►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Evolution.Feb.12.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Evolution.Feb.12.2020
C
B
D
D
B
B
A
D
D
F
D
D
D
B
B
B
This
this
might
be
getting
way
too
specific
about
the
actual
coding
practices.
Mm-Hmm
is
my
thought
and
I.
Guess
you're,
not
a
big
enough
group
here
right
now,
but
this
is
certainly
a
different
kind
of
thing
that
I
talk
about
any
other
working
group,
yeah
and
I.
Think
I
don't
know
like
what
you're
you're
giving
thoughts
I
mean
on
the
on
the
code.
Parts
of
evolution,
it
is
very,
is
a
unique
part
of
this
working
group.
I.
C
B
B
B
B
To
have
I
mean
I,
think
it
and
they
don't
become
part
of
the
standard
that
we
release
either
I,
don't
think
they're
unhelpful,
but
I
don't
know
that
the
working
group
trying
to
define
the
metrics
like
I,
think
we
should
decide
if
it's
a
component
of
how
we
want
the
working
groups
to
function
and
maybe
what
kind
of
parameters
we
want
to
put
around
it,
because
I
think
that
the
principal
aim
is
to
have
a
working
logical
example
of.
If
you
have
this
commit
record,
for
example,
you
would
count
it
this
way
really.
A
B
A
E
B
A
D
D
E
A
D
So
I
just
I
marked
all
of
these
as
released
the
ones
that
had
been
that
we
actually
did
release
and
then
I
just
picked
these
three
and
said
pending.
It's
like
we're
gonna
work
on
these
three
next,
but
I
just
picked
those
three
we
could
do
in
different
ones.
We
could
you
know
Allison
Tatsumi
will
do
all
three
at
once.
Oh
I
just
picked
some
two
to
work
on.
C
So
one
conversation
that
we
can
also
have
is
on
the
issue
response
time
metric,
because
we
found
the
common
working
group
has
a
very
similar
metric
and
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
have
that
conversation
now
or
later
about
how
we
can
have
similar
metrics
that
are
still
distinct,
because
the
issue
response
time
is
a
more
concrete
implementation
of
the
more
general
common
metric
with
time
to.
First
response
isn't.
C
C
B
B
The
way
we've
handled
this
in
like
I,
had
something
like
this
in
the
risk
working
group
where
we
had
a
metric
called
license
count
and
then
later
in
this
release,
we
released
a
metric
called
what
it
was
like.
It
was
called,
but
basically
on
the
numeration
of
all
of
the
licenses
and
where
they
were
so,
you
had
an
account
kind
of
you
had
the
straight-up
counted
licenses
sort
of
implicitly,
just
as
a
filter
on
this
other
metric
is
what
we
decided
to
do,
and
so
I
would
see
time.
B
B
B
Basically,
a
filter
for
response
to
what
so
I
guess
it
would
be
type
of
response
or
object
responded
to
so
you
could
have
a
filter
for
issues
essentially
like,
maybe
maybe
the
act
would
just
be
to
say.
We
would
like
to
have
our
existing
metric
issue
response
time,
reference
time
to
first
response
as
a
filter
that
can
be
applied
to
that
metric,
and
then
we
included
as
a
filter
in
a
future
release
of
that
metric.
That
seems
that's
so
I
would
like
to
recommend
we
do
that.
I,
like.
C
B
D
That's
what
I
was
thinking,
maybe
some
sort
of
not
like
errata
section
in
the
issue
response
time.
That's
not
like
the
word
I'm
looking
for,
but
like
this
it's
you
know
we
have
the
general
definition
be
in
the
common
under
the
filters
and
then
like
the
specific
idiosyncrasies
of
doing
issues
that
collecting
about
issues
we
list
here
so
does
something
like
that
is
which
your
emerging
or
just
having
them
be
separate.
Metrics
for
just
mentioning
that
this
one
is
basically
a
specific
version
of
this
one
yeah.
B
C
D
So
would
it
be
each,
do
you
think
it
would
be
I,
say
I
guess
appropriate
to
mention
that,
like
some
of
these
other
filters,
like
explicitly
mentioned,
that
some
of
these
others,
like
maybe
these
other
filters,
these,
like
like
the
role
the
responder,
would
also
apply
to
this
I.
Think
when.
A
B
If
we
got,
if
you
started
to
get
overly
specific
I
think
we
start
to
then
couple
the
metrics
or
perhaps
even
make
them
redundant
in
a
way
that
over
time
will
become
confusing.
Yeah.
Okay,
like
I,
think
down
the
road
when
we
have
more
fleshed
out
full
set
of
metrics.
Perhaps
we
do
something
we
do
a
refactoring
like
that,
but
I
don't
think
we've
built
enough
to
start
refactoring
what
we've
built
too
aggressively.
B
D
B
D
B
Makes
that
one
possible
example,
I
think
so
I
think
I
think
I,
don't
think
those
have
to
be
funny
enough.
I
think
they
have
to
be
perfectly
aligned,
because
my
experience
at
this
point
is
that
people
are
interested.
Not
not.
Their
people
aren't
only
interested
in
maintaining
responses.
It's
not
only
maintain
errs
who
who's
responsiveness
helps
people
stay
part
of
a
community.
You
know
if
there's
some
other
person
who's
responding
right
away,
I,
don't
think,
as
somebody
contributing
early
on
the
new
contributor
really
probably
clearly
recognizes
who
the
main
centres
in
are.
B
C
C
B
B
B
I
F
B
E
B
We
propose
noting
them,
as
we
did
in
the
release
of
our
metric
and
his
York's,
making
a
full
request
for
the
common
metric
to
sort
of
make
the
link
of
both
ways.
I
mean
I.
Think
as
we
build
out
more
metrics
that
might
become
complex
and
perhaps
some
refactoring
would
be
would
be
called
for,
but
right
now,
I,
don't
think
we
have
enough
metrics
to
worry
about
that
problem.
B
Okay,
like
you
know
it's
sort
of
like,
if
you
don't
it
like
with
writing
software,
you
want
to
get
it
built
and
then
optimize
it
refactor
it
once
you
know
what
it
is
you
actually
built
instead
of
trying
to
worry
about
where
the
lines
are,
because
that
impedes
just
basically
getting
the
working
code
or
the
working
metric
into
the
world
yeah
a
little
more
court.
I
guess
you
know
it's
like
basic
communication
theory
or
group
theory,
the
more
more
interconnections
you
create,
the
more
complex
communication
becomes
and
the
slower
progress
occurs.
D
B
And
I
don't
know
what
you
think
your,
but
when
I
look
at
like
code
development
activity
of
all
of
the
things
in
chaos,
I
think
like
I
know,
I
did
not
oppose
developing
these
metrics
for
the
next
released.
I.
Think
they're
part
of
the
basic
inventory,
but
I
hear
a
lot
of
interest
and
demand
for
metrics
related
to
new
contributions
and
new
contributors
and
being
able
to
track
them
and
I.
B
Guess
those
are
under
community
growth
and
right
now
we
don't
have
any
that
we
have
one
new
contributors,
closing
issues,
that's
been
released,
I,
don't
know
if
it's.
If
it's
filling
out
the
basics,
that's
the
first
priority
over
or
a
community
or
lay
community
grow.
Before
I'm
hearing
more
questions,
human
opinion
is
Armstrong
human
opinion.
F
C
Am
of
the
same
impression
that
you
shared
that
the
community
growth
metrics
are
the
more
interesting
ones,
yeah
the
code,
development
activity,
those
have
been
somewhat
covered
by
the
basic
metrics
github
already
provides
mm-hmm
and
then
building
on
top
of
that.
What
people
are
really
interested
in
are
the
other.
The
committee
growth
ones.
I
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
What
I'm
thinking
is
people
coming
to
Kaos
have
the
question:
okay,
who
are
my
new
contributors,
and
it
would
be
a
service
to
them
to
have
a
metric
that
is
called
new
contributors.
Even
if
it's
just
a
redirect
to
the
contributors.
One
saying
implement
this
activity
date
as
a
filter
to
see
who
is
new.
A
C
B
That
also
by
advice
I
mean
they
cover
a
lot
of
the
the
territory
for
new
contributors.
I
think
was
partly
the
reason
and
what
the
common
is,
because
there
was
a
focus
initially
an
evolution
on
committee,
specifically
so
yeah,
okay,
I,
don't
know
doing
I'm,
okay,
creating
a
metric
called
new
contributors
that
we
I
mean
we'd,
have
to
fully
elaborate
on
the
definition,
but
I
think
that
that's
useful
and
that
it's
and
to
say
by
design
its
implementation
will
be
some
set
of
filters
on
the
contributors
metric.
B
A
B
D
B
D
B
I
D
I,
don't
think
so,
unless
there's
such
specific,
like
idiosyncrasies,
like
specific
things
about
them,
that
they
would
want
their
own
pages,
which
I
guess
we
have
to
think
about
it
a
little
bit.
That's
the
only
reason
I
would
think
they
would
not
be
a
filter.
Otherwise,
I'm
I'm
with
you,
Sean
I
think
they
should
just
wear
a
mermaid,
a
filter
of
new
contributors.
What
what
do
you
think
you're.
C
Might
not
see
the
full
potential
of
every
metric
if
you
put
too
much
into
it
and
teasing
it
out
into
you,
know
more
detailed
level.
Metrics
allows
people
to
say
yeah
I'm,
looking
at
new
contributors
of
comments.
Okay,
and
that
also
from
an
implementation
perspective,
we
can
say
we
are
implementing
the
new
partners
of
commits
and
not
just
saying
new
contributors
and
then
it's
not
clear
which
one
and
beer
implementing
yeah.