►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Value.August.27.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Value.August.27.2020
A
A
C
B
D
B
A
E
A
B
F
A
C
C
I
think
we
let's
let's
let's
definitely
take
a
moment
to
think
about
that,
and
then
I
guess
yeah
we've
been
circling
that
so
it
deserves
some
attention
today
and
then,
if,
when
it
comes
to
other
agenda
items,
I've
left
like
kind
of
a
to
do
up
up
top.
We
could
start
to
review
the
other
two
items
now
that
we're
after
the
release
cycle
and
how
and
give
some
feedback
on
them.
C
C
So
I
can
see
benny
and
I
have
been
emailing
and
we're
planning
to
record
it
as
a
record
the
conversation
where
we
go
forward
as
a
podcast,
so
I'm
gonna,
get
that
in
the
calendar
for
september.
Is
the
plan
and
all
of
you
all
will
be
invited
first,
come
first
serve
so
that
that's
at
least
one
concrete
step
we're
taking
forward,
but
yeah.
A
D
A
For
the
public,
good,
okay
yeah
for
the
public
good
right,
and
so
it
was
open
source
software
that
I
think,
like
governments,
can
rely
on
to
do
the
work
that
what
were
there.
Do
you
remember
other
contexts
that
maybe
non-pro
non-profits
can
rely
on
yeah
do
the
work
that
they
do,
and
so
I,
from
what
I
understand,
they're,
making
a
catalog
of
open
source
software
that
has
to
pass
a
particular
threshold
to
be
considered
a
public
good
that
there's
a
review
process.
A
So
software
a
wants
to
be
considered
a
public
good,
and
so
they
would
submit
that
to
be
reviewed
by
this
team
at
unicef
and
then
it's
cataloged
as
a
public
good
and
then
organizations
on
the
other
end
like
nonprofits
or
government,
can
search
this
catalog
for
pieces
of
software.
That
can
help
them
do
whatever
it
is
that
they
need
to
do
so.
If
it's
and
they
can
search.
You
get
the
idea
that
they're
kind
of
these
labeled,
so
I
we've
been
talking
with
them
as
to
how
to
kind
of
think
through
the
workflow.
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
C
C
I
love
that
the
in
the
angle
that
maybe
that
could
take
would
be
we
could
capture
other
people's
ways
in
which
they're
effectively
judging
that
quality
and
not
have
an
opinion
on
it,
but
just
be
a
central
point
of
this
is
how
unicef
is
measuring
this,
and
this
is
maybe
how
this
organization
is
measuring
social
good
and
they
don't
even
have
to
necessarily
be
100
compatible,
but
just
to
capture
people's
different
qualitative
and
quantitative
ways
of
capturing
social.
Good,
like
is,
is
that
our
direction?
C
A
B
B
A
C
A
F
D
C
B
A
So
that
seems
pretty
pretty
clear
yeah.
It
was
just.
I
just
think
the
request
is
working
through
that
spreadsheet
to
to
identify
and
articulate
the
metrics
that
are
already
there.
I
honestly,
I
think
it's
that
simple
and
then
we
as
the
value
working
group,
can
kind
of
determine
what
those
metrics
might
be
yeah
and
the
pace
of
getting
them
out
for
release.
D
B
B
A
I
think
I
think
george's
point
was
that
the
work
that
you're
doing
on
the
repo
analysis
is
one
conversation
and
then
our
intention
of
turning
the
spreadsheet
into
metrics
is
a
different
conversation
and
he
doesn't
want
those
two
conversations
to
get
confounded.
I
think
that's
what
you
were
saying
gary.
E
B
B
A
A
F
A
B
C
Just
abstract
them
into
a
new
conversation,
yeah
wait!
No,
but
okay,
cool
phil.
It
feels
like
a
nice
concrete
next
step
and
just
a
gold
mine
of
expertise
there,
so
so
good
once
that
gets
going.
If,
if
you
end
up
wanting
to,
if
we
end
up
getting
access
to
that
to
a
spreadsheet
or
whatever
output
like
maybe
we
can
link
that
to
a
new
issue
and
and
volunteer
to
go
through
start
opening
prs
one
by
one
on
like
what
they
are
like.
What
the
specific
metrics
are.
C
C
That
pr,
maybe
I
didn't
know
if
we
were
going
to
merge
that
until
oh,
let's
leave
it
open
to
our
next
value
working
group
meeting
to
leap
sufficient
brothers
review
all
right.
Well,
I
I
guess
we
did
here.
We
go
all
right,
happy
to
merge
that
my
non-default
laptop
so
I'll
need
to
log
in
but
yeah
we'll
get
going
on
that.
C
B
C
C
D
C
C
Yeah
yeah,
so,
let's
so,
let's
all
come
come
at
it
from
different
angles.
I
guess
the
two
things
for
the
since
it
is
a
thoughtful
amount
of
work
in
there
like
we
could
look
at
what
are
our
existing
metrics
and
is
there
anything
in
this?
What
appears
to
be
like
a
conjoined
metric?
Is
there
anything
in
this
this
one
that
could
go
into
existing
metrics
and
add
value.
G
C
C
C
G
So
what
I
recall
from
this
was
like
when
this
device
focus
group
was
not
there
and
more
of
an
individualistic
perspective,
that
how
can
I
get
value
from
open
source
project
popularity
was
a
theme
like
which
projects
are
popular
so
that,
if
I
can
contribute
them,
it
will
add
to
my
value.
That
was
the
goal.
B
A
trick
so
when
I
look
at
the
quantity
yeah
and
when
I
think
of
when
I'm
looking
at
what
we've
put
or
what
is
in
here,
a
lot
of
which
I've
added,
but
just
under
the
formula
which
looks
like
it
came
from
someone
else,
there's
a
multiple
atomic
metrics
already.
So
this
is
a
it's
definitely
a
synthetic
metric.
I
have
oh.
B
I
think
it's
a
feature
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
when
it
comes
to
value.
The
number
of
atomic
metrics
in
general
seems
like
it's:
it's
not
a
natural
state
for
metric
definition.
That
value
is
necessarily
no
matter
what
your
perspective
on,
and
it's
almost
always
some
composite
of
other
measures
like
if
you're
really
trying
to
speak
to
value.
E
B
Chaos
metrics
yeah
or
they
could
be
easily
yeah
and,
like
google
list
search
like
results,
I
think
actually
there's
probably
an
api
for
that,
like
which
one
under
bait
under
number
three
formula,
there's
a
display
in
top
list
on
google
search.
Oh
I
see
I
can
expect
there's
an
ap
item.
I've
never
looked
for
it,
but
I
suspect
we
can
get
that
data.
C
So
yeah,
what's
not
super
clear
to
me
and
you
know
you,
I
might
need
a
reminder.
I
haven't
been
in
like
metric
definition
headspace
in
a
little
bit
like
it's
not
clear
to
me
like
what
are
sufficient
indicators
to
let
yourself
a
sex
like.
Is
this
popular
or
not
popular
like
do?
We
generally
offer
a
sort
of
threshold,
or
at
least
direction
for
given
things
in
metrics
or
just
kind
of
leave
that
as
a
implementation,
detail
to
the
user.
C
C
Yeah,
I
guess
in
this
case
maybe
I
was
thinking
about
a
sample
the
sample
implementation
space
like
what
what
would
a
sample
implementation
of
popularity.
Look
like
like
the
scenario
in
my
head
would
be
hey,
I'm
I'm
dedicated
to
learning
javascript
and
I'm
trying
to
judge
what
javascript's
framework
is
the
right
one.
For
me
to
invest
my
time
in,
I
pull
up
angular.
I
pull
up
these
five
projects.
C
I
look
at
these
and
I
make
an
assessment
of
like
which
one
seems
to
have
the
most
momentum
for
for
my
career
and
based
on
the
metrics
I
pulled.
I
make
x
choice
like
I
guess
I
want
to
see
a
sample
implementation
all
the
way
through,
so
that
I
can
understand
how
people
might
do
this,
but
I
I
also
see
matt
deleting
that
section.
So
maybe
that's
not
like
standard
section
anymore.
A
I
didn't
delete
the
section.
I
just
updated
the
headings
so
cool,
so
basically
listening
to
talk.
I
was
just
getting
it
into
the
new
metrics
template
new
meaning
like
a
year
old,
matrix
template,
but
so
I
mean
there
is.
There
is
an
opportunity,
so
in
terms
of
like
visualizations
right
down
there
at
the
bottom
of
so
the
metrics
you're
right.
They
kind
of
look
like
lego
building
blocks
up
on
top
and
then
the
sample
visualizations
could
be
it's
diagnostic.
A
So
does
that
make
sense,
yeah
and
we're
not
saying
this
is
the
the
high
scores
on
this
particular
visualization
of
the
way
to
do
it?
But
if
you're
going
to
be
looking
at
pull,
request,
stars
and
forks
and
you
are
using
auger
or
grimoire
lab
here's,
what
a
visualization
of
these
three
things
together
could
look
like
for
you
over
time.
C
G
G
So
I
I'm
saying
like
I'm,
I
got
confused
like
are
we
now
focused
on
combining
the
metrics
for
the
visual?
As
an
example,
are
we
just
developing
developing
individual
atomic
metric
and,
at
the
same
time
providing
some
examples
as
okay?
These
are
the
ways
you
can
combine
those.
So
our
goal
is
to
develop
atomic
metrics
and
also,
at
the
same
time,
provide
a
ways
to
combine
those
atomic
metric
as
a
visual
or
like
implementation.
A
C
At
least
in,
in
this
case,
like
we,
we
have
these
atomic
metrics
of
forks
and
contributions
and
stars
and
whatnot.
So
anyone
that
is
needed
that
we
don't
have
like
how
to
grab
google
list
search
like
we
need
to
either
remove
that
or
have
it
as
an
atomic
metric,
but
then
accepting
that
this
is
a
sort
of
composite
view
of
those,
and
that
is
an
acceptable
outcome.
G
G
C
We
got
it
yeah,
so
oh
yeah,
thank
you
for
bringing
us
back
to
where
we
started
so
104
is
project
popularity
and
living
wage.
I
think
we
very
quickly
dismiss
that
as
a
single
thing,
because
they
aren't
necessarily
related
to
each
other,
at
least
as
we
understand
it,
and
this
metric
doesn't
make
it
clear
like
why
they
are
necessarily
connected.
G
A
A
It
is
bless
you.
It
is
inherently
a
composite
metric.
It
just
is
there's
no
there's
no
way
around
it.
The
way
it's
written
right
now.
Okay,
I'm
also
totally
okay
with
that,
because
forks
can
be
a
metric
prs
are
a
metric
stars
can
be
a
metric
issue.
Issue
issues
are
metrics
right,
so
no
problem
there.
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
Here
from
here
york
is
going
to
add
because,
interestingly
thinking
about
all
the
metrics
we've
developed
over
time,
the
visualizations,
I
think,
will
actually
play
kind
of
an
important
role
in
this
metric,
not
that
the
others
don't
but
they'll.
Just
they'll
help
people
overcome
the
issue
that
you
were
talking
about.
Matt
yeah.
D
C
C
C
C
It
was
an
entire
focus
area,
yeah
you're,
absolutely
right,
yeah
yeah,
so
I
think
you
know
I
kind
of
want
to
say
like
the
living
wage
conversation.
If
there's
something
in
there
that
he'd
like
to
add
as
a
pr
to
update
job
opportunities,
he
thinks
that
there's
more
information
to
capture
out
of
there.
Otherwise
there
are
just
too
many
component
parts
in
this
given
metric.
D
G
A
C
Yeah,
I
mean
also-
I
don't
really
I
don't.
I
guess
I
don't
really
get
it.
Yeah
giant
thumb
yeah,
like
the
closest
yeah.
Well
so
I'll
I'll
say
it
this
way,
I'm
going
to
engage
with
the
person
who
open
the
issue
and
see
if
there's
if
they
have
interest
in
re
refactoring
towards
living
wage
specifically
or
weighing
in
on
project
popularity,
but
with
the
express
goal
of
having
them
as
separate
metrics.
If.
C
G
C
A
C
That's
great,
I
mean
that's.
That's
also
like
saying
to
me
that
like
well,
it's
just
a
word
choice.
Right
like
there
are
things
that,
like
on
the
surface,
have
very
little
seem
to
have
very
little
depth,
but
I'm
a
big
believer
that
in
how
much
of
our
thinking
is
non-conscious
or
unconscious,
really
non-conscious
and
like
when
you
see
thousands
of
people
have
started
something
like
you
paid
a
little
bit
more
attention
than
the
23
stars
on
a
project
like
it's
we've
been,
I
think
we've
been
conditioned
to
pay
attention.
A
A
C
Change
so
totally
it's
the
same
thing
that,
like
this
is
analogous
to
me
to
like
twitter,
following
which
we
all
like.
Oh
it
shouldn't
matter
how
many
people
follow
you
on
twitter,
but
there's
was
a
fantastic
research
that
showed
that
people
with
larger
twitter
followings
are
more
likely
to
get
more
followers.
C
It's
as
if
like
it's,
it
is
a
leading
indicator
that
there's
already
a
crowd
and
like
the
one
of
the
cognitive
biases
behind
me,
is
like
where
there
is
a
crowd.
People
will
go
because
they
think
they're
missing
out
and
that
I
think,
on
its
own
is
not
terribly
valuable,
valuable,
I'm
with
you,
but
I
also
think
we're
pretty
simple
creatures,
and
so.
C
Yeah,
it's
anything
like
that.
The
other
thing
I
like
to
talk
about
with
that
is
usually
like.
Maybe
you
don't
care
in
an
isolated
fashion,
because
what
does
5
000
followers
mean
on
its
own,
so
5
000
people
click
something
that's
something:
let's
not
dismiss
it,
but
when
you
compare
it
to
something
in
the
same
category
with
the
same
technology
you're
like
do
I
use
istio
or
the
latest
service
mesh.