►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Value.Sept.24.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Value.Sept.24.2020
A
So
we
will,
I
have
a
few
things
on
the
agenda
today.
It
looks
longer
than
it
really
actually
is
so.
The
first
I
think
we
should
we
can
address
this
here,
so
is
with
respect
to
the
social
currency,
metric
system
and
the
naming
of
it.
So
there
was
a
a
question
with
respect
to
trademark
and
the
movement
towards
trademark.
So
then
yeah
we.
This
is
just
kind
of
an
update
for
you
too,
so
we
had
talked
to
mike
dolan
at
the
linux
foundation,
just
about
kind
of
the
impacts
of
trademark.
A
The
recommendation
that
came
was
to
rename
social
currency
metric
system
within
the
chaos
project,
and
so
the
issue
is:
is
that
for
social
currency,
metric
system
and
trademark?
You
have
to
be
clear
on
the
provenance
of
where
that
name
comes
from
and
so
to
help
disambiguate
the
provenance
of
that
that
name,
it
would
be
smart
to
have
scms
live
in
kind
of
in
your
space.
So
the
provenance
is
clear
that
the
name
comes
from
there,
and
chaos
can
still
work
with
the
methodology
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
Okay,
yeah,
and,
to
kind
of
give
you
an
update,
dylan
myself
and
the
lawyer
that
we
were
speaking
with
in
and
of
itself,
they
wanted
to
confirm
whether
or
not
we
were
actually
like
one.
The
application
information
never
actually
got
submitted
and
two.
The
reasoning
for
the
submission
way
back
in
like
2017-2018
was
because
we
weren't
sure
if
the
licensure
of
the
system
was
wholly
safe.
When
we
were
just
saying:
okay,
yes,
it's
a
creative
commons
attribution.
C
So
that's
what
we
had
originally
placed
on
the
system
and
we're
like
okay.
Is
this
really
gonna
work?
Is
this
gonna
protect
us
for
a
business
and
then
it
was
brought
up
that
we
add
a
trademark
to
it
and
we
went
through
the
entire
process.
We
went
right
up
to
payment
and
I
don't
know
nor
remember
what
happened,
but
we
never
actually
ended
up
paying
for
that
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
totally
the
way.
C
C
C
C
D
So
what
mike
also
said
is
if,
if
there
is
a
trademark,
then
we
could
and
that
that,
with
the
open
source
project,
the
way
the
linux
foundation
usually
does
it
is
to
assign
the
trademark
to
the
project
if
the
name
is
important.
Otherwise,
he
gave
the
example
of
docker,
where
docker
had
a
specification
for
the
containers
and
when
they
moved
it
to
the
linux
foundation,
they
wanted
to
continue
to
have
the
darker
name
under
their
control,
and
so
the
open
source
project
actually
was
then
called
the
open
container
specification.
D
D
B
D
You
to
say:
hey.
Chaos
has
the
same
method,
but
even
if
you
make
changes-
and
you
call
it
social
currency
metric
system,
because
that's
what
makes
sense
for
your
business,
you
can
use
that
name
and
we
would
not
muddy
the
waters
for
you.
We
just
call
it
something
else.
We
help,
you
know
continue
to
advance
it
and
so
on.
C
It's
yours
now
like
just
make
it
whatever
you
want,
you
can
rename
it.
You
can
change
the
systems
in
any
way,
shape
or
form,
but
when
we
built
the
system,
we
stood
on
the
shoulders
of
giants
and
in
this
kind
of
same
respect,
you
do
too.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
you
have
100
full
freedom?
You
can
change
it.
You
don't
have
to
change
it.
You
could
do
whatever
there's
no
sweat
off
our
backs
on
our
side.
A
A
C
D
B
So,
from
a
basic
perspective,
we've
shared
chaos
metrics
that
help
to
illustrate
some
of
the
things
that
unicef
is
interested
in,
measuring,
which
are
fundamentally
the
public
good
or
the
public
goods
that
are
generated
by
open
source
software,
and
I'd
like
to
ask
you
know
unicef
to
join
in
and
correct
or
clarify
what
I'm
doing
so.
We've
put
together
an
instance
of
auger
with
justin,
florey
and
they've
also
got
some
collaboration
with
petergia
because
they
probably
need
more
professional
services
than
my
group
can
offer.
B
I
think
it
gives
unicef
a
chance
to
understand
how
looking
at
some
of
the
real,
simple
atomic
metrics
like
number
of
commits
number
of
pull
requests
issues,
don't
necessarily
paint
a
picture
of
project
health
that
often
it's
more
complex
than
that,
and
the
participation
in
the
value
group,
I
think,
would
be
super
helpful
for
getting
that
social
value
focus
area
off
the
ground
and
in
fact
we
think
my
opinion
is.
Unicef
is
far
more
experienced
in
determining
or
identifying
what
those
kinds
of
things
are
that
I
would
be
or
any
well.
B
E
E
E
We
realized
that
the
process
was
say
too
involved
at
that
point,
so
we're
trying
to
read.
We
compress
that
to
nine
indicators
right
now,
and
I
know
that
we
are
brushing
off
a
lot
of
the
details
that
chaos
is
focusing
on,
but
you
know
hold
that
thought
and
one
of
the
goals
that
we
have
right
now
is
sort
of
to
streamline
the
process
of
vetting
and
have
a
faster
way
of
saying.
E
Well,
this
is
a
digital
public
good
and
then
we
will
go
into
deeper
reviews
by
by
people
that
are
so
we're
trying
to
make
a
a
vetting
process.
That
is
more
general
and
we
can
almost
outsource
or
involve
the
community
where
we
don't
not
need
necessarily
to
specific
knowledge
and
then
do
more
of
in-depth
reviews
on
those
projects
that
we
think
where
we
can
add
more
value
or
can
make
a
bigger
impact.
E
E
B
And
some
of
the
for
I
don't
want
to
jump
too
far
ahead.
But
in
a
few
conversations
that
we
had,
you
were
able
to
share
a
fairly
well
developed
spreadsheet,
of
the
kinds
of
things
that
you're
concerned
about
or
that
unicef
has
identified
as
representing
some
kind
of
public
digital,
good,
yeah
and
ways
of
examining
that.
E
E
I
don't
think
that
necessarily
this
is
the
best
classification
of
you
know,
projects
impact,
but
it's
reasonably
good
and
it's
you
know
it's
fairly
well
known
so,
and
the
other
one
is
on
the
last,
the
the
nine
in
which
is
do
no
harm
which
we
are
breaking
down
in
terms
of
privacy
and
security
and
illegal
content
and
protection
from
harassment,
harassment
and
so
on.
The
other
thing
that
I'm
going
to
quickly
say
is
that
we,
so
we
we
put
together
this
version
1.0
and
we
consulted
with
again
sean
matt
and
and
and
others.
E
But
the
moment
that
we
started
applying
it
to
some
projects,
people
are
already
challenging
some
of
those,
and
so
we
are
moving
which,
which
is
you
know
the
way
it
should
be.
I
think
I
think
that
my
approach
here
is,
let's
put
out
something
and
like
make
it
somewhat
official,
so
that
people
pay
attention
but
then
use
it
as
a
prompt
for
for
getting
feedback
and
iterating
the
the
the
the
standard.
E
So
we
have
moved
now
this
to
a
github
repo
and
we
are
sort
of
moving
the
conversation
there
and
you'll
see.
I'm
just
pasting.
This
other
link
that
there's
a
number
of
requests
or
people
opening
issues
and
say
well,
remove
this
open
that
expand
this
language
and
so
on.
So
this
is
totally
up
for
well
it's
in
the
process
of
being
revisited
and
we
hope
to
issue
a
one
point
one
soon,
and
so
you
know
I
don't
want
to
hijack
this
meeting.
I
just
want
to
provide
this
as
a
context.
B
B
E
You
know
a
digital
public,
good
nomination
and
then
use
that
as
a
way
of
you
know
arguing
between
each
other
that,
oh
I
so
we
try
to
protect
ourselves
from
getting
in
the
middle
in
between
conflicts,
but
other
people
pointed
out
that
you
know
there
are
more
effective
ways
of
doing
that,
or
this
should
not
really
be
the
way.
How
we
address
that
or
you
know
sometimes
there's
a
community
that
owns
the
project.
B
B
A
E
Yeah,
yeah,
and-
and
here
we
try
to
to
spell
some
of
that
out
as
in
for
us,
you
know,
I
think
we
have
to
set
up
some
sort
of
benchmark
for
what
good
enough
documentation
is,
and
we
loosely
define
it
as
well.
Someone
not
not
familiar
with
the
project
should
be
able
to
install
and
run
it
or
set
it
up.
E
It's
a
very
yeah
loose
attempt
at
trying
to
establish
a
metric,
which
is
still
very
it's
fairly
subjective.
But
of
course
you
know
some
like.
If
someone
puts
up
a
link
that
is
basically
a
placeholder,
that's
yeah,
I
mean
by
some
metric
the
documentation
as
documentation
site
exists,
but
by
some
other
metric
it's
not
useful
at
all.
E
B
Well,
in
one
of
the
when
we
talked
about
the
future
of
open
source
as
a
community
a
few
weeks
ago,
open
has,
I
think,
people
see
the
future
of
open
source
software,
including
a
broader
view
of
you
know,
open
digital
goods
of
different
kinds.
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
key
points
that
that
came
forward
there.
A
A
A
A
But
basically
it
sounds
like
they
had
done.
A
release
of
those
nine
original
metrics
and
people
are
making
comments
on
how
the
metrics
themselves
might
be
more
appropriate.
It's
just
really
quickly.
Looking
at
the
pr's
like
it's
a
it's
a
language
issue
and
we
might
be
able
to
provide
some
support
yeah
in
that
regard,
if
that
would
be
helpful.
A
And
then
did
I
catch
it
right
that
you
have
these
nine
metrics
that
you're
putting
out
as
potentially
a
kind
of
a
low
bar
that
could
be
community
source
so
that
you
within
your
organization,
wouldn't
have
to
do
the
review
for
everything
that
wants
to
be
a
digital
public
good,
because
you
just
probably
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
that,
but
correct
it
could
be
something
that
could
be
outsourced
or
community
driven
whatever
that
structure
might
look
like.
Is
that
right.
E
E
We
have
some
ideas
on
how
to
crowdsource
some
of
this
validation,
as
in
say,
you
know
how
say
the
the
open
voice,
mozilla
project
works,
where
you
can
record
some
things,
and
then
you
can
listen
to
these
things
and
validate
that
what
you
are
listening
is
a
good
read
of
the
text
that
has
been
that
it
is
in
written
form.
So,
similarly,
we
can
establish
a
similar
process
where
you
say
this
project
has
provided
this
link
for
a
documentation.
E
In
your
opinion,
does
this
documentation
say
for
someone
not
familiar
with
the
project,
allows
for
installation
and
setup
and
if
you
have,
and
then
we
set
a
threshold.
So
if
six
people
or
x
number
of
people
not
affiliated
with
the
project,
agree
that
the
information
provided
means
being
when
setting
the
indicator,
then
we
we
vet
them
positively
right.
C
A
So
I'm
going
to
ask
a
question
based
on
what
you
had
just
said,
to
or
maybe
make
a
statement
so
in
terms
of
the
process
we
have
set
something
up.
Similarly,
in
the
chaos
project,
around
diversity
and
inclusion,
event
badging,
and
so
we
have
a
series
of
metrics
for
events
and
those
metrics
are
things
like
family
friendliness.
A
His
name
is
arfon
smith
at
the
journal
of
open
source
software.
So
it's
this
it's
this
open
and
transparent
process
that
can
be
kind
of
contribute.
Sorry,
community,
driven
in
a
way
that
when
you
make
an
application
as
a
project
or
an
event,
the
reviews
are
also
open
and
transparent,
and
a
decision
is
made
amongst
many
people
in
an
open
way,
and
so
this
may
be.
I
can
point
you
to
that.
E
A
A
Yeah
right
women,
though
exactly
because
ours
isn't
quite
like
what
our
font
had
done.
We
had
to
tailor
it
a
little
bit
to
suit
our
needs,
and
maybe
likewise
you
would
have
to
tailor
it
a
little
bit
the
process.
The
so
I'll
share
that
with
you.
The
other
question
that
I
had
was.
Did
I
hear
you
right
by
saying
that
there
may
be
a
review
process
that
involves
more
than
the
nine
indicators
that.
E
E
So
the
analogy
that
we
do
here
is
with
the
michelin
guide.
If
you
are
familiar
with
how
that
that
raids,
restaurants,
where
you
have
a
guy
that,
like
all
all
the
restaurants
in
the
guide,
meet
some
basic
criteria
but
and
but
then
they
micheline
sends
this
undercover
reviews
to
a
restaurant
and
they
go
really
deep
and
maybe
they
they
assign
one
two
or
three
stars
and
that's
where
sort
of
highlights
some
of
some
of
those.
E
So
similarly
or
analogously,
we
establish
what
we
call
these
communities
of
practice,
which
are
groups
of
people
that
are
very
involved
in
a
specific
sector
and
they
bring
this
sector
expertise
right
now.
We
have,
I
think,
four
one
on
early
grade
reading,
one
on
digital
health,
one
on
climate
adaptation
and
one
on
financial
inclusion,
where
we
take
say
between
a
handful
and
a
dozen
projects
and
drill
deeper,
and
that's
where
the
the
outcome
of
those
groups
is
more
opinionated
reviews
about.
E
Okay,
these
projects
are,
you,
know,
really
good
or
making
a
difference
or
show
the
potential
for
great
social
impact
change
because
of
this,
and
that
is
sort
of
more
free
form.
But
I
think
that
if
we
can
provide,
I
think
that
some
metrics
will
emerge
as
a
result
of
those
groups,
because
those
groups
will
say
well.
We
back
our
opinions,
because
we
observe
that
these
projects
meet
these
additional
criteria
or
these
additional
metrics.
B
C
To
me,
it
sounds
like
having
a
rubric
system,
slash
criteria
that
is
public
and
allowing
people
to
build
their
systems
to
comply
and
then
submit
a
request
for
a
third
party
to
review.
It
would
work
a
lot
better
because
then
you'd
be
able
to
break
it
down
by
sub-criteria
you'd,
be
able
to
award
different
levels
based
upon
how
thorough
that
criteria
is
without
having
to
get
into
the
nitty-gritty
of
do
you
comply
with
x,
rule.
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
so,
okay
for
for
rescued
at
it's
an
lgbt
nonprofit
that
I
used
to
participate
in.
We
had
something
called
the
closets
closet,
friendly
status
initiative,
which
was
essentially
an
initiative
where
we
would
go
to
partner
lgbtq
organizations
and
we
would
award
them
a
set
of
sub
certifications
based
off
of
a
very
publicly
set
rubric.