►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Value Working Group 8-12-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
So
here's
the
pr
if
it
looks
good,
then
if
anyone
can
merge
it,
because
I
have
revised
the
readme
I've
updated
the
readme
based
on
the
revised
format.
D
A
You
did
here
bernard,
so
I've
like
changed
the
formatting
as
per
the
new
formatting,
which
is
a
standard
format
for
all
the
working
groups
and
instead
of
problem
statement.
I've
changed
it
to
the
goals
to
mission
to
purpose
and
who
should
join
like
it
was
have
a
different
groups
ever
different,
but
as
per
standard
format,
I've
incorporated
the
same
template
from
the
standard
format
and
yeah
the
meeting
agendas.
A
A
And
contributing
this
was
like
just
detail
which
is
release
metric
and
it's
same,
pointing
to
the
website
like
following
the
standard
convention.
A
A
B
C
A
Okay,
so
next
agenda
item
on
the
meeting
is
fear,
metric
and
matchy.
You
had
action
item
to
put
some
text
around
it,
I'm
not
sure
yeah.
No,
I
have
not
done
that.
E
B
Yes,
I've
been
I've
been
actively
reconciling
like
slowly
as
I
do
the
fear
metrics
with
chaos.
So
I
could
take
that
action
item
for
next
time.
G
A
A
Last
time
I
recalled
jacob
stephen
jacob
shared
some
links
to
look
for
those
things.
I
don't.
D
Yes,
let
me
open
this.
H
A
A
It's
like
ep
and
bibtex
formatting
outside
your
repository,
and
that
was
also
one
of
the
things
for
even
journal
meeting
that
how
we
can
incorporate
this
for
the
chaos
working
groups
like
how
to
cite
our
work
or
any
metric.
If
anyone
is
adopting
it.
B
Get
sight
you
like
in
sight
as
backwards
like
yes
sight
as
I
don't
know,
if
github
has
implemented,
site
has
or
a
derivative
of
it,
but
both,
I
think
are
are
valid
ways
of
citing
software
or
stating
that
your
software
can
be
cited
in
this
way.
Unless
matt,
you
think
I'm
misinterpreting
what's
happening
or
elizabeth.
No,
I
think.
A
B
A
C
B
E
I
B
C
Yeah
right,
okay!
Yes,
let
me
put.
B
B
C
B
I
agree
with
math,
I
think
they're
different
things
I
I
think
research
reputation
has
broader
is
broader,
is
more
broad
because
there's
also
a
metric
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
citations
that
researchers
use,
which
is
downloads
and
a
number
of
labs
using
it
contribute.
So
they
use
a
lot
of
our
regular
ks
metrics
to
establish
researcher
reputation.
E
B
B
I
had
to
had
to
walk
and
feed
the
the
dog,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
noticed,
but
my
office
is
rearranged,
so
I
was
up
a
little
late
moving
it
around.
So
I
could
see
out
the
window.
I
got
tired
of
staring
at
a
cement
wall.
Yeah
that
happens.
E
G
E
C
E
D
G
F
E
A
A
A
A
B
So
I
don't
think
metrics
models
need
well,
we
should
bring
it
to
the
group.
The
metrics
models
application
verb,
not
to
know
that
we're
doing
it,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
would
expect
that
group
to
do
all
of
the
models.
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
every
working
group
is
going
to
end
up
having
metrics
models
and
those
metrics
models
may
span
metrics
from
more
than
one
working
group.
E
Now
it's
an
interesting
question
because
the
metrics
model
working
group,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
balance
would
work
so
like
as
an
example,
academic
researcher,
reputation
or
just
researcher
reputation
would
be
a
candidate
or
a
metrics
model.
E
B
A
So
maybe
a
suggestion
can
be
like
if
a
working
group
is
proposing
a
metric
model,
they
can
develop
the
model
and
then
share
it
with
the
metric
model
group
for
like
further
dissemination
to
the
journal,
because
that
group
will
be
more
focused
on
okay.
This
is
the
question
these
are
the
various
metrics
and
and
like
work
can
happen
both
ways
but
like,
for
example,
we
are
working
on
this.
We
can
develop
it
and
then
share
it
for
them
to
disseminate
to
the
broader
audience.
C
B
A
E
My
guess
is
that
any
metrics
listening
again
still
just
to
this
conversation
that
any
metrics
model
is
going
to
be
like
eight,
maybe
eighty
percent
from
one
working
group.
You
know
what
I
mean:
yeah,
supplemental
metrics
from
other
working
groups
and
it's
just
the
responsibility
of
the
other
of
the
working
group.
So,
for
example,
researcher
reputation
is
clearly
a
metrics
model
that
originates
here,
but
it
would
be
the
responsibility
of
this
working
group
to
to
circulate
that
model
to
other
working
groups
just
to
see.
If
there's
any
points
of
connection.
G
E
Yeah-
and
this
is
like
primarily
coming
out
of
value-
or
it's
primarily
the
the
badging
program
like
I
think
that
can
be
a
metrics
model.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
it's
primarily
coming
out
of
dei,
but
you
may
have
some
thoughts
as
to
other
things
that
shouldn't
be
included
as
well,
that
are
coming
from
your
working
groups
and
it's
quite
possible
that
people
will
be
like
yeah.
No,
we've
got
nothing
to
add
that
looks
good.
G
I
also
envisioned
these
being
released
like
as
official
kind
of
packages
when
we
release
our
our
metrics.
E
I
agree
actually,
but
sean
was
saying
like
having
a
review
period.
I
think
we
should
probably
just
end
up
following
the
same
model
like
we
built
this
metric
model.
It's
built
against
this
template
to
your
point,
elizabeth.
It's
now
under
community
review
right.
We
can
still
follow
the
same
path
so
now
that
we've.
E
B
Yep,
I'm
I'm
making
a
note
in
the
minutes
about
the
metrics
model
process
and
I
think
I'll
add
it
to
the
app
ecosystem
minutes
that
the
value
group
proposed
this
structure
and
would
like
to
discuss
it
with
them.
B
G
E
G
B
A
B
G
A
Okay,
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
value
of
a
project
to
be
a
part
of
larger
ecosystem.
H
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
more
an
ecosystem
question
or
a
value
question,
but
the
thing
I
was
I
was
within
the
end
of
energy
I
operate
in.
We
see
a
lot
of
value
things
we
could
attribute
to
it
ourselves
to
project
in
projects
working
along
with
each
other
with
common
interfaces,
and
so
they
operate
well
work
well
with
each
other
and
also
having
a
set
community.
A
G
Would
it
be
a
simple,
a
simple
like
yes,
no
or
just
a
simple
count
like
I'm
thinking
of,
like
you
know,
like
a
stack
like
a
lamp
stack,
so
you
know
your
your
php
you're
in
this
lamp
stack,
so
that
would
be
like
a
a
one.
You
know
you
get
one
point
and
then,
if
you
are
lumped
in
with
other
things
and
other
places,
maybe
then
you
get
more
points
or
more
counts
of
like
how
many
times
is
your
project
kind
of
packaged
up?
G
If
I'm
understanding
kind
of
what
you're
saying
here
is
like,
like
the
synergy
of
having
like
this
whole
kind
of
nice
little
package
of
open
source
projects
together,
increases
the
value,
the
synergy,
so
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
just
a
simple
count.
Instead
of
trying
to
say,
like
oh
you're
in
this,
this
group
and
this
group
is
more
valuable
than
this.
Other
group
like
I
think
that
could
be
kind
of
complicated,
but
I
don't
know
what
y'all
think.
A
So,
for
example,
as
elizabeth
pointed
out
being
a
your
project
being
part
of
that
php
package,
are
you
adding
value
to
that?
Are
you
being?
There
is
a
value
contribution?
I'm
I'm
thinking.
Are
you
trying
to
give
value
to
the
ecosystem,
or
are
you
taking
the
value
from
the
ecosystem
or
how
you're
positioning
that
project
mine
is.
E
E
So
it's
strength
in
numbers,
and
so
it's
not
to
a
project.
But
it's
to
the
collection
like
the
sum
is,
what
is
the
phrase?
The
hole
is
greater
than
the
sum
of
its
parts,
something
like
this.
That's
the
phrase
two
plus
two
five
yeah.
So
that's
that's
what
I'm
that's
what
I
read
here
from
nico's
nico's
issue,
which
is
cool.
I
mean.
That's,
that's
why
I
like
this
so
much
because
I
think
it
starts
describing
value
not
just
to
a
project
or
from
a
project
but
to
a
collection
as
a
whole.
H
Is
it
then
so
simple
to
just
say,
is
it
part
of
a
larger?
You
know
larger
ecosystem,
but
it
can
be
multiple,
of
course.
But
like
are
you
part
of
a
bigger
organization
with
a
similar
goal.
G
And
you
know
to
get
to
that
point.
Sorry,
tonight's
point,
you
know:
does
a
project
get
a
value?
Do
they
do?
They
gain
some
sort
of
like
legitimacy
or
you
know
some
kind
of
like
raise
in
their
standing
by
being
a
part
of
that
group
so
like
when
someone
feels
safer,
you
know
using
that
project,
because
now
they're
kind
of
they've
been
recognized
and
are
acknowledged
in
this
group.
E
A
So
if
I
simplify
a
question
for
this
metric,
like
thinking
in
terms
of
goal
questions,
so
can
I
say
my
question
is:
like:
can
a
project
add
value
to
the
ecosystem,
like
how
much
value
my
project
is
adding
to
the
ecosystem.
A
J
A
B
So
I
think
I
think
it
really
is
more
about
how
or
how
researchers
explain
the
value
of
building
and
maintaining
software
as
a
research
activity,
because
it's
not
traditionally
considered
a
research
activity.
So
wait.
We
aren't
really
talking
about
research
here.
I
don't
think
I
thought
we
were
talking
about
the
academic
stuff.
Did
we
move
on
while
I
was
taking
notes.
G
B
So
so,
actually
so
in
terms
of
academic
credit,
software
is
not
generally
granted
equal
or
even
any
academic
credit
in
many
contexts,
and
so
this
is
about
not
so
much
the
value
of
a
contribution
which
could
be
evaluated
by
people
outside
of
academic
evaluators.
It's
about
the
how
the
how
this
metric
helps
academic
evaluators
to
see
the
value
of
software
constructionists.
G
B
E
Issue
then
yeah
it's
on
the
screen.
I
I
actually
think
the
I
think
the
easier
thing
to
measure
would
be
or
to
think
about
would
be
the
value
that,
if
you
want
to
just
talk
at
the
project
level,
the
value
that
a
project
derives
by
being
part
of
that
ecosystem,
because
if
I
think
about
the
chaos
project,
there
are
things
that
I
could
probably
kind
of
pinpoint.
So,
for
example,
we
derive
value
because
we
can
connect
chaos
con
with
ossna,
like
we
can
connect
our
events
with
these
larger
events.
H
H
Yeah
on
on
the
events,
it's
like
having
a
platform
to
announce,
kl's
been
there
and
the
issues
to
come
up.
E
Even
like
I
mean
this
wouldn't
be
in
the
metric,
but
like
the
chaos
and
dei
badging
program
like
we
badge
lf
events
like
a
lot
of
them,
and
I
think
it's
because
of
our
association
with
the
lf
that
we
like,
we
were
more
approximately
closer
to
a
lot
of
other
lf
events
than
if
we
were
in
the
apache
software
foundation
or
if
we
were
in
the
software
freedom,
conservancy
or
wherever
we
might
be
located.
E
So
I
think
we
badge
a
lot
of
lf
events
because
we're
we're
located
close.
I
mean
we
have
access
to
to
things
like
lfx
that
whole
lfx
system,
the
the
budget
system
and
the
insight
system.
This
was
part
of
whether
or
not
this
should
be
chaos,
software
right.
That
was
that
conversation
in
slack.
But
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
we
derive
like
indirect,
and
I
would
imagine
that
cncf
projects
are
the
same.
E
E
A
H
Also
running
this
around
in
my
head
wrapping
my
brain
around
it
so
yeah
yeah,
I
think
so,
there's
one
part,
but
I
think
that's
more
with
the
app
ecosystem,
more
the
technical
side
of
integration
with
with
code
and
dependencies
like
the
gnome
or
the
kde
app
ecosystem,
but
for
more
on
organizational
point
of
view
and
and
energy
and
css
cncf.
The
examples
I
gave.
I
think
this
is
one
point.
E
B
H
I
heard
some
some
good
discussion
in
one
of
the
podcasts.
I
listened
about
from
chaos
this
weekend,
but
I
could
see
projects
depending
on
each
other
of
having
having
a
that.
You
would
typically
deploy
them
together.
G
H
E
B
B
That
is
very
similar
to
ecosystem
because,
like
if
I'm
bounding,
an
ecosystem
by
energy
chances
are
all
energy
companies
have
a
common
set
of
software
or
a
very
largely
overlapping
set
of
software.
They
use,
and
that
is,
that
is
the
boundary
of
their
ecosystem
and
so
to
the
extent
that
you're
interested
in
which
dependencies
are
at
the
highest
risk
across
that
ecosystem,
then
I
think
it
contributes
to
what
your
issue
is
about.
B
I
mean
the
thing
about
ecosystems
is:
there's
all
some
there's,
always
a
group
or
an
individual
who
decides
what
the
boundary
is
when
you're?
Actually,
when
the
rubber
hits
the
road
and
you're
actually
producing
metrics,
but
we
yeah,
but
we
do
have
a
metric
about
dependencies,
so
we're
actually
using
osf
scorecard
now
as
well,
but
that's
again
just
project
by
project.
It's
looking
across
projects.
That's,
I
think,
the
most
valuable.
G
This
this
idea
of
ecosystem
value
also
applied
to
software
that
works
with
other
apis,
like
that,
wouldn't
be
really
a
dependency,
but
that
would
be
a
close
connection.
You
know
if
you
have
like
I'm
thinking
of
zapier,
for
instance
like
it's,
not
open
source,
but
you
know
they
can
they
have
a
lot
of
partnerships
with
other
software
that
allows
them
to
consume
and
you
know,
use
the
apis
so
like
that
would
be
their
ecosystem.
G
H
G
H
Compatible
double
down
on
that
within
the
end
of
energy.
We
even
have
an
architecture
and
a
data
steering
group.
H
So
we
it's
it's
almost
it's
a
very
waterfall
design
like
we
have
this
view
on
the
world,
and
we
want
to
fill
in
the
gaps
and
we
want
to
have
these
building
blocks.
I
mean
there
might
be
duplicates.
Of
course
it's
all
organic,
but
and
we
want
to
have
them
integrate
in
certain
ways,
so
it's
quite
coordinated
and
yeah
api
driven
or
interface
really
now
you're
going
to
call
it.
A
Maybe
in
the
interest
of
time
I
would
say,
then
what
will
be
the
next
step
for
this
is
like,
should
we
think
of
it
as
a
metric.
I
I
see
two
metrics
from
this
metric
project,
contributing
to
the
ecosystem
and
project
drive
from
ecosystem,
and
but
we
don't
have
a
so
maybe
where
these
two
will
live
on
our
focus
areas.
H
F
H
H
E
B
E
And
I
think
the
honestly
like
the
if
it's
if
it's
about
deriving
nico,
I
think
some
of
the
like
just
the
ways
to
measure
are
like
you
know,
I
think
it's
around
like
events
it
might,
it
could
be
around
dissemination
of
work,
it
could
be
around
financial
support,
it
could
be
around,
like
you
know
like
like
as
an
organization
or
as
a
community.
You
would
ask
yourself
these
things.
E
Like
am
I
if
I
don't
have
any
any
value
with
respect
to
assisting
with
my
finances
by
being
part
of
this
ecosystem,
the
answer
could
be
no,
which
is
fine.
Am
I
writing
any
value
on
my
events
by
being
part
of
this
ecosystem?
You
know
what
I
mean:
what
value
would
that
be.
E
H
Like
you
I'll
say,
gonna
say
that
yeah,
that's
that's
quite
important
and,
yes,
it
helps
to
get
projects
off
the
ground.