►
From YouTube: CHAOSS OSPO Working Group May 4 2023
Description
Minutes from this meeting are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bf6a1Ywi4m0Ywo4vuBBp3Q9_AA_QKbWf99WxAqRbpMw/edit
B
D
B
It
gets
you
started
with
these
four
metrics
I
can
also,
as
you
freeze
I,
can
fill
in
the
gaps
for
you
all
right.
So
it
was.
It
was
this
I'm
really
sorry,
we
didn't
start
the
recording
until
now
that
it's
just
because
of
the
background.
So
it's
it's
really
this
metric
model
that
is
present
here
in
in
compass
lab,
and
so
if
I
was
to
click
on,
say
kubernetes
here.
B
You
can
see
just
the
single
project,
starter
Health
metric
model,
in
addition
to
again
all
of
the
metrics
that
help
comprise
that
metrics
model.
So
don
hoping
you
don't
freeze
again,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
process
by
which,
like
you
first
intended
the
do
you
remember
there
were
like
things
you
wanted
in
it
and
then
there
was
the
response.
C
Yeah,
so
it
was
interesting
because
I
had
originally
defined
time
close
as
one
of
the
metrics
in
the
starter
project
health
model
and
then
when
yahui
and
team
were
starting
to
implement
it
and
talking
about
how
they
were
going
to
implement
it.
I
realized
that
that
really
wasn't
what
I
was
looking
at
at
all
I
was
looking
at
a
change
request:
closure
ratio,
which
was
a
metric
that
we
didn't
have
to
find
and
so
I
had
to
Define
it
separately.
C
It
varies
a
lot
by
project
right,
like
really
complex
code
bases,
are
going
to
take
longer
to
merge,
pull
requests
and
and
I
feel
like
it's
not
as
useful
as
looking
at
the
change
request.
Closure
ratio,
which
is
really
kind
of
the
number
of
the
number
of
change,
requests
that
you're
closing,
meaning
either
merge
or
close
without
merge
compared
to
the
number
that
are
that
are
coming
in.
C
So
that's
basically
how
well
are
you
keeping
up
because
time
to
close
is
kind
of
a
response
metric
which
sort
of
overlapped
a
little
bit
with
time
to
First
Response,
so
I
felt
like
those
those
really
it
wasn't.
What
I
it
wasn't.
What
I
meant
when
I
said
time
to
close
that
wasn't
really
what
I
was
measuring
and
it
wasn't
until
he
started
implementing
it
and
asking
me
a
bunch
of
questions.
I
was
like
no,
that's
not
what
I
mean
at
all
and
he's
like.
C
B
But
that's
that's
what
I
got
in
the
chat,
all
right,
so
I
think
you
know
what,
with
the
if
I
go
to
the
slides,
the
UA
had
presented
these
in
the
metrics
model,
meeting
I
think
I
think
we
covered
a
lot
of
things.
So
the
idea
is:
is
that
groups
like
this,
like
the
osbo
or
the
osbo
plus
plus
working
group,
or
we
have
a
science
working
group
that
are
taking
a
look
at
what
would
be
the
metrics
models
that
are
potentially
important
in
their
particular
context?
B
The
lab
May
provide
an
opportunity
for
us
to
see
some
of
those
in
practice.
I
think
this,
this
project,
this
Downstream
project
from
chaos
and
so
I
to
me
it
it
is
really
interesting.
I
think
it
really
helped
the
conversation
with
developing
the
metric
model
and
it's
really
interesting
I
think
to
see
these
metrics
models
in
in
practice.
B
A
E
E
So
the
models
are
what's
defined
versus.
If
you
look
at
an
individual
project
I'm
trying
to
see
if
it
shows
you
what
things
it's
counting
for
the
project,
since
that's
sort
of
one
of
my
stickier
points
with
something
like
this,
like
I'd
love
to
see
these
are
the
X
number
of
repositories
or
specific
links.
D
E
I'll
show
you
what
they're
counting,
because
if
you
look
at
something
like
LFX
versus
other
dashboards,
they're,
not
always
counting
the
same
number
of
repositories
by
that
project,
because
kubernetes
has
four
plus
organizations
underneath
that
broader
umbrella,
so
I'd
be
curious.
If
they
can
I
don't
know,
is
there
a
way
to
give
them
feedback
like?
Is
there
a
way
that
they
can
just
show
that
the
bottom
of
a
project?
C
D
E
C
E
Got
to
go,
oh
I
see
it
there.
It
is
thank
you
yeah
and
you
can
click
on
it,
perfect.
Okay,
that's
what
I
wanted
to
see
and
I
missed
it.
So
thank
you
for
pointing
that
out.
I
guess.
The
follow-up
question
is:
how
do
we
stick
more
projects
in
here?
Are
they
open
to
like
I'm,
assuming
it's
a
SAS
tool
where
they're
just
shouldering
all
the
infrastructure
costs?
So
how
do
we
like?
What
are
they.
A
D
D
B
C
Well
and
I
think
it
builds
on
I
I'd
like
to
build
on
Sophia's
question
because,
like
individual
repositories
are
interesting
for
some
projects
for
others
they're
not
particularly
interesting,
because
the
the
project
isn't
in
a
mono
repo,
it's
broken
up
across.
You
know
a
few
repositories,
so
I
would
be
curious
if
they
have
any
thoughts
on
sort
of
aggregating.
The
results
for
multiple
repositories,
I
mean
you
can
kind
of
get
that
with
the
the
interface
as
it
is
right
now,
because
you
can
select
multiple
projects
and
compare
them.
C
So
you
could
get
like
all
of
the
I.
Don't
know
you
could
get
10
kubernetes
repos,
for
example,
but
but
you're
comparing
them
you're,
not
aggregating
them,
so
I'd
be
curious.
What
they?
What
they
think
about
that
that
question.
So
looking
at
multiple
repositories
versus
looking
at
a
single
repository,
so.
D
C
B
Think
something
is
open
to
anyone
from
what
I
understand.
Okay
and
I
think
the
there
have
been
questions
about
changing
the
weights
on
the
metrics
models,
and
the
answer
is
no
to
that
at
the
current
moment,
just
from
a
resource
perspective
and
I
think
in
terms
of
creating
a
metric
model
like
if,
if
like
you,
just
wanted
to
create
one
right
now,
the
answer
is
also
no
to
that:
I
think
they
would
assign
people
that
have
the
ability
to
create
a
model
and
then
Sean.
Your
question
was.
A
B
B
F
C
So
it's
never
above
one
because
of
the
way
it's
defined.
So
that's,
actually
that's
actually
not
a
bug.
That's
a
feature,
I!
Guess
the
idea
being
that
what
it's
looking
at
is
the
total
number
of
pull
requests
that
you
have
in
a
in
a
month
say.
So
if
there
are
a
hundred
pull
requests
in
that
month,
you
can't
close
more
than
a
hundred.
So
it's
not
a
hundred
new
pull
requests
open.
It's
a
total
of
a
hundred
pull
requests
that
existed
as
open
pull
requests
in
that
month.
F
C
So
Luis
has
a
really
good
point.
If
the
question
was
the
number
of
new
pull
requests
that
were
opened
and
you
were
doing
a
change
request,
closure
metric
against
the
new
ones
that
were
open,
you
would
have
outside
of
old
ones
that
were
open
that
were
kind
of
backlogged
and
you
could,
in
that
case,
close
more
pull
requests
than
were
opened
in
a
specific
month.
C
F
Agree
then,
we
need
to
modify
the
definition
because
it
points
to
the
error
IE
programmer
lab,
and
this
this
the
definition
is
different
because
we
are
using
the
they're
the
same
definition
as
BMI,
which
is
a
metric
that
comes
from
the
super
quality
environment,
okay,
so
and
that
definition
is
interested
in
in
measuring
each
variable,
basically
to
to
reduce
the
backlog.
So,
if
you're
interested
in
the
total
number
of
PRS
or
resource
you
are
able
to
close.
F
G
F
F
F
F
A
I
would
what
I
would
recommend,
and
this
is
what
I
generally
recommend
is
that
there's
a
solid
caption
under
each
of
the
visualizations,
because
I
think
I,
don't
know
that
what
is
being
represented
is
different,
but
I
think
it's
being
represented
in
a
more
clear
way
to
answer
a
more
specific
question
and
it
would
be
helpful
to
caption
exactly
what
someone's
seeing
here,
because
then
I
think
I'm
I'm
getting
a
different
perspective.
That's
extremely
useful!
So.
C
C
Of
the
template,
but
Luis
is
right.
This
isn't
this,
isn't
the
right
graphic
from
grimmar
Lab
to
represent
this
particular
metric,
so
yeah,
if
you
can,
if
you
can
come
up
with
a
better
one
and
file
an
issue
in
the
this,
is
in
the
common
metrics
working
group.
We
can
get
this
one
updated.
Thank
you
and.
A
C
No
I
think
it's
actually
I
I
would
say
it's
different
and
we're
actually
in
the
process
of
defining
this
metric.
This
REI
because
Louise,
your
blog
post,
we
we
kind
of
loved
the
blog
post
about
the
the
highlighted
metrics
models
for
for
the
month
from
baturgia,
and
so
we're
going
to
Define
both
of
those
BMI
and
nrei.
D
B
B
D
B
B
Do
so
as
while
I'm
here,
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
Anna
has
been
talking
about
with
respect
to
the
to
do.
Book
Project
is
that
different
groups
can
come
up
with
different
chapters,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
talked
about
in
this
group
is
how
models
can
help
an
ospo,
consider
or
Define
value
within
their
organization.
B
So
I
was
just
looking
for
some
preliminary
feedback
from
folks
as
to
whether
or
not
this
might
be
a
useful
chapter
to
move
forward
with
that,
we
would
essentially
set
it
up
around
three
things,
so,
models
to
help
an
ospo
consider
their
value.
So
these
would
be
folks
like
working
in
the
ospo
and
different
metrics
models
like
what
we
just
saw.
B
That
could
be
helpful
for
for
you
within
the
osbo
ways
to
interpret
those
models
so
I
think
kind
of
like
how
Don
was
talking
through
the
starter
project,
Health
metric
model
that
whole
conversation
like.
How
do
we
understand
this,
and
why
do
we
care
about
these
particular
metrics
models
would
be
a
really
important
thing
to
talk
about,
and
then,
lastly,
like,
how
do
we
take?
B
This
is
again
based
on
the
conversation
here.
How
do
you
take
what
we
understand
within
an
ospo
and
think
about
how
we
communicate
that
value
beyond
the
aspo
like?
How
do
we
talk
about
it,
because
one
of
the
things
I
heard
is
like
bringing
bringing
like
a
graph
or
numbers
to
people?
Sometimes
out
of
the
hospital,
isn't
terribly
helpful
in
terms
of
the
conversation
about
demonstrating
value.
So
what
what
do
we
need
to
think
about
when
we're
doing
that
interpretation
for
other
folks?
A
I
think
talking
about
metrics
models
and
explaining
their
purpose
in
open
source
possible
work
is
useful.
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
a
way
of
not
only
providing
standard
metrics
that
I
suppose
can
use
to
describe
the
value
of
their
open
source
assets
that
a
company
has.
It
also
helps
to
explain
the
value
of
the
ospo
itself
and
how
do
you?
How
do
you
keep
track
of
Open
Source
software
health?
B
B
I
C
Yeah
and
I
think
the
other
advantage
of
doing
it.
This
way
is
that
the
guides
were
the
guides
were
kind
of
Standalone.
There
was
a
lot
of
overlap.
They
didn't
really
like
tell
an
integrated
story,
so
I
like
the
idea
of
kind
of
redoing
this
and
putting
this
together
in
a
book
so
that
they
can
tell
a
more
more
give
a
more
cohesive
picture.
I
think.
E
B
Yeah
sure
so
I
mean
what
I
was
thinking
about
is.
Is
we
have
like
a
project
that
kind
of
exists
in
relation
to
a
bunch
of
other
projects,
both
upstream
and
downstream?
How
the
health
of
the
project
that
you
care
about
might
have
an
impact
within
an
ecosystem.
So
if
that
project
failed
and
there's
kind
of
like
abnormal
stabilizing
mechanisms
that
need
to
occur
within
a
collection
of
projects
that
may
be
related,
so
that's
what
I
meant
by
that.
G
Okay,
thanks
Matt,
so
I
think
yeah,
that's
clear
to
me.
I
was
thinking
that
one
more
angle
or
one
may
one
more
Dimension
could
be
there
from
the
client
impact
perspective.
Like
I
work
for
a
service
organization
where
we
are
work,
we
are
serving
so
many
clients
and
if
ospo
is
not
able
to
deliver
the
value
to
some
of
the
clients,
then
probably
OS,
it
will
be
difficult
to
justify
that
why
ospo
is
required.
Definitely
it
is
internal
things
with
the
partners.
G
H
D
D
C
I
think
that's
a
really
interesting
way
to
look
at
this
because,
if
you
think
about,
if
you
think
about
the
value
of
an
ospo
kind
of
overall,
a
lot
of
them
start
with
one
thing
being
the
value
of
the
osbo.
So
frankly,
a
lot
of
them
start
with
compliance.
I
mean
I,
think
that
was
kind
of
how
vmware's
also
started
a
lot
of
them.
That
I
know
start
with
start
with
compliance,
because
that's
what's
really
important.
You
have
to
get
that
right.
C
The
licensing
stuff
isn't
optional,
and
so
the
value
of
that
ospo
is
kind
of
around
like
complying
with
licenses
and
then,
as
as
the
aspers
Evolve,
they
often
pick
up.
You
know
additional
things
so
now
you
know
in
vmware's
case
now.
We're
also
responsible,
for
you
know
a
bunch
of
strategic
things
and
looking
at
business
models,
and
you
know,
alignment
across
across
projects.
C
I
Was
I
was
just
going
to
jump
in
and
say
kind
of
the
same
idea
of
maturity,
but
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
how
to
phrase
it.
That
maturity
feels
like
almost
the
wrong
word
to
say
how
you
pinpoint
what
value
is
being
produced,
because
I
think
to
your
point
on,
like
many
hospitals
start
for
the
the
compliance
or
vulnerability
aspect,
especially
post
log
4J,
but
we
probably
see
them
mature
in
very
different
ways,
and
they
start
to
share
some
responsibilities.
I
And
that's
why
to
do
and
chaos
is
so
interesting
is
because
you
see
what
the
overlap
is
based
on
industry
and
based
on
the
atmosphere
at
the
company.
So
it
might
be
like
less
of
a.
How
long
have
you
been
in
the
osbo
and
how
mature
is
your
osbo
and
more
like
what
problems
are
a
problem
for
the
business
and
what
kind
of
value
do
you
need
to
deliver
to
stay
viable
within
that
business?
I
B
C
B
It's
good
would
it
make
from
a
structural
perspective.
Let's
pretend
that
I
that
we
just
had
internal
alignment
is
the
header.
Would
it
make
more
sense
to
talk
about,
say,
internal
alignment,
talk
about
what
are
is
important
when
thinking
about
interpreting
models
with
respect
to
internal
alignment
and
then
how
you
would
talk
about
internal
alignment
within
an
organization
like.
B
Like
right
now,
I
have
like
here
are
the
things
that
you
would
consider
in
your
osbo
like
these
things,
and
then
here's
how
you
would
kind
of
think
about
all
of
these.
All
of
these
things
together.
You
know
here
are
the
kind
of
important
considerations
against
each
of
these
considerations
and
then
here's
how
you
communicate
them.
So
it's
kind
of
built
on
how
you
think
about
things
inside
of
the
hospital
and
how
you
communicate
outside
would
it
make
more
sense
to
say
internal
alignment
like
Within
osbo
as.
B
Does
that
make
sense?
It's
just
a
it's
a
it's
kind
of
responding
to
Chan's
comment
that
folks
might
just
look
for
one
thing:
they're,
just
all
they
want
to
talk
about
is
say,
partner,
alignment
or
client
impact
or
whatever
it
might
be.
That's
what
they
care
about
at
the
moment.
So
just
tell
me
the
story
about
how
I
talk
about
client
alignment
is
what
I'm.
That's
the
only
story,
I
care
about
right
now,.
C
That's
it's
going
to
be
different
depending
on
what
your
organization
is
trying
to
do,
and
if
you
don't
have
that
alignment
with
your
ospo
like
if
your
osbo
isn't
aligned
with
what
the
company
actually
cares
about.
That's
a
really
quick
way
to
get
your
osbo
just
sort
of
cut
under
resourced,
something
because
you
have
to
be.
You
have
to
be
working
on
the
things
that
the
the
organization
thinks
is
important,
and
so
that's
that's.
C
Where
I
try
to
start
with
these
discussions,
it's
like
figure
out
what
your
organization
needs
figure
out,
how
the
hospital
fits
within
it,
and
then
you
can
figure
out.
You
know
how
to
how
to
communicate
all
of
this
to
the
executive.
So
they
understand
how
important
it
is
and
where
do
the
metrics
fit
in,
so
that
you're
actually
measuring
the
things
that
they
care
about
and
that
you
can
talk
about
them
in
a
way
that
aligns
with
what
the
executives
think
is
important.
C
C
E
I'm,
just
mostly
thinking
about
this
particular
chapter
as
it
relates
to
the
broader
book
and
recognizing
this
is
just
one
part
and
that
I
don't
know
I
guess
I
guess.
For
me,
the
concern
is
just
I'm,
not
sure
how
the
rest
of
the
book
is
framing
all
these
things,
such
that
I
know.
Each
chapter
is
written
by
a
different
group.
E
What
what
do
we
think
is
constructive
and
how
to
phrase
it
constructively
to
possible
readers,
but
at
a
certain
point,
does
this
have
to
fall
back
into
a
larger
document
and
I,
don't
know
like
I
think
it
I
don't
want
to
reinvent
the
wheel
in
too
many
places
that
would
cause
conflicts
to
alignment
to
earlier
parts
of
the
book.
So
I
guess
maybe
maybe
I'm
jumping
ahead
of
myself
a
bit
but
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
Are
there
any
existing
principles,
Frameworks
or
approaches
that
the
book
has
already
laid
out
before
they
get
to
this?
E
C
D
A
B
So
there
is
a
repository
where
these
discussions
are
occurring
and
I
think
most
are
posted
in
issues
right
now
in
terms
of
book
chapter
ideas:
I,
don't
have
it
real
Handy
in
front
of
me,
that's
cool,
so
my
my
intention
was
kind
of.
If
we
were
to
like
say
like
these
points,
one
through
four
or
however,
we
end
up
presenting
it.
I
mean
I,
would
post
it
as
an
issue
first
and
say:
how
does
this
sound
even
to
Anna?
B
So
it
kind
of
to
your
point:
Sophia,
not
just
writing
in
a
vacuum,
but
I
can
also
post
an
issue
that
kind
of
speaks
to
your
question
Sean
about.
Is
there
an
overarching
structure
and
how
do
we
even
to
your
point,
Don
like?
How
do
we
see
those,
because,
if
there's
something
that
we
need
to
tie
into,
that
would
be
useful
to
understand
what
that
thing
is
whatever
it
might
be.
C
It
might
be
worth
going
back
to
Anna
and
and
providing
her
with,
because
I'm
going
to
guess.
This
is
the
first
book
she's
edited,
maybe
providing
her
with
some
ideas,
best
practices,
some
feedback
on
what
you've
seen
work
well
in
the
past
and
maybe
also
as
a
part
of
that
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
overall
Frameworks
ideas
are
and
see.
If
we
can
align
this
better.
C
C
We
are
out
of
time
almost
I
am
going
to
add
the
project,
viability,
assessment,
discussion
topic
to
the
next
agenda
item
so
Gary.
This
actually
came
out
of
I
think
you
were
in
a
newcomer
meeting
or
something
we're
asking
some
questions
about
this,
and
we
thought
it
might
be
interesting
to
talk
about
in
this
particular
group.
So
I'm,
sorry,
we
didn't
get
around
to
this,
but
if
you
have
other
specific
questions,
if
you
want
to
add
those
in
the
notes
and
then
we
can
also
make
sure
that
we
talk
about
them
in
the
next
meeting.
E
E
D
A
E
For
discussion
at
chaoscon
next
week,
if
you
are
planning
to
go
to
that
the
session
I'm
leading,
is
around
sustainability
but
spoiler.
A
lot
of
it
is
sort
of
understanding
whether
or
not
we're
talking
about
ecosystem
sustainability
versus
project
viability
and
trying
to
think
about
those
two
spaces
separately.
So
I
am
going
to
sort
of
feed
that
into
the
discussion
plan
for
next
week,
which
is
not
part
of
this
particular
meeting.
But
it
is
part
of
the
extended
chaos
discussion,
groups.
C
C
If
you
want
to
submit
to
that
because
it
closes
quite
quickly
and
if
you
have
any
ideas
for
what
we
should
put
on
the
agenda
for
next
time
feel
free
to
drop
those
in
here
or
start
the
agenda
for
the
for
the
next
meeting.
We
really
do
want
this
to
be
valuable
for
people.
So
please,
you
know,
please
add
your
your
things
that
you
want
us
to
talk
about.
That
would
be.
That
would
be
great.