►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Value.June.18.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Value.June.18.2020
A
B
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
First,
is
I'm
going
to
share?
My
screen
again
is
on
the
tracking
spreadsheet
yeah
so
based
on
what
we
have
released,
because
I
think
the
goal
is
to
keep
the
existing
set
of
metrics
that
have
been
priorly
released
and
how
are
we
going
to
re-categorize
them,
and
maybe
we
could
spend
some
time
in
the
spreadsheet
today
re-categorizing
them
here,
and
then
I
can
make
a
pull
request
to
the
readme,
which
includes
a
table.
C
A
C
E
C
10
of
my
way,
that's
right,
there's
no
middle
ground
for
you,
so
I
I
think
the
question
is:
is
there
a
threshold
of
working
groups
that
are
working
on
a
metric
at
which
we
throw
it
to
common?
So
in
the
case
of
forks,
three
different
working
groups
were
working
on
it,
and
so
we
threw
it
to
common.
In
the
case
of
kokomo,
there
are
two
different
working
groups
working
on
it.
So
do
we
throw
that
to
common
and
honestly,
it
doesn't
really
matter
be
except
this.
C
Does
the
working
group
working
group
has
to
release
the
metric
right
for
review,
and
so
the
question
is
like
with
forks,
I
don't
think
there'll
be
any
trouble.
Kokomo
is
more
complex,
maybe
maybe
they'll
be
trouble,
I
don't
know,
but
we
can
always
move
metrics
to
different
value,
sure
yeah.
Let's
what.
B
B
F
B
B
A
Okay,
great
and
yeah,
in
the
in
the
copy
of
that
that
explains
so
much.
I
couldn't
see
the
bottom
bar
in
my
zoom
share,
so
it
was
like
didn't
we
organize
this
already
and
then
copy
a
value
we
we
had
the
longer
conversation
of
like
where
does
scms
fit
in,
where
does
job
opportunity
fit
in
labor
investment,
and
we
found
like
there
is
that
social
value
category
that
we
don't
have
a
good
metric
that
fits
it.
But
we
know
it's
something
we
want
to
care
about.
So
we're
going
to
save
that
space,
yep
good.
C
B
E
A
Yeah,
okay,
well
yeah,
we'll
cross
the
bridge
when
we
get
there
good
all
right.
Well
with
that
in
mind,
you
know
for
me,
like
with
this
stuff
going
forward.
Does
it
make
sense
to
start
talking
about
the
things
that
are
in
progress,
that
we
haven't
made
a
decision
on
and
say
what
category
they
fit
in.
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
I'm
just
taking
a
look
at
these
metrics.
I
know
we
had
some
metrics
version
that
still
have
a
bunch
of
to-do's
in
them,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
this
kind
of
needs
a
decent
standard.
All
the
ones
that
are
technically
in
the
archive
folder
are
good
to
add
back.
So
that's
awesome.
I
think
the
only
thing
that's
still
a
gap
right
now
is
project
popularity.
Has
a
bunch
of
tbd
looks
like
the
recommendation
is
to
use
auger
auger
can
do
it
anyway,
yeah
auger
can
do
it
cauldron.
Could
too
right
yeah?
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
Stars
and
stars
and
watching
is,
is
sort
of
sort
of
alfred
hitchcock
style
voyeurism
on
a
project
like
I
have
a
novel,
I'm
interested,
but
I'm
not
doing
anything.
I
think
popularity
is
more
parsimoniously,
measured
by
the
number
of
forks,
the
number
of
pull
requests.
The
number
of
people
actually
contributing
to.
A
The
project-
that's
not
my
impression
in
in
industry
at
least
like
stars-
are
the
the
vanity
metric
that
people
like
talk
about
more
than
anything,
they
don't
say
like.
Oh
we've
got,
we
just
hit
a
thousand
forks,
they
say.
Oh
we've
got
10
000
stars
like,
and
it's
not
that
it
means
anything
substantially
on
its
own.
It's
that
it's
it's
exactly
what
it
is.
It's
a
pass
through
for
popularity
that.
C
C
We're
actually
getting
a
contribution,
I
think,
is
a
more
so
yeah
if
you're
you're
right
in
industry
stars
matter,
but
it's
actually
the
more
popular
developers
and
where
they
go.
The
paper
that
kelly
blinko-
and
I
did
that
indicate
where
the
popularity
of
a
project
is
so
it's
not
really
the
stars
on
the
project.
It's
the
people
following
developers
and
the
projects
that
those
developers
go.
That
are
a
signal
of
where
the
popular
projects
are
going.
Let's
see.
A
C
A
C
A
Yeah,
which
a
value
judgment
is
a
moral
judgment
in
a
sense
of
what
is
worth
something
yeah.
So
but
anyway,
this
isn't
philosophy
class.
So
we
can
move
on,
but
the
thought
was.
I
love
the
idea
of
anchoring
it
in
research,
though,
like
and
you've
done
the
research,
and
if
you
is
there,
a
system
by
which,
like
I
I
don't
know
like
if
project
popularity,
if
the
intention
of
it
it
doesn't
seem
originally
there
wasn't
much
intention.
It's
a
bunch
of
dvds.
A
B
C
It's
more
yeah
the
finding
is
more
along
the
lines
of
users
who
are
followed
a
lot
when
they
move
projects
they
bring
the
popularity
with
them.
So
yeah,
that's
the
so
when
it
comes
to
project,
I
think
project
popularity
is
a
it's.
It's
there's
a
lot
of
value
judgment
in
deciding
what
is
popular,
and
I
guess
I'm
just
saying
that
corporately
of
stars
have
become
the
accepted
metric.
B
C
B
A
A
A
It's
like
you
have
to
cross
like
some
magical
threshold,
where
you
were
thus
popular
like
we
could
say,
like
any
project
over
a
thousand
stars
is
popular
like
oh,
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
say
that,
as
like
a
truism
but
like
there
is
kind
of
there's
that
sort
of
energy
floating
around
this.
I
don't
really
know
how
to
capture
that.
C
You
scroll
down
a
little
bit
because
I
I'm
not
able
to
see
the
basics.
Oh
there's
nothing,
there's
nothing
much
to
show
so
I
mean
I
would
just
add
two
base.
Metrics
things
like
a
number
of
pull
requests:
number
of
issues,
a
number
of
comments
on
pull
requests,
number
of
comments
on
issues,
because
I
think
popularity
is
also
a
signal
of
engagement
so
like
there
are
thin
and
deep
expressions
of
popularity
and
we're
not
drawing
a
discussion,
we're
not
drawing
a
value
judgment
about
which
are
thin
or
deep,
but
contributors
and
forks
and
stars.
C
C
C
C
So
a
person
could
operationalize
popularity
only
as
stars
or
only
as
forks,
but
they
could
and
then
they
would
just
say
that
this
measure
of
popularity
is
implemented
using
the
chaos
metric
with
these
filters-
and
I
think
so-
and
I
think
I
was
having
a
discussion
based
on
the
new
template
without
realizing
until
looking
at
it.
I
was
looking
actually
at
the
old
template.
A
B
B
A
C
And
a
lot
and
frankly,
almost
all
of
my
work
on
metrics
and
measuring
things
through
trace
data
is
based
on
on
being
clear
about
ontologies,
because
on
top
the
way
that
you
name
things
implies
an
epistemology.
It
implies
a
value
system
about
what
it
is
you're
trying
to
measure,
and
so
maybe
sometimes
I
get
a
little
too
anal
about
it.
But
but
that's
my
when
I'm
talking
about
metrics
like
I'm,
really
thinking
about
the
words
we're
using
and
what
they
mean.
Maybe
maybe
too
much.
C
F
F
F
F
A
B
A
F
F
B
A
F
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
E
A
F
A
A
A
F
So
last
time
we
were
discussing
that
these
are
either
captured
somewhere
else
or
not
really
value
metrics,
but
they
are
components
that
inform
our
metrics,
and
so
we
crossed
them
out
to
signal
that
we
would
not
take
them
on,
but
we
haven't
removed
them
just
in
case.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
they
are
already
addressed
in
other
focus
and
other
working
groups.
B
F
F
F
D
F
F
C
Well,
yeah:
the
question
was:
is
there
a
threshold
like
if
any
two
working
groups
want
to
do
it?
Does
it
because
does
it
become
a
common
thing
or
do
we
like?
How
do
we
want
to
manage
that?
I
know
it's
already
being
developed
in
common,
so
pokemon
do
we
want
to
just
throw
it
yeah?
Do
we
want
to
just
have
this
like?
C
I
could
have
the
working
group,
that's
doing
it
in
evolution,
just
simply
implement
it,
and
then,
during
the
review
period
we
can
say
hey,
let's
make
this
a
common
metric
or
I'm
just
trying
to
talk
through
the
process.
So
we
don't
spend
a
lot
of
time
coordinating
like
in
the
case
of
forks.
It's
pretty
easy
because
there's
like
three
working
groups,
it
gets
a
lot
easier.
F
C
C
E
C
C
F
A
A
F
A
Good,
okay,
well
we're
a
little
over
time,
so
just
wanna!
Thank
you
all
for
a
ton
of
work
that
got
us
here
and
especially
matchy
for
taking
point
on
quite
like
the
socratic
method
of
getting
to
focus
areas.
It
was
very,
let's
get
that
done.
Yeah
done
right
on
so
good,
all
right!
Happy
releasing
for
those
that
are
part
of
that
release
cycle
and
talk.