►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Evolution.April.22.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Evolution.April.22.2020
A
A
Sean
did
some
some
reviews
on
it
since
the
last
meeting
and
I
think
it's
ready
for
another
round
of
analysis
from
us
and
then
I
believe
that
there's
a
new
metric
that
is
due
to
release
the
30-day
waiting
period
on
the
new
contributors
metric
is
over
and
so
I
think
we
are
ready
if
there
are
no
outstanding
objections
to
go
ahead
and
get
that
out
there,
and
then
there
are
a
number
of
other
polar
quests
that
are
open
them.
She
may
or
may
not
have
seen.
A
Most
of
those
are
still
in
the
early
processes
being
worked
on,
so
you
know
just
getting
formatting
things
right,
language,
changes
and
so
most
of
those
I
think
are
still
early
enough
on
and
the
review
stage
that
it
would
be
better
for
us
to
just
do
offline
reviews
with
those
until
they're
at
a
point
where
it
would
be
I.
Think
more
productive
to
have
the
whole
to
spend
some
time
on
the
on
the
call
on
them.
If
that
makes
sense,
so.
A
A
A
A
Right,
oh
yeah,
okay,
so
I
think
we
just
wanted
to
clean
up
the
rest
of
this,
because
we
felt
that
it
was
pretty
earnestly
redundant,
but
it
just
could
be
more
succinct
like
you
could
just
the
first
the
way.
The
way
it
is
now
just
the
objective
is
to
determine
how
many
people
had
stopped
contributing
just
so
you
can
tell
who's
interested
just
changing
some
of
the
language
to
make
that
clearer,
looks
good
to
me
just
misspelled
contributors.
It
looks
like
it's
fixed
in.
B
A
Probably
not,
this
was
the
first
time
we
talked
about
it
was
last
week
was
last
meeting
yeah.
This
wasn't
in
a
this
was
not
did
not
come
from
a
Google
Doc.
Okay,
should
we
well
is
that
is
that
I
mean
that
is
an
easier
way
to
collaborate?
Should
we
have
people
propose
like?
Would
that
be
an
easier
way
to
have
people
start
contributing?
Do
you
think,
would
that
make
more.
B
Sense
more,
the
workflow
that
we
use
everywhere
else
is
started
in
a
Google
Doc
and
then
once
it
becomes
kind
of
stable
at
that
point
and
create
the
PR
in
github,
okay
and
then
once
the
PR
is
merged,
then
ask
for
feedback
the
community
feedback
on
that
thirty-eight
window.
So
this
just
this,
this
one
just
skip
the
Googlebot
apart.
Okay,.
A
A
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
So,
okay
yeah,
so
it
would
be
right.
It
would
be
a
week
like
you're
saying
like
a
week
or
two
weeks
or
whatever,
and
then
it
all
is
whatever
you
to
so
you
have
the
window.
You
have
the
month
know
that
you
want
to
look
at
a
show
me:
the
interval
of
people
who
have
been
active,
or
so
many
the
people
who
have
been
active
for
three
days
or
more
right.
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
A
We
usually
what
we
usually
do
have
in
aggregators
heading,
but
it's
it's
always
formatted.
It's
it's
not
really
a
heading.
So
much
it's
just
like
it's.
It's
a
bolded
little
section
under
implementation.
Okay
and
it's
usually
the
same
one
for
parameters
but
I'm,
not
really
sure
that
this
to
me
this
that
the
aggregator
is
just
count
in
this
case,
which
would
be
the
number
of
inactive
contributors.
If
that's
even
an
aggregator,
it's
I
mean.
B
A
That
I
I
think
that's
alluding
to
like
it's
just
for
quest
still
open.
So
in
the
actual
poor
oppressed
comment
that
one
that
we
marked
resolved,
he
did
make
a
reference
to
a
graph.
A
graph
period
period
as
a
year
would
show
how
many
went
inactive
in
each
year.
I
still
don't
understand
what
the
graph.
B
B
A
A
I
see
like
you
know,
if
I,
if
the
contributions,
if
it's
three,
if
the
minimum
contributions
is
three
and
I've
only
made
two
contributions
in
the
past
week,
even
though
I
have
actively
been
contributing
to
the
repository
I
would
tell
still
still
technically
fall
under
inactive.
Okay,
so
I
mean
having
the
minimum
contributions
feels
like
it's
trying
to
answer
the
question
of
like
how
how
active
are
the
people
who
are
active,
like
how
many
people
you
know
with
with
this
certain
level
of
engagement
as
opposed
to
just
are
they
engaged
at
all?
Let's.
B
A
A
A
A
I
think
there's
one
just
for
contributors.
Let
me
try
to
find
I
really,
oh
here
it
is
okay.
So
if
you're
looking
at
my
screen,
the
the
specific
implementation
of
the
contributors
metric
here
in
the
description
I
mean
this,
would
this
even
be
a
specific
implementation
of
the
contributors
metric
in
active
contributors?
This
is
the
common
one.
B
B
B
A
B
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
B
B
A
Think
it
was
I
think
there
was
a
change
to
contributors
that
we
were
waiting
on
from
whom
I
think
I
think
that's
the
one
that
was
from
Georg
has
down
there
on
yeah
I
mean
then
looks
like
the
last
thing
and
I
mean
if
I.
If
I
pull
up
the
metric,
it
looks
good
to
me,
I
mean
I,
think
we
went
through
a
couple.
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
D
D
A
B
A
B
I
am
this
is
so
I
think
in
evolution
and
I've
asked
for
the
raw
file
on
this,
but
in
evolution
there
are
a
couple
focus
areas
where
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
metrics,
so,
for
example,
around
issues.
There
are
things
like
new
issues,
closed
issues,
age
of
issue,
reopening
of
an
issue
right,
you
gotta,
get
this
there's
a
life
cycle
lives
with
issues
and
pull
requests
are
kind
of
similar.
B
So
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
yesterday's
community
call
was
creating
kind
of
these
high-level
visuals
as
to
what
the
relationship
between
issues
is
just
so
people
can
come
to
the
evolution
working
group
or
you
know
the
cache
project
and
then
the
evolution,
working
group
and
kind
of
say
you
know
you
have
these
five
metrics
related
to
issues
related
to
one
another.
Okay,.
A
B
And,
of
course,
there's
there's
kind
of
exceptions,
there
will
be
exceptions
to
these
rules
so
for
example
course,
but
just
kind
of
this
high
level
view
right.
So
when
we
talk
about
the
age
of
an
issue,
what
does
that?
Even
what?
What
is
that?
Well,
what
does
that
cover?
Yes,
mm-hmm
when
we
talk
about.
You
know
time
to
close
an
issue
mm-hmm
the
window
that
that
covers
so
I'd
recommend
once
I
get
the
raw
files
for
this.
B
A
D
B
A
B
D
D
It
this
is
a
good
starting
point,
but
my
thought
was
like
should
I
see
those
intervening
as
a
considering
at
reform
or
should
ask
him
when
I'm
in
the
revolution,
I'm
thinking
of
a
cycle,
okay,
poor
issue,
append
issue,
commented
issue,
result
in
a
cycle
deform
or
reopen,
should
I
turn
it
that
visual
in
a
circular
motion
and
visualize
it
something
along
those
lines.
So,
but
this
is
a
really
good
starting
point.
As
for
the
thing
and
like
evolved
over
the
period
of
time,
how
we
can
visualize
for
to
see
the
relationship
from
different
mattresses.
B
D
B
B
Pretty
important
for
evolution,
certain
B'nai
you
and
I
talked
about
this
yesterday.
I
think
that
certain
working
groups
and
their
aggregation
of
metrics,
it's
less
so
so,
for
example,
the
example
I
brought
up
yesterday
was
in
the
diversity
and
inclusion
working
group,
their
aggregation
of
metrics.
They
don't
quite
have
the
same
relationship
mm-hmm
time,
temporal
relationship
that
these
would
so
right.
A
B
A
I
think
I
think
a
good
way
to
do.
It
could
be
by
focus
area
like
when
we
have
these
goals,
like
you
know,
maybe
even
framing
but
like
having
this
like
here's
an
overview
of
some
of
the.
What
we
feel
are
the
key
metrics
in
this
focus
area
and
how
they
relate
to
others.
Of
course,
then
that
starts
to
I
guess
limit
it
to
within
that
focus
area
which
may
or
may
not
be
what
we
want.
You
know.