►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Metrics Models Working Group 6/7/22-6/8/22
Description
Links to minutes from this meeting are on https://chaoss.community/participate.
A
The
record
button
it's
great
to
have
everybody
here.
It
is
june
7th
june
8th,
and
this
is
the
chaos
metrics
model
meeting,
so
whoever
is
sharing
their
screen.
Thank
you
for
doing
such
a
thing.
I'm
guessing
it's
sean.
A
All
right
today,
the
the
question
in
one
of
in
the
chaos
community
call
was,
if
you
had
a
chance
to
go
to
outer
space,
would
you
go.
A
C
A
Feel
like
answering
whether
or
not
you
go
to
outer
space
in
this,
you
can
do
that
as
well.
So
just
a
kind
of
a
note
we're
not
going
to
have
a
meeting
on
the
21st
of
june,
so
this
is
going
to
be
it's
the
meeting
two
weeks
from
today.
A
Yeah
we
keep
things
going
async,
but
this
is
the
week
of
oss
summit,
north
america
in
austin,
and
we
just
we
kind
of
end
up
kind
of
going
a
variety
of
different
ways,
and
so
we're
gonna
actually
take
two
two
weeks
off,
so
it's
gonna
be
from
meeting.
So
it's
going
to
be
the
june
and
we'll
announce
it
but
june
20th
and
then
the
week
of
june
27th.
A
So
both
of
those
movies
will
be
back
the
fifth
of
july
after
the
weekend,
so
okay
yeah
so
just
kind
of
a
little
period
there.
All
right.
I
would
like
to
on
the
metric
model
proposal.
A
D
Actually,
I
added
this
thing
because
I
you
know,
after
last
meeting
we
discussed
and
and
give
give
a
new
proposal
based
on
the
discussion
due
to
the
meeting
and
also
the
discussion
on
the
slide.
Okay,
so
should
we.
A
D
D
So
here
this
is
the
new
proposal
of
the
ripple
structure
and
we
we
would
have
a
matrix
model
libs,
which
would
include
all
the
matrix
model
with
the
font
in
past
several
months,
and
you
can
see
that
it.
It
contains
all
the
different
kind
of
metrics
model
we
defined
for
each
of
the
single
for
each
of
single
matrix
model.
We
have
this
structure
like
this.
We
have
definition
folder
all
markdown
file.
D
It
would
contains
multiple
possible
implementations
for
this
single
matrix
model.
For
example,
we
we
have
one
matrix
model
at
community
activity,
we're
using
this
distribution,
open
source
community,
this
data
site
to
verify
this
matrix
model.
So
in
under
this
linux
distribution
folder,
we
will
contain
algorithm
data
inside
and
date
data.
That
will
be
defined
today
and
also
may
we
may
have
some
other
real
world
community
implementations,
so
we
can
add
more
folder,
folders
or
implementation
under
this
matrix
model.
B
B
B
I'm
I'm
thinking
would
I
be
wrong
to
think
that
for
each
of
these
two
communities,
the
algorithm
would
probably
be
roughly
the
same.
Probably
the
data
insight
would
be
roughly
the
same.
I
suppose
if,
if
you're
having
to
reach
out
to
for
in
the
case
of
the
linux
kernel,
it's
not
principally
distributed
on
github,
so
you
might
have
a
slightly
different
data
collection,
algorithm.
D
B
B
D
A
B
D
Actually,
in
the
right
part,
it's
a
we
call
it
focus
areas
we
we
would
select
a
different
matrix
model
from
that
part
leaps
to
build
different
focus
areas.
For
example,
we
discussed
the
ecosystem.
D
This
we
would
like
to
using
one
macdon
file
to
contain
part
of
the
matrix
model
selected
from
the
lips
and
not
all
not
all
the
leaves
would
not
all
the
matrix
model
would
be
included
into
the
ecosystem,
because
not
all
of
them
are
suitable
for
for
this
ecosystem
structure.
D
So
here
we
also
using
macdonfall
to
to
to
describe
the
different
dimensions
like
productivity,
robustness
and
niche
in
each
of
the
single
dimensions.
We
will
include
some
matrix
model
we
defined
in
the
leaps
and
and
if
you
select
click
the
next
step.
C
D
So
all
the
single
everything
goes
links
of
matrix
model
actually
linked
to
the
ellipse,
but
we
don't
have
to
divide
redefined
here.
This
is
just
a
single
magnum
file.
Okay,
and
also
we
have
references
to
say
why,
how
we
define
this
matrix
mod.
Do
we
have
any
references,
so
I
list
some
papers.
B
D
Yeah,
except
for
the
ecosystem,
macdonald
file,
we
may
have
some
other
expect
to
def
to
reorganize
the
some
matrix
models.
That's
that's
pretty
fun.
So
in
the
next
example,
we
can
see
we
we
already.
We
also
could
have
culture.
D
B
Maybe
bottom
bottom,
okay
left
bottom
got
it
this
here.
D
Yep,
so
you
can
say
that
for
the
different
focus
areas
they
could
share
the
same
matrix
model
if
they
think.
C
F
D
B
The
effectively
bringing
these
two
pieces
together,
your
the
metrics
models
and
the
focus
areas
kind
of
create
a
graph.
So
it's
not
so
much
a
structured
hierarchy,
but
it's
a
it's
a
graph
where
I
can
have
ecosystem
tags
on
multiple
different
metric
models
and
they
can
be
incorporated
into
these
different
focus
areas,
etc.
D
Yeah,
actually
in
the
website,
you
can
use
some
filter
by
the
times
to
filter
out
what
you,
what
you
would
like
to
say
upon
your
upon
your
communities.
Okay,
scenarios,
background.
A
A
D
A
A
D
C
D
A
C
B
Go
ahead
in
my
head
conceptually
at
least
the
data
insights
are
conceptually
the
same
or
very
similar,
regardless
of
the
implementation
like
they're
they're
categorically
they
probably
should
be.
I
would.
A
B
D
A
We
were
talking
about
this
a
little
bit
in
the
community
call
today,
just
with
metrics
themselves
about
we
have
an
implementation
section
in
in
our
metrics,
and
we.
A
A
B
D
Maybe
we
can
just
hide
kind
code
and
just
copy
the
visualizations
and
and
data
inside
the
explanations
into
the
definitions.
Part
at
the
data
inside
and.
F
A
A
100
agree
yeah.
The
comment
then
that
I
had
to
was
I
I
like
this
structure,
because
it
kind
of
solves
to
it
solves
a
problem
that
I
was
kind
of
struggling
with
when
we
left
the
last
asia
or
the
metrics
model
call
it.
The
left
side
allows
us
to
develop
metrics
models
just
as
just
to
develop
the
metrics
models
by
themselves,
irrespective
of
how
they
are
organized
yeah.
The
box
on
the
left
is
it's
related,
but
independent
to
the
to
the
box
on.
A
D
Cool,
maybe
maybe
echo
system
is
the
current
way.
We,
I
think
it's
the
best
way
to
to
restructure
the
matrix
model,
but
I
I
do
think
do
believe
that
in
the
future
we
may
have
more
good
focus
areas
of
background.
I
agree
yes,.
A
A
C
Cool
all
right,
great.
D
G
I'd
still
like
to
hold
off
on
the
the
focus
area
part
the
first
part
of
it
I'm
completely
comfortable
with.
I
think
it
looks
great,
but
the
the
focus
area
part
of
it
is
the
the
part
I'm
still
having
trouble
with.
B
Well,
how
about
we
have
them
include
the
focus
area
part,
and
then
we
make
the
comments
and
the
pull
request
and
try
to
sort
it
out
that
way,
because
I
I
don't
think
what's
being
proposed,
actually
works
if
we
don't
implement
both
of
these
things,
because
not
including
the
focus
areas
would
kind
of
obliterate
the
utility
of
the
tags
in
a
way
so
like.
Instead
of
pondering
this
infinitely,
I
might
suggest
we
have
you
who
we
make
the
full
pull
request.
G
I
will
just
defer
to
matt
and
sean.
You
don't.
B
Have
to
defer
dude,
I'm
looking
for
a
way
to
like
keep
this
rolling
without
spending
every
metrics
model
meeting
discussing
it.
G
Right
so
there
there's
there's,
there's
upcoming
work
with
the
knowledge
base
right
and
then,
and
then
we're
also
trying
to
define
what
some
of
these
terms
mean
across
the
working
groups
and
that
stuff.
That
is
an
ongoing
discussion
and
the
the
second
part
of
the
model.
I
don't.
G
I
don't
know
that
it
matches
where,
where
I'm
at
with
with
some
of
those
things,
so
it's
in
in
my
mind,
it's
premature
to
to
move
forward
with
the
focus
areas,
because
it
it
doesn't
necessarily
fit
with
what
I
need
for
the
knowledge
base
or
what
what
yash
may
need
for
the
knowledge
base.
B
So
if
who
he
called
focus
areas,
something
else
like
implementation
areas
or
application
areas
or.
G
G
D
G
No,
so
I
I
agree
with
you
that
focus
area
probably
is
the
correct
term,
but
the
way
that
we
understand
the
focus
areas
we
need
to
have
some
collective
shared
understanding
of
what
a
focus
area
is
so
focus
area
is
probably
correct
and
it's
probably
the
way
that
we're
going
to
want
to
organize
it.
G
So,
if
each,
if
each
working
group
is
defining
their
own
focus
areas,
then
the
the
focus
areas
that
we
define
here
mean
absolutely
nothing
in
the
common
working
group
or
the
evolution
working
group.
So
so
that
that's
why,
for
me,
it's
a
bigger
discussion
because
it
involves.
Can
we
can
we
land
on
focus
areas
that
can
exist
across
the
working
groups?.
B
B
My
challenge
is:
the
concept
is
that
is
labeled
focus
area
in
this
graph
is
closely
intertwined
with
the
metrics
model
libs.
In
terms
of
how
we
implement
things-
and
I
don't
want
to
hold
up
the
creative
process
in
this
working
group
in
the
name
of
taxonomic
consistency,
I
would
rather
use
a
different
label
for
now
and
then
refine
it
as
the
chaos
level.
B
Definition
of
what
a
focus
area
is
comes
into
pardon
the
pun
focus,
and
then
then
we
can
sort
of
refine
these
names
or
what
we
call
these
things,
but
I
think,
having
whatever
we
call
focus
area,
if
we
call
it
bob,
I
think,
having
bob
there
is
important
for
getting
sort
of
some
inertia
going
on
the
metrics
model.
Libs,
like
I
see
them
as
interconnected.
B
A
G
A
G
A
G
I
have
the
slide
deck
I'd
be
happy
to
bring
it
forward.
I
can't
bring
it
right
now
because
I'm
I'm
not
on
my
computer,
I'm
on
my
phone.
A
B
I
think
I
would
like
to
ask,
I
guess
I'll.
I
think
I
think
we
could
handle
this
discussion
asynchronously.
I
have
it
handy.
G
B
I
can,
I
think,
if
I
is
that
better
worse.
A
G
Right
so
so,
this
is
how
this
is,
how
we
we
organize
our
work
and
how
the
working
groups
can
have
a
shared
understanding
of
focus
areas
across
working
groups.
So
this
is
not.
This
is
not
how
we
would
organize
metrics
for
users
or
models
for
users.
Those
metric
and
model
categorizations
for
users
would
be
would
be
based
dynamically
on
tagging
right,
so
we
don't
need
to.
We
don't
need
to
come
up
with
a
with
a
focus
area
that
broadly
describes.
G
G
So
basically,
what
I'm
saying
is
because,
because
focus
areas
that
describe
some
sort
of
miserable
phenomena
are
so
kind
of
arbitrary,
I
propose
that
we
don't
even
try
to
define
these
these
categories
right,
rather
than
rather
than
categories
of
measurable
phenomena.
We
focus
more
on
categories
of
context
that
describe
context
area
and
then
on
the
the
vertical
we
have
our
working
groups
that
we've
just
we've
chosen
to
be
aligned
with,
which
is
it's
kind
of
a
an
arbitrary
thing.
But
it's
the
way
we
work
right.
A
A
B
I
it's,
I
think,
the
only
difference
with
what
yahui
proposed
is
that
kevin's,
suggesting
that
these
tags
ultimately
do
create
this.
What
we're
calling
focus
areas
on
this
slide,
organically,
okay
and
kevin's,
asking
us
to
hold
off
on
defining
focus
areas
in
this
explicit
way,
but
effectively
we'll
be
doing
it.
I
would
say
implicitly
when
we
start
right
when
we
start
tagging
things.
B
G
Yes-
and
you
don't
have
to
use
all
of
the
focus
areas,
but
there
would
be
it
would
be
a
shared
collection
of
focus
areas
across
working
groups.
Maybe
it's
maybe
it's
eight,
maybe
it's
ten.
Okay,
maybe.
D
Yeah,
maybe
we
can
finally
achieve
this,
the
final
goal,
but
I
think
if
we
totally
from
the
whole,
I
mean
the
members
from
from
the
community
from
the
community.
If
we
achieve
this
the
agreement
for
the
common
focus
areas,
I
would
anticipate
it
going
to
last
a
very
long
long
time.
D
E
G
I
don't
know
that
it
would.
I
don't
know
that
it
would
take
as
long
as
as
you
think
it
would
take,
because
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
people
that
go
to
these
working
group
meetings
are
the
same
people.
So
it's
really
a
matter
of
getting
consensus
with
a
few
key
members
from
chaos
who
attend
all
of
these
meetings
right
and
then,
additionally,
I
would
say:
there's
there's
already
some
overlap
in
how
this
is
done
so
dei.
G
G
G
E
From
my
understanding,
what
we
wish
to
achieve
is
a
label
system
that
both
apply
for
metrics
and
matrix
models,
and
I
wonder
if
it's
possible
that
we
can
maintain
like
something
like
a
markdown
file
to
collect
what
we
have
for
the
name
of
all
folks
area.
For
now,
and
it's.
E
Yes,
that's
what
I
want
to
say
and
if
I
understand
this
right,
this
label
system
allows
a
single
metric
or
a
metric
model
to
have
several
applied
like
it
can
be
under
multiple
focus
areas.
So
it's
more
like
a
label.
G
So
we
would,
we
would
still
organize
it
by
working
group
and
focus
area
which
we
do
do
now.
However,
there
would
be
a
common
focus
area
across
the
working
groups
as
far
as
the
categorization
and
organization
for
people
who
are
interested
in
finding
these
models
that
categorization
and
organization
would
all
be
done.
Dynamically
based
on
tagging,.
A
C
I
have
one
question
so
if,
if
you
okay,
can
you
go
to
the
seventh
slide?
Yes,.
B
C
C
C
B
C
D
Because
all
the
matrix
model
we
define
at
the
initial
idea
it's
based
on
the
in
practice,
we
use
it
for
the
different
scenarios
right.
We
cannot
to
say
okay,
this
is
the
definition
id1.
I
have
to
make
it
common
to
force
other
people
to
use
that,
but
this
is
the
real
example
of
best
practice
from
from
some
under
some
background
or
practice.
D
D
B
A
A
And
so
maybe
yahui
like
in
this
situation,
like
doing
a
pr
for
a
focus
area
of
ecosystem
would
be
okay.
You
know
what
I
mean
in
this
context,
and
so
we
could
at
least.
G
Yeah
go
ahead
in
that
scenario.
Yes,
I
and
I
agree
completely
ecosystem.
That's
that
would
be
a
context
area
and
then
productivity,
robustness
and
niche
would
probably
be
tags
that
that
describe
the
the
models
within
that
context,
area.
C
D
How
about
I
create
pull
requests
for
the
all
the
repost
structure
to
let
you
see
how
how
it
works.
G
Yeah,
so
in
the
in
the
ecosystem
example,
common,
common
uses,
the
context
area
place
and
maybe
place
is
too
maybe
that's
too
high
level.
G
C
B
B
Project
areas,
if
possible,
yeah
in
this
discussion,
because
g-stock
starts
next
week,
and
I
would
like
to
talk
about
just
briefly
how
we're
going
to
organize
the
conversion
rate
folks.
C
A
Things
that
I
would
like
to
just
add
to
this
conversation
kevin
had
brought
this
up
to
about
gsac
students
is
that
it's
important
as
mentors
that
the
students
who
are
participating
in
google
summer
of
code
are
not
bound
to
each
other
so
that
if
one
person
does
not
do
well,
that
doesn't
bring
the
other
person
down
as
well.
You
know
what
I
mean,
so
there
must
be
an
evaluation
path,
that's
individual
for
both
people
and,
I
think
kevin.
You
had
probably
put
those
comments
in
there
about
splitting
the
project.
A
I'm
guessing
that
was
you
about
grimoire,
lab
and
auger
implementations
conversations.
G
B
I
agree,
I
think
it's
it's
critical
and
we
do
have
one
student
who
is
already
working
with
yehui
in
grammar
lab,
and
so
I
think
that
student
ought
to
do
that
and
we
can
discuss
the
rest
of
it
in
okay
slack.
I
think
I'm
open
to
any
pathways
that
you
know
don't
tightly
couple
the
two
students
efforts
with
each
other
to
your
point
about
effective
mentoring
that
yeah.
G
Do
we
have
time
to
hear
mabel's
thoughts
on
this.
B
G
F
Yeah
I
just
messaged
kevin
earlier
today,
because
I
guess
when
I
wrote
my
proposal
and
when
I
like
applied
to
gsoc
it
was
I
I
don't
know.
I
thought
I
was
under
the
impression
that
the
conversion
rate
was
like
for
one
student,
so
I
kind
of
wrote
my
proposal
for
one
student
and
then
now
it
seems
like
two
people
are
doing
the
thing.
So
I
just
wanted
to
know
if
anything
has
changed
or
like
about
the
project
and
how
it's
divided,
or
is
that
still
being
like
considered?
F
A
No,
I
think
that's
fair
yeah,
100,
fair
yeah,
so
maybe
mabel
when
you
had
done
your
proposal
was
it
did
you
identify
a
particular
technology
like
gremore,
lab
or
auger.
F
A
B
G
They're
implemented
also,
I
would
say
if,
if
you
have
a
desire
to
implement
an
inaugur,
I
think
I
think
that
would
be
equally
welcome.
A
B
F
C
G
You,
I
think,
yeah
go
ahead
it
if
there
is
a
deviation
from
it.
I
think
that
deviation
should
be
completely
up
to
to
mabel.
So
like
we
don't,
we
don't
want
to
force
you
to
deviate
from
it
at
all,
and
we
we
selected
you
for
the
project
that
you
applied
for.
G
B
F
F
F
B
Other
ideas,
I
think
the
the
thing
we
want
to
be
sensitive
to,
for
example,
is
yahoo
is
mentoring,
another
student
and
he
may
not
have
the
bandwidth
to
mentor
two
so
certainly
kevin,
and
I
and
vanad
have
a
solid
understanding
of
this.
And
if
you
come
to
these
meetings,
you'll
have
the
context.
If
you
will.
A
So
mabel,
so
the
venue
is
sorry
yeah
venue
is,
is
more
focused
on
gremore
lab.
He
had
worked
at
batergia
and
was
really
involved
in
really
the
gremore
lab
stack
for
years.
So,
if
that's
the
direction
you
go,
I
would
suspect
that
the
new
would
have
a
little
bit
more
input
sean
just
oh
okay.
He
just
left
I'm
ready.
A
A
F
F
A
Yeah
sure
one
tiny
last
thing
I
know
that
we're
over
time,
but
we
are
starting
chaos,
africa,
so
ruth
is
gonna,
be
leading
our
efforts
in
in
africa
to
build
community
there.
I
was
gonna
propose
that
we
kind
of
rebrand
this
group,
as
opposed
to
just
the
asia
pacific
call,
which
is
what
it
is,
that
we
have
chaos,
asia,
pacific
and
we
kind
of
recognize
a
community.
A
It's
really
just
a
branding
issue,
I
mean
shoya.
I
know
you
have
done
a
ton
of
work
like
around
meetups
in
the
past,
and
I
think
it's
I'd
like
to
take
some
time
to
recognize
that,
as
as
chaos,
asia,
pacific,
not
just
just
a
phone
call,
not
just
a
zoom
call
that
is,
that
is
branded
asia
pacific.
So
if
you
could
just
think
about
that,
it
might
be
nice
to
have
kind
of
an
identified
person.
A
A
Thing
that
I
think,
would
recognize
the
work
that's
being
done
here
in
a
really
great
way,
so
think
about
it,
and
we
can
talk
about
it
on
the
asia,
pacific,
the
chaos,
asia,
pacific
zoo
meeting
next
week.
A
D
Okay
in
the
last
asia-pacific
pacific
meeting
is
also
mentioned.
C
A
This
up
in
asynchronously,
in
slack
I'd
really
like
to
I
went
through
the
spreadsheet,
to
identify
metrics
models
and
kind
of
where
they're
at
with
our
new
template.
So
there's
some
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
to
start
building
those
definitions
for
the
metrics
models,
and
I
was
going
to
list
that
today.
But
we
did
some
other
work
today.
A
So
I
think
we
really
need
to
start
organizing
the
metrics
models
that
we
are
working
on
and
the
ones
that
we
have,
that
we
get
them
in
the
proper
template
so
that
we
can
start
kind
of
advancing
them
and
so
I'll
bring
that
up
in
slack
just
today
or
tomorrow.
Okay,
okay,
okay,
great.