►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Value.WG.Sept.10.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Value.WG.Sept.10.2020
A
A
Hi,
I'm
here
sorry,
hey
you're
kid
welcome!
Welcome
we're
just
kicking
off
the
value
meeting
value
working
group
agenda
is
added
into
the
chat
there
so
hop
on
in.
If
you
have
things
that
you'd
like
to
discuss,
let's
just
add
it
on
top
and
throw
your
name
on
on
the
list
here
with
some
sort
of
way
of
saying
how
you're
feeling
or
what's
going
on.
A
A
couple
things
that
pre-populated
the
agenda
we
reviewing
and
closing
the
issues
we
last
reviewed
related
to
a
metric
that
was
kind
of
the
union
of
a
couple
metrics
we
already
have.
There
was
a
discussion
in.
A
I'm
forgetting
the
the
name
of
it
108
that
yeah
dwayne
you
jumped
into
on
organizational
value
that
we
may
not
work
through
the
whole.
A
The
whole
plan
there,
but
I
wanted
to
leave
some
space
in
this
meeting
to
discuss
that
with
for
you
to
lead
us
through
and
yeah
and
when
you're
here
and
we're
talking
about
it.
So
I
think
that'll
be
really
fun
to
dive
into
and
time
pending.
We
can
continue.
We've
been
working
through
the
copy
of
popularity
based
on
other
existing
metrics,
so
we
can
continue
the
progress
there,
other
things
on
people's
minds
that
they
want
to
discuss
or
would
like
to.
A
A
Take
that
as
a
no
awesome
I'll
share
my
screen
for
little.
If
things
play
nicely.
A
There
is
a
new
metric
proposed
of
popularity
for
living
wage.
It's
pretty
much
the
union
of
two
things.
We
left
it
open
for
a
couple
weeks,
waiting
for
some
commentary.
Seth
knows
joshua
joshua's,
not
passionate
about
the
way
it's
worded
here,
so
just
wanted
to
double
check.
If
anyone
else
had
new
ideas
here
or
concerns,
or
whether
it's
safe
to
close.
A
A
Easy
all
right
next
up,
I
I'll
stop
sharing,
so
we
can
just
kind
of
go
into
discussion,
but
going
into
the
proposed
metric
organizational
value,
business,
readiness
rating
and
yeah.
There's
been
some
conversation
here.
Why
don't
you
kind
of
kick
us
off
and
others
can
jump.
B
In
on
yeah,
so
should
I
share
my
screen,
I
think,
will
you
share
the
screen?
It
was
the
same
thing
so
or
do
you
want
me
to
share
this
screen.
A
Hey
yeah,
gordon.
B
Okay,
can
you
see
the
screen
yep
good,
to
go?
Okay,
yeah?
So
I
I
was
reading
on
this
and
I
came
across
this
and
at
the
same
time,
the
discussion
on
smc
was
going
on,
like
we
were
looking
at
the
combining
different
atomic
metrics,
we
were
developing
in
different
working
groups,
so
I
came
across
this
that
it
is
like
more
focused
towards
the
organization
who
want
to
use
open
source
as
an
option.
B
So
how
can
they
assess
like
drive
the
value
from
open
sources
like
what
are
the
ways
they
can
look
and
assess
whether
to
go
for
this
route
and
adopt
open
source
in
the
organization
or
internally
develop
a
product
like
software
or
hire
through
other
third
party?
So
I
I
found
this
like
very
nicely
drafted
where
they
looked
at
the
different
avenues
to
assess
whether
it's
feasible
to
adopt
an
open
source
project
or
not.
So
that's
where
I
propose
this
as
like
organizational
value
as
a
metric,
so
how
they
measure
like
functionality.
B
A
Lines
that
is
pretty
fascinating
cool.
So
what
what
are
people's
interests
or
reaction
to
this
on
first.
C
Read
this,
this
was
primarily
the
the
ticket
that
I
came.
That
was
interested
to
hear
the
discussion
on
today.
I
I
think,
there's
a
there's,
a
a
significant
difference
between
the
the
phrase,
organizational
value
and
business
readiness.
C
You
know
as
I,
as
I
understood
and
remembered
the
this
graphic.
That's
on
the
screen
right
here
like
this.
This
is
this
is
more
of
an
assessment
about
how
appropriate
the
software
might
be
to
use
in
your
business,
but
that's
not
the
same
thing
as
how
much
value
that
might
create
or
or
that
you
might
derive
from
the
from
that
software.
C
For
your
business,
which
I
kind
of
expanded
on
the
on
the
comments
and
the
ticket
for
myself,
for
what
I'm
chasing,
which
may
or
may
not
be
in
in
line
with
with
where
this
metric
is
headed,
which
is
which
is
fine,
but
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
sort
of
your
thoughts
on
on
the
distinction
between
you
know,
business,
readiness
and
organizational
value,
and,
by
way
of
example,
a
software.
C
B
So
a
question
on
that
like,
if
a
soft,
if
I
assess
maybe
the
title,
might
be
different,
we
can
in
green
streaming
can
change
the
title.
But
my
question
is
like,
for
example,
if
I
assess
a
software
that
is
ready
for
use
in
the
production,
if,
if
I'm
using
it
in
the
production,
that
means
I'm
as
an
organization
as
a
business,
I'm
getting
value
from
it.
Is
it
not
that
way.
C
Yeah,
I
wouldn't
say
necessarily
and
I'm
refreshing
my
memory
now
as
I'm
looking
at
the
at
the
metrics
that
are
used
to
put
into
westernmost
composite
there.
D
C
D
C
As
as
we
look
kind
of
across
the
the
the
different
metrics
that
are
spelled
out
in
that
chart,
none
of
them,
none
of
them
talk
about
solving
a
business
problem.
None
of
them
talk
about.
C
None
of
them,
none
of
them
talk
about
so
you
know
function,
it
might
work,
it
might
have
a
great
user
experience
that
might
be
well
supported.
There
might
be,
you
know
technical
and
architectural
attributes
of
it
that
we
like
it
might
be
well
documented.
C
It
might
be
community
supported
and
there
might
be
an
extensively
well
documented
and
well-developed
development
process,
but
if
it
doesn't
solve
a
problem
for
the
business,
it
is
just
good
software
that
we
might
use,
but
it
isn't
providing
specific
value
for
us
right
so,
but
and
I'll
give
an
example
here,
and
I
will
give
example
not
based
on
on
where
I
work,
but
I
think
that
it's
common
across
lots
of
organizations
any
organization
that
processes
financial
transactions
has
a
small
handful
of
projects
at
their
organization.
C
That's
going
to
be
responsible
for
for
processing
those
transactions
and
that
software
has
to
be
very,
very
solid
and
the
dependencies
that
go
into
that
software
are
going
to
be
of
inherently
more
valuable
value
to
that
organization
than
the
dependencies
or
or
other
software
that
might
go
into
managing
tickets
for
the
business
which
still
might
save
time.
But
it's
it's
just
not
the
same
kind
of
business
value
right.
B
A
E
Oh
gordhead,
oh
sorry,
no
I
was
just
going
to
I
was
gonna
say
I
think
I
agree
with
what
what
dwayne
is
saying.
I
don't
yeah.
I
don't
see
this
metric
as
a
that's
representing
organizational
value
at
all.
It's
it's
more
of
kind
of
a
complex
way
to
view
the
usability
of
a
piece
of
software.
E
That's
the
the
value
that
it
provides
is
something
else
entirely,
and
this
is
just
kind
of
a
kind
of
an
advanced
usability
scale
right.
So
when
I,
when
I
look
at
this,
when
I
look
at
this
software,
it
provides
these
things.
So
it
might
help
me
it
might
help
me
pick
between
two
or
three
pieces
of
software.
However,
nothing
in
here
really
tells
me
that
it's
providing
me
business
or
organizational
value
yeah.
Does
that
mean
is
that?
Is
that
similar
to
what
you
were
saying.
B
A
Yeah,
I
was
just
about
to
point
that
out
that
I
was
wondering
if
people
are
getting
caught
up
in
that
I'm
gonna
remove
it
yeah
from
the
title
business
readiness
rating
and
what
I
like
about
this
is
that
it
it
will,
assuming
the
person
making.
The
assessment
is
aligned
to
the
business
massive
massive
assumption
in
any
industry,
but
assuming
that
case,
this
could
be
an
interesting
tool
on
how
to
assess
multiple
technologies
that
are
going
to
solve
a
given
problem.
A
Yeah,
it's
like
that
was
the
the
bias
I
had
it
will
not
address
the
definition
of
is
this
valuable
to
my
organization
on
in
and
of
itself,
but
like
if
you've
already
identified,
something
that
is
valuable.
Then
here
is
another
methodology
to
assess
its
value
or
yeah
its
value
relative
to
other
things.
You've
determined
is
valuable,
so
yeah.
In
that
way.
I
think
it's
interesting.
B
Yeah
for
me
putting
the
bracket
was
like,
since
we
have
focus
area,
how
individual
assess
the
value,
how
organization
assess
the
value
or
how
other
stakeholders
assess
the
value.
So
I
propose
that
in
from
the
business
perspective
that
how
businesses
can
assess
one
of
the
ways
of
particular
an
open
source
project
like
assessing
the
readiness
of
that
open
source
project
to
adopt
or
not
turn
down
in
there.
A
Yeah
and
a
reminder,
organizational
value
in
this
situation
is
defined
as
the
goal
to
identify
if
a
project
is
monetarily
valuable
for
an
organized
from
an
organizational
an
organization's
perspective.
So
is
this
like
a?
Is
this
a
good
investment,
so
with
that
lens,
I
see
like
these
categories
are
more
granular
ways
of
saying.
Is
this
a
good
assessment
in
my
mind?
I
I
welcome
this
agreement
for
sure.
C
Thanks
for
that
clarification,
I
I
think
I
think
you're
you're
right
matt,
that
we're
a
little
hung
up
on
the
on
the
focus
area
versus
the
the
the
name
of
the
overall
okay
or
the
proposed
overall
metric
has
anyone
talked
to
dr
wasserman
since
he,
since
he
drafted
this,
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
review
the
other
papers
that
have
linked
below,
but
he's
out
there
and
available
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
his.
His
thinking
has
evolved.
A
B
A
C
A
And
or
yeah
whatever
crap
autocracy,
where
people
just
say
things,
and
we
do
it,
no
yeah
we're
just
exploring
things,
so
I
just
want
to
get
some
gut
checks
on
whether
it's
on
its
relevancy.
B
And
two
like
for
me:
it's
it
feels
a
perfect
match.
Since
we
have
so
many
atomic
metrics,
we
can
use
them
and
help
the
organization
in
assessing
an
open
source
project.
That
is
one
of
the
kind
of
a
goal
of
chaos
itself
is
like
help
different
stakeholders
to
assist
the
health
of
an
open
source
project
so
that
they
can
make
an
informed
decision.
E
So
does
do
they
in
the
paper,
do
they
actually
define
what
some
of
the
metrics
are
within
these
categories
or
yeah?
Are
these
just
really
high
level
abstract
things
where,
if
we
dig
into
this
we're
going
to
have
to
we're
going
to
have
to
define
10
new
metrics
in
each
category
and
how
do
we,
how
do
we
assess
functionality
in
a
in
a
non-contextual
way.
B
A
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
with
kevin
on
this
of
like
yeah,
it's
it's
interesting
from
the
high
level,
and
then
you
know
we're
always
trying
to
map
it
down
to
what
we
have
been
throwing
around
as
a
term
of
the
atomic
metrics
like
the
the
raw
bits
that
we're
going
to
add
up
to
this
synthesized
idea
of
value
and
kind
of
you
know,
sean's
done
a
good
bit
of
this
with
the
scms
project
of
so
maybe,
even
if
the
steps
in
my
mind
are
like
do
we
have
the
metrics
that
would
add
up
to
build
this
or
are
there
missing
ones,
we'd
have
to
add
in,
but
maybe
before,
spending
too
much
of
your
life
in
that
it
would
be
fun
to
connect
with
the
author
and
try
to
you
know.
A
2005
was
a
long
time
ago
by
open
source
definitions.
Yeah,
yes,
it'd,
be
it'd,
be
cool
to
see
where,
where
they
stand
these
days
and
if,
if
they'd
want
to
contribute
to
the
chaos
through
you
that
that
could
be
really
a
really
interesting
win.
F
No
I'm
just
this
is
a
lot
to
take
in.
E
But
it's
definitely
a
nice
way
of
of
looking
at
it.
A
E
E
D
E
Assessing
these
assessing
the
the
business
readiness,
rather
than
actually
a
a
composite
metric,
so.
B
B
Oh
sorry,
further
on
that,
if
we
fit
like
maybe
a
different
organization
depending
on
their
context,
can
realign
the
weightage
and
maybe
some
refining
to
it.
But
it's
a
way
of
looking
at
the
an
open
source
project.
A
Yeah
and
I
I
wanted
to
share
again
because
I
think
one
of
the
gems
that
came
up
just
in
the
conversation
here
shawn's
way
of
talking
about
risk
assessment
around
dependencies,
and
so
if
they
excuse
my
ignorance
here,
I
don't
know
if
we
have
measurements
around
that,
but
currently
in
any
of
the
working
groups.
So
that
is
a
really
interesting
category
of
challenge.
B
A
Okay,
so
I'll
just
add,
oops,
not
a
file
whoops.
F
A
B
A
B
C
One
of
the
things
that
that
the
authors
might
be
able
to
tell
us
is
if
they,
if
they
have
either
anecdotes
or
other
people,
that
we
can
talk
to
that
they
know
have
applied
it
in
their
own
context
and
what
they've
learned
along
the
way,
because
I
think
that
would
be
illuminating
for
the
conversation
who's
used
this
and
and
can
they
come
to
examples
where
it's
been
out
in
the
wild.
B
C
A
Readiness
good
deal
all
right.
Well,
next,
up
agenda
wise.
We,
since
kind
of
we've,
been
wait.
What
is
this
that
is
the
wrong
link
anyway,
when
I
kind
of
helped
take
over
this
working
group
and
start
to
review
what
metrics
were
around.
We
had
a
popularity
metric
that
was
merged,
but
doesn't
have
anything
in
it.
Mostly
tvd's
and
we've
been
drafting
a
revision
wanted
to
for
those
that
are
interested.
Take
the
back
half
of
this
meeting
and
kind
of
work.
The
meeting
socialize
through
what
this
looks
like
get
some
live
feedback.
A
So
if
that's
interesting
to
you,
let's
stay
on
and
do
so
if
you,
if
that's
not
what
you
want
to
get
into
that,
is
it's
okay
to
drop
as
well,
but
I
think
we'll
just
use
the
back
half
for
a
working
meeting
and
so
project
popularity.
I
think
matt
got
the
first
draft
of
this
together,
matt
g,
that
is.
B
A
A
And
I
guess
we
don't
do
this
too
often
so
be
good
to
remind
people
of
kind
of
the
ground
rules
which
is.
You
were
welcome
to
kind
of
offer.
Any
suggestions
that
you
think
would
improve
the
metric
it's
in
the
draft
forum.
Well,
we
can
talk
through.
It
feel
free
to
jump
in
and
ask
questions
or
to
help
lead
the
discussion
in
a
direction.
He
thinks
useful
I'll
keep
sharing
for
those
that
are
on
video
watching
the
recording,
but
you
can
pop
out
and
add
comments
in
firsthand.
A
A
I'm
definitely
a
little
confused
as
to
for
project
popularity
where
it
landed
in
what
working
group
we
thought
or
what
focus
area
we
thought
it
made
sense
in.
A
A
A
That
is
a
potential
since
companies
may
invest
or
not,
invest
based
on
how
popular
project
is
individual
value.
I
think
that
was
the
bias
we
were
working
from
originally
of
thinking
you
know,
should
I
learn
say
kubernetes
or
some
alternative
to
it.
They're,
like
openstack,
like
hey,
I've,
seen
jobs
listing
both
of
these,
which
one's
more
popular,
which
one
should
I
invest
my
time
in.
A
And
could
you
add
a
little
spice
on
y
in
your
opinion,.
E
Yeah
well,
from
a
from
a
from
an
organizational
standpoint,
I
think
project
popularity
is
almost
always
a
plus
from
an
individual
standpoint.
Project
popularity
may
have,
it
may
be
a
plus.
It
may
also
be
a
minus
right,
so
the
more
popular
project
is
the
harder
it
may
be
to
engage
or
to
get
your
contributions
included
right.
So
so
viewing
doing
project
popularity
as
a
as
a
good
thing
for
individual
value
is
may
not
be
completely
accurate.
E
A
A
C
Only
at
the
risk
of
potentially
rehashing
an
old
conversation,
which
is
the
the
popularity
is,
is
I
I
would
say,
maybe
maybe
a
low-value
way
to
describe
what
we're
we're
going
after
here,
because
there's
there's
how
there's
how
widely
installed
is
something
and
there's
you
know
how
widely
used
is
it
compared
to
its
counterparts
and
those
things
are
not
going
to
be
the
same
across
ecosystems
and
then
there's.
C
How
well
liked
is
the
project
and
by
way
of
example,
and
and
one,
I
think
that
you'll
that
you'll
recognize
I
know
a
lot
of
people
who
love
hoodie
js
as
a
project.
C
I
don't
know
anyone
who
uses
it
right,
and
so
you
might
say
that
it's
very
popular
and
there
might
be
metrics
that
you
can
point
to
that
indicate
its
popularity,
but
that
that's
tangled
up
here
with
with
maybe
usage
or
or
deployment
or
installation,
in
a
way
that
that
might
muddy
what
we're
trying
to
chase
in
the
metric.
E
Yeah,
I
agree
with
that.
If
you,
if
you
go
down
and
look
at
the
implementation,
all
of
the
metrics
that
are
included
in
that
it
feels
like
from
based
on
that,
it's
kind
of
a
we're
talking
about
popularity
as
a
proxy
for
for
market
share
or
or
usage
a
little.
A
A
It
was
obviously
needed
as
popularity,
because
the
term
comes
up
often,
but
often
offering
some
clarity.
After
what
you
just
said,
dwayne,
it
seems
like
a
pretty
necessary
step
here.
We've
got
a
lot
of
stuff
kind
of
mushed
together.
C
B
C
You
know
we
a
lot
of
the
metrics
or
a
lot
of
the
implementations
we
see
here
that
feed
into
it.
You
know
we
often
just
describe
as
vanity
metrics
and
vanity
and
popularity
have
an
interesting
correlation
to
each
other.
Yeah,
like
I
said,
I
don't
think
popularity
in
that
sense
is
not
valuable,
but
it's
not
the
same
thing
as
as
widely
used
or
widely
deployed.
C
E
B
So
the
way
conversation
is
going
on,
I
feel
like
it's
a
comparative
metric,
then
itself
in
an
atomic
matrix.
It's
like
you
are
comparing
two
things
like
even
a
project
with
other
projects
in
terms
of
market
share
or
in
terms
of
contributions
or
in
terms
of
anything.
So
is
it
just
a
comparison.
A
Yeah,
I
I'm
comfortable
with
like
this
going
a
direction
where
we
accept
that
yeah,
the
vanity
metric
that
it
that
it
is
often
you
know,
maybe
codifying
like
what
people
often
mean
when
they
say
hey,
is
this
project
popular
acknowledging
that
that
is
a
unclear
definition
and
they're
generally
saying
like?
Is
it
popular
relative
to
some
collection
of
things,
things
being
like
atomic
metrics
that
are
then
being
compared
to
other
atomic
metrics
for
similar
or
related
projects?
E
Well,
I
I
think
we
split
it.
I
think
we
need
to
split
it
into
two
separate
metrics,
one
that
deals
with
popularity
from
the
standpoint
of
reputation
as
duane
was
saying,
and
then
one
that
deals
with
project
popularity
based
on
these
activity,
metrics
that
can
be
kind
of
a
proxy
for
market
share,
since
we
don't
really
have
we
can't
get
that
that
type
of
information
right
but
they're,
both
popularity.
The
question
is:
do
we
want
to
do?
Do
we
want
to
do?
E
But
they're
they're
definitely
two
different
questions
to
to
to
duane's
point.
A
I
I
kind
of
want
to
use
the
language
that
people
use
when
they
talk
about
metrics
of
a
project,
even
if
they
are
in
the
script
on
their
own
and
then
provide
like
a
path
towards
specificity,
because
I
I
imagine,
like
the
story
and
tell
myself,
is
that
somebody's
gonna
be
looking
around
through
chaos
and
they're
trying
to
get
to
the
metric
that
they
think
should
be
there,
which
is
popularity
or
or
something
related
to
popularity,
and,
if
that,
if
we
don't
provide
some
scaffolding
for
them
to
get
to
their
idea
of
what
they
think
they
need
versus
our
our
clear
definition
of
it.
A
I
worry
we'll
kind
of
lose
people
in
the
practice.
Could
we
do
something
like.
A
E
I
think
those
things
are
too.
I
think
those
things
are
way
too
different
and
it
would
it
muddies.
It
would
muddy
the
the
idea
of
project
popularity
as
a
metric.
I
really,
I
think
it
needs
to
be
two
different
metrics.
A
A
A
C
I
agree
they
should
be
different,
but
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
helpful
to
add
sure.
A
A
A
Thank
you
anonymous
squirrel,
whoever
wrote
that
sure
I
thought
we'd
probably
discuss
it
more,
but
it
just
kind
of
clicks,
as
I
it'll
be
far
easier
to
yeah.
D
A
D
A
And
we
could
pitch,
we
could
reconnect
in
a
month
on
this
there's
no
strong
urgency
just
like
to
keep
keep
nudging
it
along
for
sure.
C
I'm
happy
to
pencil
my
name
next
to
this
one,
with
the
understanding
that
there's,
maybe
a
50
chance.
I
won't
get
anything
done
in
the
next
two
weeks
on
it
in
absence
of
no
one
I'll
I'll
I'll
drop,
my
name
down
and
take
a
switch
on
it
awesome.
Thank
you.
Train.
A
A
A
Well,
that's
something
I'm
I'm
really
pleased
with
that
and
we're
bringing
clarity
to
I
mean
the
most
common
thing
I
hear
in
open
source
circles
of
like
the
arguments
around
well.
This
project
is
more
popular.
I
should
use
it
as
simple
as
that
logic
is.
That
is
logic
that
we
lean
on
for
sure.
So
it'd
be
good
to
good.
To
answer
that
straight
on.