►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Value.WG.July.30.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Value.WG.July.30.2020
A
So
that
is
definitely
the
focus
just
to
check
out
the
release,
have
any
last
kind
of
discussion
points
and
see
if
there's
anything
that
is
actionable
immediately
versus
what
we're
just
gonna
roll
through
for
now
and
and
revise
in
a
future
release.
So
thanks
for
joining
how's,
everyone
doing
today
solid
solid
thumbs
up
from
people
with
cameras,
I'm
into
it
good
all
right.
So
I
think
the
the
big
topic
of
this
discussion
that
we
started
on
that.
I
think
we
wanted
to
save
more
time.
This
meeting
discusses
scms.
A
B
B
A
B
A
I
call
them
shark
attacks
when
she
like
cruises
on
the
bottom
half
of
the
screen
she
yeah.
She
has
a
very
ugly
bed
right
next
to
my
laptop,
because
otherwise
she
will
insist
on
sleeping
on
the
laptop
during
working
hours.
Well,
that's
that's
all
I
needed
yeah
you're,
good
and
she's.
Also
one
of
my
favorite
people
on
this
planet
cool
all
right.
Well,
let's
do
the
reverse
order,
since
we
could
talk
about
scms
for
many
years
and
the
chaos
reflection
is
fresh
in
our
minds
so.
B
D
B
D
B
D
B
B
Some
of
the
metrics,
if
if
there
are
metrics
that
emerge
landing
here,
particularly
as
we've
done
work
to
to
kind
of
rethink
the
focus
areas,
so
I
had
only
said
dni
just
that
seemed
like
the
most
sensible
place
that
the
work
may
occur.
The
metrics
work
may
occur,
but
I
think
it
could
occur
here
as
well.
A
A
A
A
B
I
think
the
goal
matt
is
that
the
advisory
group
I
mean
these
are
folks
that
do
this
type
of
reflection
for
a
living,
yeah
and
so
so
they're
skilled
in
not
only
taking
a
look
at
how
communities
or
organizations
function,
but
also
skilled
in
across
all
the
attributes
that
you
mentioned,
but
also
skilled
in
saying
here's.
What
we
see-
and
here
are
very
sensible
paths
forward
for
your
community
that
could
be
applied
in
a
very
reasonable
and
approachable
way.
So
I
think
that's
the
goal
of
the
advisory
group
here.
C
D
A
Good
yeah,
I'm
more,
I'm
super
excited
and
I
think
my
questions
lead
to
where
I'm
already
at,
which
is
like.
I
want
to
learn
how
to
do
this
better
so
like
I
want
to
see
it
in
action.
So
that's
really
exciting
cool
good
all
right!
Well,
let's
hop
right
in
so
we've
talked
about
the
social
currency
metric
system.
E
I
think
I
think
this
metric
from
there's
process
parts,
then
there's
data
collection,
parts
and
there's
sort
of
machine,
manipulation,
parts,
and
I
think
that
this
metric,
in
order
to
even
to
sort
of
be
in
a
family
of
standardizable
metrics,
it
has
to
include
some
kind
of
shared
data
set
because
the
like
or
and
metadata
set
so
like
a
standard
codex,
I
think,
is
important.
Does
it
need?
Does
that
mean
it
never
changes?
E
E
The
actual
some
sample
data
that
we
use
to
say
this
is
how
we
will
apply
this
codec
to
real
example:
data
in
the
world
like,
without
that,
I
don't
think
that
any
tool
builder
has
a
chance
to
build
it
in
a
way,
that's
consistent
with
another
tool
builder,
and
so
then
it's
not
it's
just
not
the
same
metric.
It's
a
very
custom.
Almost
it's
like
the
definition
of
a
service
instead
of
a
metric.
A
C
C
B
G
B
C
H
B
B
B
F
E
G
The
only
comment
I
was
going
to
make
is
that
I
think,
with
value
and
maybe
diversity,
inclusion
as
well.
There
are
a
lot
more
gray
areas
like
it's
super
easy
to
to
do.
Activity
like
that's,
pretty
clear
and
pretty
low
hanging
fruit,
essentially
because
it's
like
pretty
black
and
white,
either
someone
comments
or
they
don't,
but
I
think,
with
value
and
and
maybe
dni
as
well.
There
are
some
gray
areas,
so
I
think
we
need
to
maybe
just
decide
if
we're
okay
with
having
a
metric.
G
I
think
we
need
to
just
decide
as
a
group
how
we
feel
about
that
and
if
that's
okay,
because
I
think
we
may
run
into
the
same
some
of
the
same
issues
with
dni,
especially
as
the
advisory
group
comes
on
board
and
starts,
you
know
really
doing
a
deep
dive.
You
know
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
okay,
how
many
white
people
are
on
your
team?
It's
like
a
little
bit
deeper
than
that
and
things
that
might
not
be
so
easy
to
just
cookie
cutter
measure.
A
Yeah,
I
I
I
would
definitely
be
I'd
like
to
be
really
specific
about
like
what
doesn't
work
about
it.
If
something
doesn't
work
like
and
and
I'll
show
my
hand
that,
like
I,
this
metric
has
always
been
a
challenge
for
me
to
wrap
my
head
around,
but
it's
not
because
it
looks
differently.
It's
because
there's
no
clear
measurement
as
somebody
who
had
who
hasn't
done
it
many
times
like.
I
look
at
there's
a
ton
of
there's
a
ton
of
strategy.
There's
there's
some
recommendations
on
like
approaches.
A
B
A
E
A
E
E
If
some
version
of
those
critiques
were
released
as
markdown
footnotes
like
almost
like
an
annotated
candidate
metric
or
an
annotated
metric
where
this
is
something
that
we
want
to
get
to
and
here's
a
set
of
questions
or
considerations
or
concerns
about
it,
but
the
community
is
expressed,
I
don't
have
to
be
exactly
the
wording
that
I
chose,
but
but
maybe
something
like
that.
Where,
like
we
recognize
there,
are
these
challenges
with
it
as
a
chaos
metric,
but
we
don't
want
to
not.
E
I
don't
know
it
would
still
be
a
different
thing
like
maybe
maybe
it
is
a
different
thing,
but
annotating
it
and
saying
you
know
we're
we're
taking
a
really
big
jump
here
and
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
something
that
we
think
people
will
find
useful
and
in
the
context
of
chaos.
Here
is
the
apparently
annotated
questions
about
it
that
we
are
continuing
to
develop
in
a
future.
C
A
E
Think
well,
I
could
put
together
a
pull
request
or
I
put
in
markdown
footnotes
with
pieces
of
the
annotations
that
I
made
and-
and
we
could
say
something
like
this
metrics
and
release
because
we
wanna
we're
reaching
for
it
it's
different
than
our
other
metrics
and
it
raised.
You
know
a
specific
set
of
questions,
because
it's
so
different
and
we've
annotated
these
questions,
but
we
want
to
share
it
with
the
community.
E
So
it's
like
don't
release
it
or
annotate
it
and
just
kind
of
like
let
the
development
of
what
it
becomes
be
sort
of
a
transparent
process,
so
that
somebody
that
hits
the
chaos
dot
community,
slash,
metric
site
and
clicks
on
this
metric
doesn't
see
a
metric
that
they
don't
that
looks
so
different.
They
can't
rock
it,
but
they
see
a
proposed
ambitious
synthetic
metric
that
the
community
is
actively
discussing
specifics
about
that.
It's
a
I
don't
know
kind
of
metric
be
released,
be
very
different,
but
be
something
that
is
also
a
work
in
progress.
A
Is
there
any?
I
love
that
idea.
I
started
to
list
out
like
the
options
that
we
have
so
I
mean-
and
this
is
how
I
think,
through
everything,
so
I
thought
about
like
changing
my
last
name
while
getting
married
like
just
list
out
all
of
them,
don't
have
to
have
like
a
right
answer
up
front.
You
just
list
them
out
so
like
reject
as
a
candidate
accept
with
annotation
accept
as
is
and
like.
A
Are
there
other
one
other
that
came
to
mind
that
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
system
for
is
like
do
we
have
like
a
cncf
style
maturity
model
of
like
incubating
an
idea
to
graduating
and
releasing
it?
Okay
because,
like
as
I
think
more
about
like
these
up
I'd,
say
I'd
almost
put
this
in
a
category
of
an
applied
metric
which,
like
I,
I
guess
I
use
applied
as
a
very
nice
word
for
like
this-
is
you're
gonna
get
into
the
real
world
of
things
and
it's
gonna
be
messy.
B
B
D
A
F
B
B
As
we've
learned,
the
lay
of
the
land
a
little
bit,
so
maybe
this
falls
more
into
that
category
and
it
moves
out
of
the
metrics
and
into
a
program
that
is
supported
kind
of
originating
here
in
the
value
working
group,
because
the
dna
badging
program
is
clearly
originating
in
the
dna
working
group.
This
is
a
program
that
the
value
working
group
is
is
working
on
to
bring
forward.
D
D
C
E
I
do
think
I
identified,
I
don't
think
I
got
them,
maybe
I
didn't
get
them
all
or
name
them
all,
but
I
did
where
I
saw
something
I
thought
was
an
atomic
metric.
I
named
it
in
the
course
of
my
comments
and
then
I
came
up
with
somewhere
between
eight
and
ten,
and
some
of
them
are
process
metrics
very
similar
to
dni
and
there's
at
least
six
metrics
that
are
atomic
metrics
in
the
ordinary,
well
called
the
ordinary
atomic
metric
definition,
and
I
think,
there's
the
new
question
of
shared
meta.
E
C
E
G
Yeah,
that
would
be
my
my
concern
as
well
is
when
we
release
a
metric,
we're
saying
this
is
solid
and
it's
vetted
and
we've.
You
know
it's,
it's
pretty
pretty
tight
and
this
one
is
still
a
little
bit
gray,
because
we're
still
in
the
process
of
you
know
doing
the
pilot,
and
so
we're
not
sure
like.
Maybe
what
the
end
result
is
that
we
actually
present
to
the
community
if
it
does
look
different
than
what
we
have
right
now.
So
that
would
be.
A
Yeah,
that's
one
of
the
complexities
that
we've
been
dancing
around
for
sure.
That
might
not
have
been
clear
this
this
conversation
or
recently
yeah
that
it
it's
already
released
by
definition.
But
I
think
it's
all
it's
very
fair
to
admit
that,
like
it
doesn't
make
sense
that
it
was
released
as
as
is
like.
B
B
Was
in
my
mind,
maybe
other
people
saw
it
differently
that
I
that
my
vision
was
in
six
months.
It's
not
listed
as
a
metric,
the
atomic
yeah,
the
atomic
components
are
metrics
that
in
six
months
we
go.
We
create
metrics
from
the
eight
to
ten
that
sean
identified
at
the
atomic
level,
whatever
the
number
might
be,
but
scms
as
a
term
is
no
longer
a
metric.
It's
a
program.
A
E
I
think
remora
lab's
commitment
to
building
it
is
is
what
we
break
if
we
unrelease
it
entirely
or
don't
in
this.
At
the
same
time
as
we
unrelease,
it
recognize
it
as
a
program
that
it's
not
it's
not
fair
to
the
effort
that
gramor
labs
put
into
realizing
it
to
like,
take
it
off
our
site
and
not
have
it
be
a
thing.
A
E
That
there
is
some
place
for
this
yeah.
I
think
it's
important,
because
otherwise
it
looks
like
grammar
labs
like
off
on
their
own
and
it's
it's
not
it's
just
not
fair,
because
because
I
build
metrics
when
they're
developed,
because
I
feel
I
can
trust
that
they
will
continue
to
exist
and
it's
worth
developer
effort-
and
this
is
the
same
kind
of
problem.
E
B
Right
so
I
hate
to
say,
we
need
more
things
on
the
web
page,
but
it
would
be
something
like
here's.
The
programs
button
and
the
programs
button
describes
the
three
programs,
and
we
would
say
these
are
the
programs
that
are
built,
bringing
together
metrics
in
a
meaningful
way
in
the
unique
areas
of
interest
that
people
may
have.
B
B
At
the
top
and
say,
we'd
say
program,
one
badging
program
program,
two
scms
program:
three
community
health
reports
like
we're,
bringing
these
things
together
in
ways:
that's
not
just
atomic
but
then
to
sean
and
your
point
matt
that
before
we
just
remove
scms,
we
probably
want
to
have
that
program
page
like
as
soon
as
we
click
the
remove
button.
We
click
the
add
button
and
it
gracefully
moves
so
that
the
efforts
of
venya
and
dylan
and
grimora
lab,
I
think,
ria,
is
the
student
who's
working
on
it.
E
E
E
A
A
Cool
which
are,
I
would
not
say,
lightweight,
no
god,
no
they're,
they're,
awesome,
they're,
heavy,
brilliant,
but
heavy
okay,
so
you'll
follow
up
on
that
yeah
and
then
we'll
be
all
right
to
release.
And
then
our
goal
by
the
next
relief
cycle
relief
release
cycle
is
include
our
programs
listed
on
the
site
under
metrics
release,
so
we're
going
to
brainstorm
and
then
release
the
atomic
metrics
that
we've
discovered
from
scms,
because
they're
super
valuable
and
interesting
we'll
remove
scms
as
a
metric
add
a
redirect
to
the
program.
Page
yeah.
A
So
yeah
that
that's
a
great
point
sean,
I
think,
they're
we're
learning
a
lot
of
vocabulary
that
I
think
we're
playing
with,
but
we
haven't
decided
on
so
I'll.
Leave
that
out
yeah
you
could.
You
could
say,
like
this
metric
is
made
up
of
on
other
metrics,
that
we
are
identifying
that
we're
actively
identifying,
but
maybe
like
not
choose
the
exact
term
we're
using
yet
and.
B
E
A
Yeah,
I
think,
there's
there's
a
continued
conversation
that
we
are
starting
to
colloquially
use
certain
language
to
to
describe
like
what
is
a
metric
that
fits
in
the
program.
Oh,
it
fits
in
chaos
as
a
project
versus
what
is
a
healthy
program
that
will
be
really
fun
to
explore
and
I'm
kind
of
adding
as
a
let's
say,
a
stretch
goal
for
next
release
is
to
consider
like
how
do
we
capture
that
from
like
the
chaos
level
down,
so
that
and
get
a
conversation
across
working
groups?
E
But
you're
right,
we
haven't
ever
done
terms
and
I
think
just
throwing
a
new
term
out.
There
probably
wouldn't
be
more
helpful
than
it
might
be.
It
might
be
even
less
helpful
if
you've
never
discussed
it,
but
I
do
like
the
term
incubating
long
term
in
the
discussion
only
because
the
cncf
uses
it
another.
B
A
Definitely
not
yeah
no,
but
I
I
like
it
too
and,
and
it
just
kind
of
implies
our
own
maturing
of
like
how
we're
seeing
the
working
groups
rolling
up
and
being
responsible
for
advising
the
reader
like.
Where
are
you
in
the
process?
We
want
to
be
very
accepting
of
a
lot
of
ideas,
which
means
maybe
like
having
descriptors
of
like.
What's
something
that's
still
pretty
nascent
versus
something?
That's
really
hardened
or
whatever
metaphor.
We
want
to
use.
B
I
really
like
the
idea
of
programs
just
because
they
carry
practices
or
processes
associated
with
them.
The
community
report
does
dna
badging.
Does
they
have
a
workflow
to
them?
Yeah
and
scms
does
as
well,
which
I
think
was
one
of
the
challenges
as
a
metric
that
it
actually
has
a
process
component
where
the
others.
A
A
No
I'm,
but
I'm
very
appreciative
that
we've
taken
the
time
to
explore
it,
because
I
think
scms
feels
like
discovering
like
the
magna
carta
or
something
or
I
mean
the
rosetta
stone
style
action
here.
I'm
just
like
there's
a
ton
of
knowledge
here
and
we
need
to
translate
it
to
make
it
make
sense
yeah.
So
it's
been
archaeological
in
some
ways.
A
Yeah,
there's
no
shame
in
taking
time
on
that,
it's
for
sure
good
all
and
we
kind
of
ended
right
on
time.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
for
these
thoughts,
any
any
other
actions
that
we
need
to
take
before
we
miss
it.
No,
I
think
that
was
super.
Productive,
cool,
insanely,
great
appreciate
everyone
weighing
in
and
being
open
to
the
big
and
new
ideas.
Love
it
great
to
see
you
all
happy
whatever
day
of
whatever
month.
It
is
please
take
care
of
yourselves
and
yeah
talk
soon
be
well.