►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.GMD.March.27.2019
Description
CHAOSS.GMD.March.27.2019
B
C
All
right,
thank
you,
georg.
I
was
not
here.
Last
week
I
had
a
meeting,
so
it
looks
like
last
week
we
talked
about
the
summer
of
code.
C
And
more
participation
in
gmd
and
metrics
release
process
so
not
much.
Last
week
this
week,
we'll
just
take
a
look
at
the
issues
and
pull
requests
that
are
outstanding
if
any
as
a
first
order
of
business.
C
All
right,
I
am
going
to
not
go
through
the
entire
list
of
issues.
I
guess
I
can
really
quickly.
C
Which
number
are
you
referring
to?
I
can't
hear
you.
C
C
D
C
Okay,
so
that
one
has
disappeared
44.
I
think
I
think
we're
pretty
close
to
being
able
to
close
this
we've
merged
a
bunch
of
pull
requests.
C
I
think
it
will
be
under
persistent
refinement
any
objections
to
closing
issue
number
44.
This
is
really
what
the
working
group
has
been
focused
on
leading
up
to
the
linux
foundation.
Leadership.
B
C
C
C
Yeah
I
mean
I
could
keep
issues
open
for
like
cleaning
my
house
every
week
right
but
characterize
a
participant
within
projects
in
a
crossfire
projects.
That's
still
open
waiting
for
feedback
community
managers
use
case.
I
think,
there's
a
there's,
a
pull
request
tied
to
it
that
I've
edited
several
times.
I'm
not
we'll
get
to
that
on
pull
requests.
C
I
feel
like
I
resolve
all
of
the
issues,
but
maybe
there's
more
characterized
bug
reporters
past
success
in
effectively
reporting
bugs
that's
open
chaos
metrics
with
percival.
I
guess
these
are
ideas
for
google
summary
code.
C
Should
we,
since
we're
actively
doing
google
summer
of
code
off
the
governance
repository,
I
guess
I
don't
know
if
we're
referencing
these
micro
tasks,
though
you
could
check
real.
C
C
C
C
C
I
think
that's
still
open
hasn't
been
worked
on
requiring
the
dco
georg.
Where
are
we
at
with
that?.
A
C
C
C
C
I
want
to
include
the
I
do
sincerely
want,
if
somebody
objects
to
say
so,
but
you're
right,
we
do
technically
have
to
so
and
metrics
calling
them
reviews
instead
of
proposals.
C
C
C
C
B
C
Calls
that
a
merge
request.
Okay,
we
modified
it
to
be
just
a
proposal
that
seems
to
have
confused
some
people.
However,
the
proposal
to
change
proposal
to
review,
I
think,
is
even
more
confusing
because
there
is
an
actual
thing
called
a
code
review
and
I
I
would
not
intuitively
map
the
notion
of
a
review
to
a
pull
request
or
emerge
request.
I
would
think
that's
a
reference
to
a
code
review,
maybe.
B
C
B
Think
yeah,
it
covers
both
bases
then,
and
we
just
have
a
slash
in
there.
So
maybe
it's
fine
or
it
could
be
fork
code.
B
B
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
New
use
case
hints
for
maintainership
position
and
we
were
waiting
for
feedback
from
kate
fogle
on
this
one,
removing
value
and
risk
areas
for
this
working
group.
I
we
discussed
that
on
the
general
call
yesterday
and
we
generally
agreed
there
are
new
working
groups
for
risk
and
value.
So
I
think
we
just
do.
B
That
yeah,
I
I
agree,
and
this
should
I
actually
think
this
will
kind
of
bring
whatever
we
call
this
work
group
now
life
cycle,
work
group
or
the
activity
worker
kind
of
back
to
your
roots,
our
roots.
B
You
know
back
to
our
debut
album
yeah
back
to
the
debut
album,
so
just
kind
of
back
to
the
things
that
you
were
originally
honed
in
on
because
remember
for
a
while
like
risk,
it
was
kind
of
an
add-on
like
we
didn't
have
anywhere.
To
put
it
right,
we
put
it
there
administratively,
knowing
it
would
get
its
own
working
group
yeah
and
value,
never
even
really
existed
in
gmd.
So,
whatever.
C
C
All
of
the
issues
and
all
the
pull
requests
addressed
moving
on
to
were
there
other
items
held
over
from
the
previous
meeting
that
I
was
not
at
that
need
to
be
addressed.
I
don't
think
so.
B
B
So
the
I
think
we
have
a
bunch
of
working
groups
now
between
obviously
common
and
gmd,
and
we
have
five.
We
have
five
and
they're
meeting
on
a
regular
basis,
so
I
think
I
need
to
I'm
gonna
send
out
an
email
to
the
list.
That
kind
of
summarizes
all
of
the
meetings
for
the
working
groups
would
be
helpful.
Just
so
everybody
can
kind
of
re-get.
C
Their
bearings,
I
think
so,
and
it
may
make
sense,
in
light
of
there
being
value
and
risk
working
groups
now,
for
this
working
group
to
meet
less
frequently
more
like
value,
does.
B
C
B
Yeah
and
then
I
might
recommend
to
you
too,
that
you
send
out
an
email
like
on
tuesday
just
reminding
people
of
the
meeting
tomorrow,
so
I'll
send
out
one
that
kind
of
summarizes
when
those
meetings
are
yeah.
Weekly
wonders
dni
sends
out
a
reminder.
Typically
on
these.
C
B
A
A
C
Well,
I
think
I
think
the
premise
of
this
working
group
has
been
that
people
would
do
that
by
creating
issues
and
pull
requests.
I'm
not
sure
that
is
sufficient
to
really
engage
people,
because
that
doesn't
set
an
agenda
or
a
roadmap
that
people
can
converse
around.
D
A
A
Engagement,
we
have
tried
a
few
things.
I
don't
know
if
any
of
are
particularly
helpful,
but
I
can
summarize
them.
One
thing
we
do
is
mark
issues
at
good,
first
issues
and
then
send
out
emails
every
two
weeks
saying
hey.
We
would
really
like
help
with
these
easy
good.
First
issues,
that's
one!
Another
thing
we
do
is
take
discussions.
A
D
D
A
A
A
C
Oh,
I
think
so,
if
there
are
not
sure
I
completely
understand
the
question,
but
perhaps
I
think
he's
suggesting
if
if
there
are
questions
about
growth,
maturity
and
decline
or
activity
working
group,
as
we
may
someday,
be
called
that
those
can
be
brought
up
under
the
agenda
of
the
work
group
update
in
the
general
call,
I
mean
sometimes
there's
time
for
that.
Sometimes
things
get
to
that
level.
C
I'm
not
opposed
to
that,
as
you
know,
assuming
it
doesn't
become
a
too
big
of
a
of
a
burden,
especially
if
people
can't
participate
in
this
call,
but
I
think
that
you
know
we
can
try
that.
B
C
Any
other
things
that
folks
want
to
discuss
pertaining
to
this
working
group.
I
I
will
send
out
a
mail,
an
email
before
the
meeting
next
week,
suggesting
that
one
of
the
agenda
items
will
be
reducing
this
week's
or
this
working
groups
cadence
to
every
other
week,
and
I
might
suggest
that
we
do
that.
Cadence
in.
C
Sort
of
opposite
weeks
of
the
common
working
group,
which
is
the
other
currently
every
other
week,
working
group
sure
so
that
would
be
two
weeks
from
today
yeah
and
I
was
just
trying
to
think.
If
we
wanted
to.
I
guess
we
could
just
switch
to
every
other
week
as
of
the
next
meeting
and
have
that
be
two
weeks
from
today.
C
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
next
week
common
meets
common
does
not
meet
this
week.
That's
what
I
meant
yeah
I
was
trying
to.
I
was
trying
to
think
about
skipping
a
meeting
and
having
it
stay
on
this
cadence,
but
I
think
if
we
send
an
email
out
and
just
unless
there's
opposition
in
this
group,
they
just
switch
the
cadence
to
every
other
week.
C
That
might
be
a
good
way
to
go.
What
do
people
think
yeah.
C
Okay,
good,
I
need
to
drop
off
to
go
to
another
meeting,
but
I
think
we
might
be
finished
so
I
will
just
ask
if
there's
other
agenda
items
and
either
we
can
conclude
because
there
aren't
any
or
we
can
continue
discussing
without
me,
which
is
totally.
A
C
I
will
let
you
all
discuss
that
if
you
wish
to-
and
activity
is
one
thing,
I
suggested
that
called
the
activity
metrics
working
group,
I'm
open
to
other
suggestions,
as
I'm
sure
we
all
are.
If
you
capture
them
georg,
then
we
can
discuss
them
on
email
or
in
the
next
meeting
in
two
weeks
I.