►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Evolution.October.24.2019
Description
CHAOSS.Evolution.October.24.2019
B
C
Alright,
so
I've
got
a
couple
things
I
put
a
couple
things
on
the
agenda:
I'd
like
to
go
through
so
the
last
call
we
talked
about
moving
all
of
the
previously
defined
metrics
over
to
their
new
focus
areas,
as
well
as
updating
the
metric
template
with
the
one
that
that
G
posted
as
well.
We
discussed
a
little
bit
about
that.
C
So
after
the
call
last
week,
I
opened
for
question
number
245
I
believe
it
is
or
246
sorry,
which
adds
the
release
metrics
to
new
focus
areas
that
we've
discussed
and
also
changes
the
template
to
match
what
s
we
discussed
in
that
call,
you're
gonna
have
been
he's
been
helping
me
fix
the
tiny
little
flaws
that
I've
been
missing
in
there,
so
we
want
I
like
you.
If
anybody
has
any
other
outstanding,
like
suggestions,
things
I've,
missed
I
know
that
Matt.
C
A
C
And
as
far
as
the
template
in
the
evolution,
the
template
I
put
in
the
the
four
requests.
I
went
off
with
the
the
one
that
was
in
the
Google
Doc
that
we
talked
about
as
opposed
to
this
one,
because
I
saw
that
the
goal
and
the
question
was
different.
I
presume
that
the
one
of
you
talked
about
the
probably
the
correct
one
and
given
that
my
office
idea
updated.
C
C
All
right,
I
just
dropped
it
in
there
and
made
a
big
commit,
so
that
should
be
completely
up
to
date
with
with
the
one
that's
in
chaos.
Metrics
is
there
anything
else,
scared
or
any
of
anybody
else
that
you
can
think
of
that
you
can
see
in
here
it
doesn't
actually
change
any
of
the
metrics
content.
I
know
I
put
this
in
the
description,
the
pull
request.
It
just
moved
some
files
around
and
then
it
focus
here
as
we
discussed.
C
E
D
C
C
C
C
A
C
That
okay
yeah
so,
namely
so,
basically,
what
I
tried
to
do
was
copy
it
over
all
of
facially
just
copy
to
a
blank
file
that
you
ticket
and
then
just
take
stuff
straight
from
here
and
drop
it
in
here
there
are
couple
things,
namely
the
parameters
and
the
specific
section
I
didn't
know,
since
there
were
exactly
equivalent
headings,
I
just
threw
them
under
implementation
down.
Here
with
the
specific
description
they
get
parameters
that
sort
of
stuff,
I,
think
there's
I
didn't
get
anything.
A
C
C
One
thing
I
was
thinking
about
is:
should
we
have
like
these
additional
subheadings,
like
the
specific
description
of
get
and
the
specific
gift
renders
under
the
new
template,
and
my
thinking
was
that
it
probably
would
help
for
the
most
part
readability,
but
if
they're
become
too
many,
then
the
original,
like
structure
of
the
template,
kinda
gets
lost
and
it's
that's
almost
like
if
you
just
allow
as
many
subheadings
as
you
want.
What's
what
I'm
having
a
template,
if
it's
every
metric
is
going
to
be
wildly
different
with
all
the
different
different
pieces,
it
has
well.
E
The
original
for
those
superior
inches
to
organize
the
information
is
specific
for
the
implementation,
because
in
some
of
the
metrics
you
need
to
detail
how
to
do
the
staff
and
that's
dependent
and
the
friendly
system
that
you
are
tracking.
So,
for
instance,
that's
more
of
renting
back
to
the
fact
report
forget
ever
forget
that
welcome
back
Silla
are
way
different
energy.
A
E
E
If
you
think
that
that's
confusion,
maybe
we
can
either
put
that
at
the
end
of
the
template
or
maybe
put
in
our
secret
file
like
implementation
details.
The
problem,
usually,
is
that
once
you
scratch
the
surface,
some
issues
start
to
appear
and
put
that
you
need
the
details
so
that
implement
the
metric.
For
instance,
you
need
that
if
you
only
need
to
understand
it
of
that
at
the
high
level,
I
completely
agree
that
you
don't
need
all
those
details
for
it.
D
C
The
three
of
an
excellent
point
is:
is
that
having
a
specific
implementation?
Are
they
inside
the
the
metric
just
and
I
like
having
them
together?
Just
because
it
helps
you
get
more
of
an
idea
of
the
like
what
the
high-level
overview
is
talking
about,
I'm
not
particularly
married
to
either
having
it
in
the
same
file
or
a
separate
file.
Just
so
long
I
think
is
we
all
agree
on
it
and
that
we
stick
to
it.
I
think
that'll
be
okay,.
A
C
A
C
E
The
the
general
idea
of
the
parameters
is
that
you
need
them
to
integrate
a
metric,
so,
for
instance,
in
this
case,
we
need
a
period
of
time,
but
that's
an
intellectually
emendation
between
the
interpretation
of
the
metric
that
I
don't
know
and
then
in
the
new
template,
how
they
benefit.
I,
don't
know
if
that
could
be
a
subheading
under
description
or
hidden
by
themselves,
or
maybe
even
right
in
in
the
implementation,
because
maybe
you
can
understand
the
metric
without
their
the
deployment
for
one
like
this
one.
E
If
you
just
look
at
code
changes
and
nothing
else,
you
may
think
about
total
number
of
code
changes
over
in
the
repository
something
again
regretted.
The
metric
is
only
relevant
when
you
measure
that
over
a
period
of
time,
because
obviously
you
cannot
convert
in
years
with
one
month
of
code
changes,
okay,
so
in
other
words
the
reason
why
we
had
that's
great
or
heating
for
that,
but
but
I
don't
know,
maybe
could
be
a
sub
kidding
in
implementation
or
a
sub
hitting
in
description
or
I.
Don't
know
if.
C
A
D
C
So
then,
okay,
so
I
know
the
which
one
of
these
were
so
I'm.
Looking
at
the
end
of
the
patient,
Fred
scared,
which
one
of
these
were
ones
that
are
in
the
splits
I,
think
it's
filters,
visualizations
tools,
I,
don't
think
aggregators
was
one
of
them.
So
should
we
turn
that
into
another
one
of
those
subheadings
I
mean
it's
just
like
a
bullet
word.
C
D
E
Of
the
video
is
that
you
have
a
basic
metric
like
changes
that
usually
you
don't
want
there
they're
de
mettre
by
itself,
but
you
want
to
abbreviate
it
somehow
this
case
you
want
the
total
number.
In
some
other
case,
you
want
the
median
or
the
or
the
mean
or
whatever,
and
the
other
reason
for
it
bit.
E
E
E
But
in
any
case,
all
of
these
aggregators
parameters,
filters
etc
is
something
that
applies
to
most
of
the
metrics.
But
people
usually
didn't
include
the
world
of
reflection
on
that.
Up
to
now
I
mean
in
other
working
groups.
You
don't
find
that
kind
of
information,
so
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
interesting
having
in
the
template
somewhere,
maybe
under
implementation,
so
that
people
may
realize
that
think
about
that
at
some
point,
maybe
not
in
the
first
place.
B
B
C
C
But
I
also
feel
like
this
information.
It's
like
more
formal
definition
of
location
like
with
the
aggravators
and
the
parameters
and
has
stuff
it's
a
bit
more
specific
to
evolution.
I
also
feel
like
that's
I,
do
like
that
information
as
well,
and
so
maybe
it's
meant,
and
maybe
it
would
be
more
worthwhile
to
have
like
a
here's,
the
chaos
metric
template.
We
define
the
metrics
this
way.
You
know
with
just
the
just
the
stuff.
C
That's
in
the
beds
in
that
template
like
not
even
these
aggregators
in
prayer
or
some
writings
like
is
pretty
much
as
Gerald's.
We
can
get
it,
but
then
we
can
have
Christmases
Moeller
to
maintain,
but
there
may
be
a
separate,
a
separate
file
somewhere
else.
That's
like
a
more
evolution,
specific
description
of
the
metric
that
has
some
of
these
things
for
us
than
the
problem.
C
So,
maybe
that's
to
say
we
try
to
return
to.
Maybe
we
can
just
try
to
tend
to
think
them
as
general
as
possible
and
not
be
too
specific.
But
if
there
are
things
like,
if
there
are
parameters
here
that
we
really
feel
like
your
definition
of
the
metric
is
really
incomplete.
Without
them,
then
we
kick
them
in
:
yeah.
B
B
You
say
anyone
fun:
it's
a
difference
between
adding
that
metric
and
making
it
a
fun.
So
if
we
add
the
information
to
particular
metrics,
do
you
think
it's
important
I,
don't
think
that's
prohibited
by
the
template
when
I
think
I
think
what
was
happening
before
is
there
were
a
lot
of
require
sections
in
the
template
that
didn't
always
apply
or
have
relevant
reference,
and
so
we
ended
up
with
a
lot
of
redundant
information
so
that
people
can
feel
like
they
filled
up
and
I.
Think
that's
what
Matt's
trying
to
avoid.
B
C
E
That's
probably
something
that
we
incur
it
it
figures
at
some
points.
We
were
only
mentioning
the
tools
and
then
at
some
point
we
started
to
define
how
the
tools
were
defined
in
the
metric,
and
so
probably
this
is
something
inherited
for
when
we
words
are
saying
it
dmsa
implementing
this
and
nothing
else,
we
can
either
remove
it
or
whatever
you
may
want
to
try
it
online
I.
C
Think
it
would
be
fine
to
keep
it
because
I
know
the
front
of
this,
but
keeping
it
generally
is
the
tools
you
want
to
put
it
into
some
other
tools,
but
this
doesn't
go
I'm.
One
of
the
other
things
I
learn
Berlin
today,
here
we
talked
about
last
week,
was
that
if
there
exists
leans
to
specific,
like
specifically
to
the
exact
implementation
of
the
metric
like
to
API,
not.
C
D
D
A
E
There
is
that
the
general,
but
it's
probably
wrong
with
the
metric,
because
metric
suggests
a
number,
but
the
real
works
to
have
something
that
we
are
going
to
deal
with
in
this
case
changes,
and
then
you
can
aggravate
the
it
in
different
ways,
for
instance,
in
this
case
by
Counting,
but
the
interesting
information
in
the
energy.
What
changes
you
have
you
can
just
count
them,
but
you
can
go
deeper
with
them.
If
you
want
the
usual
aggregator
is
just
counting
them.
E
So
in
fact
that
that
that
means-
or
that
depends
on
how
you
want
to
proceed,
you
want
to
Vic
with
the
quote
with
a
question:
I
mean
the
usual
question
is
just
how
many
changes
you
have
and
that's
in
that
case
the
metric
is
the
number
and
that's
it,
but
you
can.
You
can
imagine
that
they
do
want
to
drill
deeper
into
that
metric,
and
you
want
to
know
how
many
changes
you
have
longer
than
something
for
instance.
E
A
E
Impression
is
that
we
should
be
consistent
and
either
have
broad
definitions
or
more
specific,
but
maybe
more
understandable,
on
our
questions
in
all
the
metrics
and
I
really
don't
care
which
one
because
I
understand
that
both
are
both
are
relevant.
And
maybe,
since
we
are
now
calling
the
metrics,
we
should
stick
to
metrics
and
numbers
usually,
and
in
that
case
it
could
be
like
your
shaker.
It
should
be
how
many.
D
D
E
That
you
activate
it,
and
then
you
have
the
number
and
the
number
is
the
result
of
a
covariant,
something
on
a
set
of
something.
In
this
case
the
set
is
code
changes
and
the
way
you
operate
is
counting
in
the
case
of
bag
reports.
For
instance,
you
may
have
back
reports
and
you
have
time
for
two
to
finish
a
back
report,
and
then
they
give
you,
maybe
the
median
for
that.
D
C
C
B
D
E
The
other
one
for
code
changes
lines.
We
have
what
is
the
sum
of
the
number
which
is
in
a
specific
number,
so
I
think
that
it
will
to
be
consistent
with
that
it
one
should
be
how
many
you
know
if
we
don't
do
that,
we
should
change
the
other
one
too
to
be
more
general,
because
it's
basically
the
same
issue.
E
D
E
C
C
A
E
D
C
A
C
A
A
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
B
C
D
D
C
B
C
Okay,
sorry
I
had
no
idea,
that's
really.
Where
did
that
anyways,
so
I
can
go
through
and
move
all
of
these
release,
metrics
into
the
new
focus
areas
that
we
talked
about:
the
code,
development
activity,
efficiency,
equality
and
then
issue
resolution,
so
that
we
have
those
for
release
and
then
I
know
that
we
talked
about
having
some
of
these
metrics
also
being
in
the
new
release,
but
also
identifying
ones
that
hadn't
been
like
formally
listed
in
evolution,
possibly
be
candidates
for
release
like
ones
that
existed
in
tools,
but
not,
but
not
in
the
repository.
C
Should
we
add
those
to
this
list
to
this
list.
Should
we
I
made
a
little
a
little
table
here,
this
oops
for
ones
that
we're
like
I,
think
this
would
be
good
for
detailing
this.
Don't
this
done
a
set.
These
aren't
necessarily
ones
that
I
think
we
should
release
but
more
ones
that
I'm,
like
I'd
like
to
sit
down
and
and
work
some
more
on
these.
A
B
C
C
Maybe
we
could
have
almost
like
a
like
a
work-in-progress
section
down
here.
That's
like
a
we're
working
on
these.
We
want
to
release
them
and
we
want
to
have
all
of
them
in
the
same
place,
but
they're
not
ready
to
be
considered
like
the
ones
that
I
might
be
still
be
working
on
that
way.
We
don't
pollute
these
lists
with
stuff,
that's
in
progress,
but
we
do
keep
them
all
in
one
place.
Would
that
make
you
feel?
Would
that
ease
some
of
your
fears?
C
I'll
make
sure
I
also
want
make
sure
that
this
gets
into
the
meeting
notes
in
the
repository,
so
we
have
more
stable
access
to
it.
Actually,
yeah
we've
gotten
them
in
the
garret
posted
already
so
I
can
I.
Don't
make
a
point
to
try
to
work
on
some
of
these
before
the
next
meeting.
I
keeps
doing
that
and
then
we
could
talk
more
about
them.
C
A
C
C
C
Is
this
something
that
we
want
to
keep
as
a
focus
area
of
realizing?
This
discussion,
probably
will
not
be
over
in
six
minutes.
Read
the
that
we
won't
finish
that
a
discussion
like
that.
Should
we
put
a
pin
in
it
to
talk
about
it
for
next
time?
Should
we
just
worry
about
the
other
ones
for
for
now
and
then
get
to
this
one
later.
Anybody
have
any
particularly
strong
feelings
where
we
just
get
to
it.
We
get
to
it.
A
C
C
B
C
B
Moment,
John
well,
I
think
you
know
in
the
at
the
beginning.
He
sees
that
I
coordinated
this
and
Casey's
good,
a
fantastic
job
of
getting
us
going
and
getting
in
the
shoulder.
Lisa
and
I
would
start
there
and
I.
Think
having
a
couple
of
people
who
work
together
to
coordinate
does
make
it
easier
to
sort
of
balance
the
load
and
have
someone
else
sort
of
in
real-time
favor
of
doing
what
we're
going
to
talk
about
in
these
meetings.
B
C
F
I
would
like
to
say:
I
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
volunteer
anyone
because
I
know
everyone's
busy,
but
from
a
clinic
because
the
this
work
group
is
so
tool
independent
and
be
really
nice.
If,
if
we
had
a
coordinator
from
Pattaya
and
a
coordinator
from
from
augur
to
kind
of
balance
out,
the
two,
the
two
software
groups
agree
just
my
thought,
but
but
I
know
everyone
ever
paternity
is
super
busy.
So
and
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
know.
If
anyone
there
wants
to
volunteer
so.
A
It
worked
really
well
having
issues
and
Shawn,
as
you
know,
from
both
camps,
and
it
would
be
nice
to
have
that
again.
To
make
this
happen,
it
would
be
beneficial
to
change
the
time
of
the
meeting,
because
right
now,
I,
don't
wait.
No
I'm
thinking
about
the
augur
meeting.
The
order
meeting
is
late
at
night.
No,
for
this
one,
there
I
know:
Manrique
is
planning
to
attend
regularly.
E
In
any
case,
I
can
talk
for
some
of
the
people
in
the
30th
at
them.
They're
usually
Madusa
to
a
synchronous
communication,
which
means
that
the
way
of
working
in
this
group
is
a
bit
difficult
for
some
of
them
that
the
multiple
opera
or
ent
they
are
the
more
difficult
to
working
meetings
in
general
I
mean
that
that's
maybe
the
the
I
cannot
the
culture
of
the
company
or
the
tutorial
on
to
social
projects.
So
I
know
because
I've
tried
somebody
like
paularyo,
for
instance,
to
involve
him
and
so
on,
and
he
tried.
E
But
the
way
they
usually
work
is
marked
much
more
simpler
with
very
few
meetings
and
the
medians
are
usually
just
photos.
I
did
not
react
to
the
working.
It
does
I'm
guessing
because
I
know.
That's
proton
and
I
know
that
you'll
be
pulling
out
your
work
in
a
different
way.
So
in
any
case,
I'm
going
to
work
to
talk
again
to
some
people
a
bit
earlier,
I
will
I
would
love
to
help,
but
I'm
telling
my
teammates
very
tight,
now
yeah,
but
I'm
going
to
tell
your.
Maybe
we
can.