're
talking
about
the
attendees,
I
think
that's
inclusive
of
speakers.
E
A
C
F
Yeah
and
then
the
the
top
bit
so
the
that
second
sentence
in
the
description
code
of
conduct,
so
that
that
sentence
it
is
appropriate
to
remove
that
sentence
because
that
sentence
would
belong.
It
fits
better
in
the
the
objective
section
rather
than
the
description.
F
The
the
description
should
be
a
little
bit
agnostic
about
use.
It
should
just
be
the
the
description
and
not
it
should
not
have
a
usment
about
why
we
use
it.
A
It's
just
a
typo
fix
all
right,
so
actually,
okay,
so
fair
enough.
Then
what
are
people's
thoughts
on
having
one
pr
for
three
markdowns.
B
As
long
as
I
mean
it's
a
as
long
as
all
three
of
the
changes
are
ones
that
we
accept,
that's
fine.
It
gets
more
complicated
for
somebody
if,
if
we
only
if
only
two
of
the
three
or
one
of
the
three
are
good
okay,
so
I
think
smaller
pull
requests
are
generally
a
better
practice.
I
mean
this
is
the
classic.
B
D
Can
leave
a
comment
and
merge
now
and
just
say
in
the
future?
Please
do
one
file
at
a
time.
A
A
A
F
I
think
it
probably
requires
a
bit
of
an
edit,
so
it's
to
the
the
point
I
made
earlier
the
the
description
that
he
that
is
here
it
kind
of
fits
more.
It
fits
better
in
the
objective
section
right,
so
leadership
is
important.
Inclusive
leadership
is
important.
F
Statements
like
that
are
true,
but
they,
I
think
they
it
fits
better
in
the
objective.
In
the
description
we
we
really
want
to
keep
it
simple.
This
is
a
description
of
what
we're
measuring.
F
And
not
necessarily
what
what
that
measurement
could
mean,
or
the.
A
A
F
I
might
I
suppose
my
proposal
would
be
to
merge
this.
Okay
as
it
is,
and.
A
F
F
Yeah
in
the
in
the
next
review
cycle.
G
E
A
F
A
F
And
I
do
actually
have
a-
I
put
a
note
in
the
agenda
about
the
next
release
that
we
can.
We
can
talk
about
that
later,
but
it's
that
it's
basically
that
idea
of
going
through
the
metrics
yeah
review.
This.
A
D
Says
already
done.
A
Review
this
okay!
Thank
you
all
right.
So
then,
so
thank
you,
everybody
for
that.
We're
done
with
prs!
A
The
next
thing
that
came
up
was
for
each
of
the
working
groups
that,
over
the
course
of
the
next
six
months,
right
at
the
moment
we
have
about
70
or
so
metrics
that
have
been
released
across
all
working
groups,
including
the
latest
release.
Right,
yes,
exactly
and
that's
great,
but
I
I
think
it's
time
not
just
I,
but
I
think
it
it's
time
to
go
back
whether
it's
in
the
evolution
working
group
or
the
common
working
group
or
the
dei
working
group
to
just
reread
the
metrics
that
we
have
released.
A
I
think,
as
kevin
had
used
that
phrase,
which
is
very
true,
it's
quite
possible
that
some
of
our
metrics
don't
make
a
ton
of
they
don't
make
perfect
sense
anymore,
or
they
need
to
be,
as
we've
learned
things
over
the
course
of
the
last
two
years.
We
need
to
to
improve
the
metrics
to
express
what
we've
learned
over
the
course
of
two
years.
A
It's
not
something
to
do
today
that
over
the
next
six
months,
I
think
I
was
thinking
about
the
process
for
this-
that
maybe
we
just
kind
of
start
assigning
or
asking
not
assigning
but
asking
people
to
take
a
look
at
the
metrics
in
particular
focus
areas
and
just
read
them
and
see
what
their
reaction
is
to
them
and
if
any
changes
need
to
be
brought
forward,
we
could
do
it
here
within
the
group,
and
it's
also
possible
that
you
would
read
a
metric
and
you're
like
that's
great.
That's
totally
still,
you
know
right
on.
F
Yep
I
I
like
it.
I
like
I
like
the
idea
of
taking
the
next
six
months
and
kind
of
re-examining
all
of
our
metrics.
F
So
in
the
past
we
have
had
discussions
about
creating
a
bit
of
a
timer
for
releases
right,
so
in
a
when
after
a
metric
has
been
released,
you
know
when
two
years
passed
that
metric
becomes
stale
and
that
metric
could
automatically
be
put
back
into
the
review
process
at
that
point,
so
we've
we've
had
some
discussions
around
that
in
the
past,
but
we
haven't
really.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
we've
landed
on
a
process
for
that
or
or
any
type
of
rules.
F
Yeah
yeah
at
some
age,
and
maybe
it's
two
years,
maybe
it's
longer
but
yeah
after
after
two
years.
We
we
view
that
metric
as
being
stale
and
then
it
would
automatically
be
placed
back
into
review
regardless
of
edits.
It
would
be
placed
back
into
the
view
comment
period.
Okay
in.
A
F
In
that
time
period,
so
just
one
way
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
vigilant
about
maintaining
the
the
relevancy,
the
the
rigor
and
the
validity
around
these,
these
metrics
okay,
but
but
regardless
of
what
we
decide
to
do
on
that.
I
really
like
the
idea
of
taking
this
next
six
months
and
and
going
back
and
kind
of
being
thoughtful
about
what
we've
done
so
far
and
kind
of
maybe
making
sure
that
our
language
is
consistent
and
that
these
metrics
are
still
relevant.
A
G
D
I
I
worry
a
little
bit
about.
We
have
a
great
process
for
bringing
new
metrics
in,
but
I've
seen
we
have.
We
go
a
lot
of
different
directions
when
it
comes
to
updating
a
metric
or
refactoring
metrics,
we
might
need
a
better
defined
process
for
that.
D
F
I
I
believe
there
is
some
guidance
on
that
in
the
in
the
handbook.
F
I
believe,
however,
I
can
say
we
have
we
have
given
it
some
thought.
I
think
you're
right,
though,
that
there
is
some
inconsistency
in
how
the
working
groups
some
of
the
working
groups
do
it
so
definitely
definitely
worth
visiting
that
as
well.
A
Right
because
we
need
to
just
thinking
through
what
you
were
saying
that
you
know
we
could
have,
even
if
it's
just
a
socially
timed
process
like
not
technically
time
but
like
every
year.
This
is
just
something
we
do
on
every
every
third
release
or
every
every
every
second
release,
or
something
like
that.
We
also
include
a
review
of
existing
metrics.
A
A
A
All
right
cool
yeah:
we
need
to.
A
D
A
F
All
right-
and
I
I
did
add
a
bit
to
the
agenda
on
this
as
well,
so
the
the
metrics
that
we're
releasing
reviewing
them
and
signaling
to
the
translation
team.
A
A
F
The
divs
so
the
problem,
the
problem
with
that
is,
if
they're,
if
we
do
multiple
edits
on
one
markdown,
folder
or
one
one
markdown
file,
then
we're
going
to
be
sending
them
multiple
documents.
I
think
in
general
our
thought
was
that
it's
it's
easier
for
them
to
just
go
and
look
at
the
dips
themselves.
A
F
Or
not
even
neces,
although
even
the
pr
isn't
necessarily
needed,
because
they
can,
they
can
compare
the
the
document
that
they
have
with
the
with
the
new
document.
Right,
I
mean
the
yes,
they
can.
They
can
look
up
gifts
without
having
a
specific.
A
F
Right
they
can,
they
can
look
and
go
and
see
all
the
changes.
So,
if
we're
pointing
them
specifically
to
one
pr,
I
worry
that
we
would
miss
out
on
pointing
them
to
another
change.
If
that
document
has
multiple
changes,
all.
D
The
commits,
then,
in
that
case,.
F
And
the
the
same
thing
with
commits
right.
So
if
we,
if
we
start
listing
commits,
then
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
give
them
all
the
commits
right.
So
if
we,
if
we
miss
one
commit,
then
then
we
might
be
in
trouble.
So
if
we
just
say
that
this
metric
has
been
changed,
then
they
can
go
and
they
can
look
to
see
how
it
was
changed
and
they
don't
need-
and
I
don't
know
that
listing
the
commits,
helps
them
really.
B
Yeah,
I
did.
I
did
notice
when
I
merged
that
pr
earlier
that
squash
is
default,
turned
on
for
work
for
this
working
group,
so
the
detailed
commit
log
won't
be
there.
B
E
A
All
right
cool,
thank
you
for
this
conversation.
This
is
very
helpful.
It's
all
in
the
details.
Isn't
it
yeah?
Oh
yeah,
all
right,
all
right,
so
kevin
did
you
before
I
move
off
of
just
kind
of
this
review
period
and
the
prs
and
translations,
and
all
that
did
you
have
anything
else
that
you
wanted
to
add.
F
So
so
I
would
just
say
so
that
the
public
review
period
is
over.
However,
that
does
not
mean
that,
as
a
working
group,
we
still
can't
take
a
look
at
these
these
metrics.
So
what
I
would
recommend
and
what
I'm,
what
I'm
kind
of
I'm
going
and
asking
all
of
the
working
groups
to
do,
is
to
go
to
go
and
actually
do
one
last
review
of
the
metrics
that
you're
releasing
and
make
sure
you
have
them
in
a
place.
F
That's
ready
for
the
release,
so
so
go
to
go
to
your
issues
and
address
the
address,
the
comments
that
were
made
for
each
of
these
metrics,
but
also
go
and
look
at
the
metrics
and
give
it
a
last
read
just
to
make
sure
you're
not
missing
anything
and
then
edit,
the
metrics,
remove
the
disclaimer
from
the
metric
and
once
the
disclaimer
is
removed
from
the
metric,
we
can
go
ahead
and
close.
The
the
review
comments
issue.
E
F
And
then
also
any
metric
that
is
edited
as
we've
just
been
talking
about
any
other
any
any
metric
that
has
been
edited.
We
need
to
go
to
the
translation
repo
and
make
a
comment
within
the
within
the
issue
for
that
metric.
The
the
issue
should
already
exist,
so
just
go
in
and
make
a
comment
that
the
through
the.
G
F
After
the
review
period,
this
metric
was
edited
and
then
add
the
chinese
label
back
to
the
to
the
metric.
If
you
don't
have
admin
rights
to
add
the
chinese
label
to
the
metric
tag
myself
and
I
will
go
in
and
add
it
there
for
you.
A
F
The
translation
team
is
they're,
doing
an
amazing
job.
Also,
the
they've
told
us
that
they
can
do
this
in
about
a
week
so
which
is
super
impressive,
and
it's
really
more
than
it's
more
than
I
would
have
asked
them
so
fair,
that's
good,
very
appreciative
to
them.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
A
All
right
great,
so
we
have
a
couple
more
things
on
the
agenda
for
today.
Matt
the
onboarding
will
just
table
that
till
next
week
or
some
some
other
time
totally
cool
on
that.
D
A
Yeah
after
ossna
that
oops,
I
think,
was
a
you
know,
a
couple
things
for
a
number
of
us.
We
do
have
above
that
we
have
the
dei
goals.
So
one
of
the
things,
if
you
can
click
on
that.
A
So
part
of
what
we
had
done
in
2019
2020
doesn't
count,
but
in
2000
or
21
in
in
2021
moving
into
22.
One
of
the
things
that
we're
hoping
to
do
is
build
out.
I
think
it's
on
our
readme
the
goals
for
this
working
group,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
goals
can
honestly
remain
the
same.
So
things
like
contin
continuing
to
build
metrics
and
maybe
even
pointing
out
a
few
of
those
metrics,
as
we
have
here.
A
I
think
it's
fair
on
the
new
badging
rollout,
which
I
do
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
onboarding
improvements.
I
think
matt
is
this.
The
issue
that
we
were
just
recently
talking
about
number
three.
D
A
Okay,
a
meta
reflection
on
the
dei
reflection
reflect
on
a
reflection.
I
think
we
do
have.
We
do
have
a
response
here
as
to
how
we
should
act
on
it.
We
do
have
what
is
in
part
called
the
operations
team.
A
And
then
identify
our
role
as
a
working
group
right.
One
of
our
tasks
so
is
there?
Is
there
anything
else
that
that
people
feel
like
we
should
be
kind
of
focusing
on?
We
have
these,
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
five
is,
but
one
through
four.
D
I
just
dropped
a
few
metrics
that
we
thought
about
during
the
badging
hackaway
things
that
we
could
work
on
for
the
future.
As
far
as
like
events
go.
A
D
I
think
so
we've
been
talking
about
having
our
events
meet
the
standard
of
the
dei
badging,
so
I
think
diversity,
access
tickets
is
a
big
part
of
that.
I.
D
100,
like
a
lot
of
limits,
foundations
evidence
that
they're
getting
good
at
it.
They're
getting
100
and
I'd
like
to
see
us
do
the
same.
C
A
A
The
diversity
access
tickets,
like
also
direct
ticketing-
I
will
say
this,
so
this
is
the
first
time.
Maybe
it's
because
it's
been
a
little
while
on
the
events
there
were
a
few
times
where,
like
obviously,
the
linux
foundation
helps
us
so
incredibly
much,
but
there
were
a
few
times
where
I
think
we
became
a
little
tangled
with
the
lf.
A
A
Are
our
ways
to
report
at
the
event
with
respect
to
the
code
of
conduct
was
like,
send
an
email
to
or
send
a
note
to,
gayorg
and
elizabeth,
which
is
that's
fine,
but
then,
if
you
actually
follow
the
lf
code
of
conduct,
it
says
you
can
report
it
to
the
linux
foundation.
Events
team
see
what
I'm
saying
so
like
there
were
two
reporting
venues,
because
we
were
sub
evented
inside
that
yeah
exactly
so.
I
think
we
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more.
A
A
Yep
exactly
and
so
maybe
like
when,
when
we
are
doing
the
chaos
con
planning
next
time
we
have
somebody
who
is
like
very
deliberately
focused
on
dei
related
issues
with
respect
to
the
event,
I
think
they
kind
of
came
up.
I
think
we
did
a
good
job,
but
I
think
they
were.
They
were
a
bit
more
ad
hoc,
as
opposed
to
one
person
just
attending
to
that
very
deliberately
throughout
the
entire
process.
F
I
agree
with
that
and
to
the
one
of
the
points
that
I
was
trying
to
make
in
the
community
call
the
other
day
was
that
for
those
for
the
badging
related
items,
anything
that
the
badging
asks
you
to
to
go
and
look
for,
we
should
probably
have
content
that
we've
created
ourselves,
so
I
know
for
for
because
we're
co-located
with
the
with
the
the
the
summit
we
kind
of
we
got
some
of
the
benefits
of
the
the
dei
stuff
that
the
the
summit
was
doing,
which
which
I,
which
is
fine,
but
I
think
we
we
still
need
to
create
those
pages
and
some
of
that
documentation.
A
F
And
that's
specifically,
a
concern
for
upcoming
events
that
may
not
be
co-located
with
a
conference
that
is
as
attentive
to
the
dei
stuff.
A
F
So,
if
fosdem
does
have
like
child
care
options,
for
example,
do
we
really,
if
we're
on
a
if
we're
on
a
if
we're
at
a
different
location?
Can
we
claim
that
right
that
we
are
we're
doing
that.
A
Right,
no,
that's
that's
fair
and
it
okay.
No,
this
is
good.
Thank
you
for
this.
Okay,
any
other
comments,
just
in
terms
of
kind
of
what
might
go
into
those
that
goal
set
one
two,
three,
five,
six.
F
I
think
that
the
benefit
of
the
benefit
of
the
badging
is
it
kind
of
gives
us
a
remap
on
on
what
we
need
to
do.
So
the
badging
is
a
bit
of
a
checklist,
so
maybe
go
through
first
thing
for
me
would
be
to
go
through
that
that
badging
checklist
and
make
sure
that
each
of
the
things
that
they're
asking
for
we
have
some
sort
of
documentation
that
we
can
point
to.
A
D
A
B
F
A
F
The
event
inclusivity
we're
still
building
and
then
I
think
you
had
taken
the
event
accessibility
as
an
action
item
to
to
bring
forward.
But
you
were
going
to
wait
until
after
event,
inclusivity
so
that
you
could
kind
of
differentiate.
The
two.
D
A
D
Yeah
we
have
the
new
version
coming
out
on
november
november,
1st
I've
got.
I
can
share
the
kind
of
the
list
of
changes
that
we're
making
there's
a
there's
one
document
that
really
easily
describes
what
what
we're
kind
of
doing.
Let
me
pull
that
up,
so
it's
a
pull
request
to
the
website,
but
basically
we've
taken
everything
kind
of
overhauled.
What
we,
what
we've
been
working
on
in
the
checklist
and
the
form
that
we
have
people
fill
out.
We
just
have
a
lot
more
content
to
that
now.
D
Our
big
hope
is
that
people
will
have
things
that
they
don't
meet.
Weirdly
enough.
That's
a
weird
thing
to
say,
but
that
event
organizers
will
find
things
that
they
need
to
work
on,
because
a
lot
of
the
things
are
pretty
standard
that
we
had
before
we're.
D
Making
some
bigger
asks
now
and
the
the
main
concern
we
have
too
is
that
it
might
be
too
much
of
a
process
for
the
people
who
have
already
done
it
and
are
comfortable
with
what
they
had,
but
that's
just
kind
of
the
growing
pains
of
adding
a
lot
more
to
the
checklist
so
moving
forward.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we're
we're
looking
to
improve
the
the
workflow
again
yeah.
It's
been
a
year
since
we've
made
the
original
workflow,
so
we'd
like
to
improve
that
again
in
the
next
release.
D
Give
me
about
two
minutes
and
I'll
pull
that
up,
just
really
excited
to
see
that
people
were
like.
We
had
these
hackathons
for
badging
and
they
were
people
were
so
involved
and
it
was
really
cool
to
see
like
that.
We
got
so
much
done
in
such
a
short.
It
was
like
four
hours
total
for
the
hackathons
and
that's
all
we
really
needed.
D
We
imported
three
reviewers
from
the
chaos
project
during
open
source
summit
and
we
had
two
applications
that
we're
working
on
waiting
for
those
appointments
for
orientation.
We
had
two
applications
for
people.
I've
never
met
before,
so
that
was
really
cool.
A
D
That's
great
okay,
so
I
have
opening
it
in
firefox
I'm.
Actually
I
I
won't
tell.
I
won't
tell
you
which
browser
I
use,
but
you.
B
D
It's
not
it's
not
gonna.
This
is
not
the
version
with
the
css
from
the
chaos
website,
but
it's
going
to
help
provide
an
information
on
how
it's
different.
So
as
far
as
event,
demographics
goes.
We've
worked
out.
D
We've
added
the
opt
out
in
the
text,
input
box
options
for
for
event,
demographics
and
we've
removed
the
the
part
about
feedback
and
the
example
of
the
feedback
page
to
inclusive
experience,
we're
asking
that
they
either
are
in
planning
to
incorporate
feedback
or
have
incorporated
feedback
from
a
previous
event
and
if
they're
planning,
if
they
haven't
had
a
previous
event
and
they're
planning
to
incorporate
feedback
in
the
future
event
and
and
talk
about
their
strategic
plan.
For
that,
and
and
just
like
will,
will
the
platform
be
available
for
a
long
time.
D
This
code
of
conduct
stays
the
same
diversity,
access
ticket
stays
the
same,
and
we've
got
a
new
metric
and
virtual
event,
which
is
time.
Inclusion
for
virtual
events
is
about
pre-recording
and
I'm
changing
video
quality
if
you're
watching
it
for
an
attendee
and
that's
the
main
changes
we've
made,
we've
also
kind
of
restructured.
The
repos
we've
gotten
rid
of
some
we're
going
to
be
getting
rid
of
some
repo's
that
aren't
as
like,
useful
anymore
and
yeah.
That's
that's!
That's
going
to
be
a
big
release
compared
to
our
last
one.
A
That
looks
awesome
and
thank
you
for
that.
I
like
it
because
you
know
the
whole
process
is
really
meant
to
be
a
developmental
process
and
I
think
the
way
you're
framing
it.
There
is
just
asking
people
to
think
about
these
things,
whether
they're,
now
or
in
the
future,
and
that's
awesome.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Matt.