►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Value Working Group - 11-19-20
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
I'm
taking
over
for
matt
b,
matt
broberg,
who
is
not
here
today,
so
we'll
just
zoom
right
through
these
agenda
items.
It.
A
A
Yeah
definitely
so
I
had
started
this
agenda
just
very
bare
bones
so
and
I
was
not
at
the
last
meeting
so
we'll
just
go
through
them.
We'll
bring
up
the
action
items
from
before,
whatever.
E
A
Want
to
talk
about
is
good
for
me,
so
the
first.
E
A
Was
from
last
meeting
we
were
talking
about
the
change
request,
naming
consistency,
and
that
was
an
action
item
for
matt
g.
C
A
A
Pretty
straightforward,
pretty
straightforward,
yeah
yeah
all
right,
we'll
zoom
ahead
then
see
11
0's
or
it's
11
for
me.
Come.
A
We
can
get
through
this
pretty
quick
social
listening
metric
system
updates
and
it
looked
like
there
was
a
pretty
big
discussion
about
this
last
time
and
sadly
I
did
not
have
a
chance
to
listen
to
the
recording
last
time.
So
do
we
want
to
just
look
at
kind
of
what
was
talked
about?
It
looks
like
george
was
going
to
do
the
change
of
the
name,
and
he
looks
like
he
did
that.
F
F
C
That,
no,
I
think
the
my
proposal
and
other
people
can
chime
in
is
that
scms
for
this
release
just
gets
renamed
to
social,
listening,
okay
and
then
over
the
course
of
the
the
period
to
the
next
release
like
two
releases
away.
This
is
when
we
can
start
to
develop
those
metrics
that
are
down
at
the
top
of
do.
You
see
those
at
the
top
of
page
two
yeah,
the
five
or
six
key.
F
Metrics
that
yep
exactly
that
initiative
right.
C
F
That
is
happening
just
not
just
not
in
this
next
release.
Okay,
so
this
is.
G
C
Yes,
exactly
so
the
deal
here,
stephen,
was
that
a
lot
of
our
metrics
are
pretty
atomic
they're,
pretty
low
level
things
so,
like
you
know,
age
of
an
issue
right
and
the
the
metric
that
we're
talking
about
here
was
really
a
a
com,
giant
composite
metric
or
very
big
composite
metric.
So
it
kind
of
was
you
know
one
of
these
things?
It's
not
like
the
others.
G
C
Okay,
so
so
the
proposal
was
to
break
it,
break
that
metric
down
into
its
component
parts
or
its
atomic
parts
and
have
those
atomic
parts
be
the
metrics,
and
then
we
could
write
a
blog
post
as
to
how
those
atomic
metrics
are
brought
together
into
this
larger.
This
larger
thing
does
that
make
sense.
Yep
cool
looks
like
we've
got
the
the
elevator
pitch
down
on.
F
This
one,
finally
so
so
no
changes
have
been
made
to
the
the
website
so
for
the
for
the
continuous
release.
So
I'm
assuming,
if
the
name
change,
has
happened,
it's
only
happened
in
the
value
matrix.
Repo
could.
F
In
the
on
the
website,
so
that
that
would
actually
so
that
would
be
part
of
the
matrix
release
the
metrics
release.
So
to
move
that
one
forward
yeah,
we
can
initiate
the
process
to
move
that
forward,
but
it's
it's
a
little
more
than
a
than
a
pull
request.
So.
C
C
C
E
H
C
F
C
F
Do
we
should
we
create
a
new
release
issue
for
this
metric
or
shall
we
use
issue
75?
That
is
already
that
is
kind
of
an
ongoing.
B
D
Hello,
sorry,
I'm
late!
Oh
that's!
Okay!
I
had
to
take
celine
to
a
doctor's
appointment
and
we
might
have
a
diagnosis
on
her
legs
soon.
So
yay
we're
counting
it
a
win.
F
C
A
Continue
on,
we
shall
kevin.
Thank
you.
I
see
under
the
last
meeting
right
where
we
were
talking
about
the
big
five.
It
says
talk
to
elizabeth
assuming.
That's
me
about
chaos,
specific
definitions,
wha.
What
do
we
want
to
talk
about
with
that?
A
Are
we
going
to
use
our
the
ones
that
we
talked
about
with
using
for
chaos
or.
D
It's
been
a
while,
since
I
was
able
to
catch
up
with
you
so
first
sorry
about
that.
No.
A
D
As
long
as
we're
continuing
to
operate
the
social
currency
metric
system,
as
we
start
to
build
that
data,
we
should
start
to
see
those
definitions,
build
and
change
and
become
larger
scale
over
time,
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
incredibly
useful
source
of
information
that
we
can
use
in
order
to
define
the
metrics
and
then
figure
out
what
we
might
be
missing,
what
we
might
be
overthinking
as
we
move
forward.
D
So
since
you
already
have
a
live
implementation
of
the
metric
system,
I
feel
like
we
can
use
those
definitions
as
they
grow
over
time
in
order
to
maintain
and
manage
the
metrics,
because
the
big
issue
that
I
see-
and
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
in
the
last
meeting-
is
like
it's
incredibly
difficult
for
a
large
mass
of
people
to
really
agree
on
what
trust
means,
which
is
why
the
scms
largely
integrates
with
power
players
in
the
community.
D
But
with
that
in
mind,
if
we're
really
going
to
define
each
individual
metric,
the
way
that
we
are
more
information
will
always
be
better.
So
that's
kind
of
my
thinking
in
understanding
the
definitions,
as
you
use
them
actively
in
the
implementation.
A
D
A
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense
and
as
a
as
a
confession,
I
have
not
really
been
looking
at
this
for
a
few
weeks.
I
think
I
got
stuck
where
there's
I
don't
know
how
to
get
new
data
in,
because
I
don't
know
that
that
process
was
ever
documented
so
like
there
isn't
any
new
any
new
data
being
brought
in,
because
that
piece
is
missing
of
what.
How
do
I
get
that
in
there.
D
Okay,
then,
I
think
we
should
follow
up
with
ria
to
get
it
out,
because
if
I
remember
correctly,
that
was
the
main
part
of
the
user
experience
issues
that
occurred
as
a
result.
So
we
definitely
need
to
get
information
automation
going
through
the
way
that
we
typically
do
it
in
the
data
studio.
Implementation
is
by
using
a
zap
and
a
excel
data
sheet
importer,
so
it's
more
or
less
automatic,
but
you
have
to
still
click
the
button
and.
A
So
I
will
email
ria
and
she,
and
I
can
sort
out
getting
that
process
going.
Does
that
make
sense?
Is
that
cool.
D
This-
and
I
think
it
was
also
decided
like
fairly
recently,
in
fact,
that,
like
we'd,
be
performing
the
actual
definitions
for
the
metrics
asynchronously
right,
matt.
A
Okay,
cool
all
right,
so
I
think
we
can
move
on
then
yeah,
let's
see
so
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
if
everybody's
cool
to
move
forward,
if
not
now's
your
chance,
because
we're
moving
on
all
right,
so
new
metrics
up
for
discussion,
popularity
was
being
talked
about,
continue,
continue
discussion
about
project
popularity.
F
B
C
A
Okay,
because
there's
kind
of
a
lot
of
you
guys
kind
of
meta
notes
so
yeah,
it
looks
like
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
there.
So
should
we
table
this
until
matt
b
is
able
to
attend
yeah.
F
I
think
the
the
metric
as
it
was
was
it
was
trying
to
was
trying
to
do
too
much.
So
it
was
talking
about
the
popularity
of
users
and
the
popularity
of
the
project,
so
it
was
kind
of
all
over
the
place,
which
was,
I
think,
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we're
kind
of
looking
at
it
and
kind
of
separating
some
stuff
out.
H
F
But
there
was
a
there
was
a
big
conversation
on
that.
So
I
think
getting
back
into
that
metric
is
probably
it's
probably
going
to
be
an
editing
process
right.
So
when
we
pull.
C
F
F
Just
period
yeah,
I
think
there
were
three
issues:
it
was
usage,
project,
popularity
and
then
contributor
popularity
and
those
three
things
were
all
kind
of
jammed
into
one
metric.
C
Right
and
then
number
two
looks
like,
I
think
it's
a
lot
of
what
sean
talks
about,
which
is
more
about
like
an
individual's
popularity
in
the
impact
that
that
has
on
a
project.
Is
that
right,
sean
or
kind
of
honing
in
on
the
person?
Yes
about
the
project
itself,
correct
okay,
I
mean
I
to
me
these
make
sense.
C
I
F
C
G
A
lot
but
let's
let's
let
shawn
go
first,
because.
B
Essentially,
there's
a
way
I
put
it
is
in
the
past,
I've
done
a
paper
and
some
additional
work
looking
at
how
do
developers
move
from
one
project
to
another
and
what
is
the
impact
of
a
developer's
number
of
stars
and
number
of
followers
on
whether
or
not
people
follow
them
from
one
project
to
another?
And
so
there's
pretty.
B
We
showed
pretty
conclusively
that
there's
a
significant
impact
that
very
highly
followed
developers
if
they
move
from
project
data
project
b
will
take
a
number
of
people
with
them,
not
by
like
natural
personal
relationships,
necessarily
but
just
by
the
reputation,
that's
reflected
in
the
stars
and
followers
data
that
they
have
and
so
from
a
developer
perspective.
That
means
that
it's
probably
smart
as
an
open
source
project
to
pay
attention
to
who
your
most
followed
folks
are
and
what
their
contributions
to
your
project.
Are.
B
C
B
Are
popular
because
I
think
from
if
I'm
looking
at
the
metric,
I
think
it's
a
question
of
how
you
how
we
want
to
filter
it.
I
think
you
could
filter
it
either
way,
but
I
I
think,
of
development
and
usage,
as
am
I
looking
at
development
uses
metric
one,
no
metric,
two
okay
yeah.
All
right,
I
felt
like
I
was
on
the
wrong
metric
like
this:
isn't
you
are
in
the
metric
yeah?
So
this
is.
B
This
is
basically
contributor
yeah,
so
yeah,
I'm
talking
about
the
contributor,
the
individual
contributor
is
popularity,
and
so
some
of
these
implementations
are
actually
probably
not
like
we're
looking.
We
should
be
looking
at
contributor
followers
and
contributor
stars
on
their
repos,
probably,
but
we
also
care
about
issues
they
open,
so
it
is
more,
it
should
be
more
contributor-centric
than
it
presently
is
and
then
you're
done
you're
down
in
the
implementation
section.
B
Since
it's
broken
out
into
two
metrics,
that's
the
you
know,
the
question
is
so
stars
and
forks
are
indicators
of
of
a
repository's
popularity,
and
so
if
this
is
contributor
reputation,
which
is
what
you
know
is
here,
then
what
really
needs
to
it
needs
to
be
the
stars
on
repos
that
a
person
is
a
significant
contributor
to
and
forks
of
repos,
that
a
person
is
a
significant
contributor
to,
and
those
are
probably
they're
at
least
less
significant
or
less
central
to
the
work
I've
done
before
than
yeah
all
these
numbers.
B
All
these
implementation
specifics
right
now
are
very,
very
focused
on
repositories,
not
on
contributors,
so
I
might
say,
like
oops,
hang
on
what
is
this?
I
I
just
started
editing
like.
I
think
that
list
is
basically
the
wrong
list.
E
Okay,
that's
like
it's
carried
like.
We
haven't
gone
any
farther
than
that
thing
on
my
clipboard
and
I
didn't
realize
that
copied
through
that's
my
like.
D
Good,
that's
my
fault,
I
I
attempted
to
copy
your
url
and
it
looks
like
it
didn't
take,
so
it
just
gave
you
a
lot.
I
I
B
Oh
okay,
so
this
is
like,
if
you're
looking
at
the
individual
and
that's
the
what
the
title
of
this
is
right
now,
then
these
are
more
individual
popularity
metrics.
So
if
you
go
into
github,
it's
the
the
followers
that
you
have
as
a
developer
and
the
repositories
that
you
own
and
the
stars
on
them,
and
the
forks
of
repositories
that
you
own
or
and
and
you
could
get
into
projects
you're
a
significant
contributor
to
so,
but
that
get
that
gets
a
little
bit
more
deep
into
to
how
you
count
things.
D
B
B
How
well
depends
if
you're
looking
for
like
sco
stuff,
gets
really
kind
of
dicey,
because
they're
they're
people
who
write
a
lot
and
don't
develop
a
lot,
and
so
the
question
is:
what
kind
of
influence
are
you
trying
to
gauge?
Are
you
trying
to
gauge
the
influence
of
a
developer
with
a
good
reputation?
Are
you
trying
to
gauge
influence
garnered
through
media
and
press?
Those
are
not
always.
D
The
same
thing
I
feel
like
there
are
two
different
ways
to
answer
the
same
question,
though,
because
if
you,
if
you
consider
I'm
a
non-coding
member
right,
but
if
my
profile
seos
well,
if
my
rank
in
a
search
within
the
site
is
rather
high,
I've
gained
a
certain
level
of
notoriety
and
trust
factor.
Even
if
you
have
not
committed
code.
So
we
should
have
an
awareness
metric
that
determines
the
code
factor,
and
then
we
will
have
another
one
on
the
dashboard
that
determines
the
notoriety
factor.
B
One
could
speculate
about
that.
I
did.
I
haven't
proven
that
so
I
I
do
know
that
the
number
of
followers
a
contributor
has
affects
people
that
go
with
them
when
they
leave
the
project
or
when
they
move
on
to
another
project
or
start
devoting
more
energy
to
other
projects.
So
whether
or
not
their
their
immediate
notoriety
has
influence
on
what
developers
do.
I
don't
think
that
we
know
I
think
anyone's
done.
That
study.
D
It
reminds
me
of
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
name
of
the
youtube
creator,
but
there's
a
youtube
creator
actually
interviewed,
because
he
had
grown
his
channel
enough
to
get
a
play
button
without
a
single
video
on
his
channel,
and
the
reason
is
because
he
had
just
developed
this
habit
of
every
time.
He
watched
a
youtube
video.
He
would
genuinely
comment
and
he
would
end
up
being
the
top
comment
on
things.
So
people
would
subscribe
to
him
and
without
a
single
video
he
got
a
youtube
play
button.
I
B
I
think
there's
there's
two
kinds
of
go
ahead.
I
think
there's
two
kinds
of
content:
oops,
sorry,
there's
two
types
of
content,
there's
code
and
there's
content
and
an
open
source,
and
I
think,
reputation
as
a
developer.
I
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
where
that
comes
from
you
know.
I
know
how
it's
reflected
in
the
open
source
platforms
for
the
developer,
how
they
garner
those
followers
is,
I
don't
know.
C
B
I
don't
want
to
I
guess
here:
I
don't
want
to
mix
influence
and
social
media
and
influence
in
writing
with
influence
as
a
developer,
because
I
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
write
prolifically
and
you
know,
talk
a
lot
about
technology,
but
don't
do
a
lot
of
technology
and
those.
I
don't
know
that
those
are
the
people
that
get
followed,
and
so,
if
we
want
to
have
a
metric
like
that,
I
think
that's
a
different
metric.
That's
almost
like
media
influence,
developer
media
influence
or
something
like
that.
But
it's
not
your
your
your
content.
B
C
And
then
proposal.
B
B
C
B
D
Me
of
a
network
cloud,
so
if
you
were
to
take
a
social
capital
cloud
really
long,
but
thin
connections
between
people
contributing
on
scientific
papers
like
you
publish
a
paper
and
it
has
like
seven
or
eight
different
people
included
you're,
now
a
integral
part
of
that
conversation,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
it's
really
really
strong,
but
the
more
trust
that
paper
provides
the
thicker
it
gets
and
in
that
kind
of
model
there
are
two
really
really
important
values
in
that
there
are
people
who
have
very
long,
tenuous
connections
very
thin,
and
then
people
who
have
very
short
but
very
deep
connections
showing
as
a
very,
very
thick
connection,
both
of
their
both
of
them
carry
tremendous
value.
D
But
when
I
as
a
marketer,
go
in
to
look
at
okay,
who
are
the
power
players
and
who
are
the
people
who
will
help
me
meet
other
people,
I
look
at
those
both
with
different
levels
of
value.
So
I
say
in
this
network
diagram
my
goal
is
this:
I'm
going
to
champion
this
factor
over
this
factor,
even
though
they
both
show
in
the
same
diagram?
D
B
So
I
think
work
and
talk
are
two
different
things
and
what's
reflected
in
github
is
work
and
what's
reflected
on
in
what's
reflected,
I
guess
in
an
issue.
Tracker
could
be
characterized
as
talk,
but
the
the
act
of
contributing
is
different
than
the
act
of
a
media,
and
but
I
mean
it's
just
really
two
different
things
so.
G
So
sean
I've,
I've
heard
you
mostly
talk
about
contributing
as
code
and
and
where
does
this
fall
in
on
like
if,
if
you're,
the
docs
writer
you're
a
contributor
right.
G
Manager
you're
a
contributor
right,
so
so
how
are
we
and
it's
it's
it's
kind
of
common
across
the
board
that
you
know
right
and
that's
why
I
followed
concept.
The
contributor
meets
coder
when,
when
we
have
a
broader
range
of
coders
and
if
I'm
the,
if
I'm
the
contributor
who's
doing
the
the
social
media
or
the
the
the
docs
or
the
comms
or
whatever
for
the
project
right
then
am
I
still
a
contributor.
G
G
B
I
I
think
the
main
distinction
I'm
trying
to
make
is
between
media
influence
and
the
influence
that
developers
have
on
each
other
on
the
platforms
where
they're
performing
the
work,
either
by
contributing
code
or
approving
or
gatekeeping
the
contributions
that
others
make
the
the
work
that
happens
in
the
in
around
the
product.
The
project
is
different
than
the
work
that
happens
in
the
promotion
of
the
product
or
the
person
and
how
those
two
different
things
influence
the
effects
that
one
person
leaving
your
project
might
have,
I
think,
are
different
as
well.
B
A
B
C
Yeah
influence
is
a
very
general
term:
development
influences
okay
and
then
down
below.
I
added
a
few
things
still
listening
to
you
talk
to
as
much
as
I'd
like
to
believe
that
who
you
work
for
doesn't
make
a
difference:
yeah,
oh,
it
does
right,
yeah,
I'm
sure
so
I'm
just
I
was
trying
to
think
out
loud,
maybe
in
this
list
of
other
things
that
might
be
worth
tracking,
so
yeah
followers
and
stars
and
forks.
C
A
A
Sean
or
I'm
not
sure
who
this
is
for,
but
so,
if
I'm
a
high-profile
user
of
the
the
software,
even
though
I
didn't
contribute
back
to
it,
but
I'm
a
high-profile
user
of
it
and
I'm
like
a
an
evangelist
for
it.
Unofficially,
you
know
and
I'm
a
champion
for
it,
but
then
I
find
something
better
and
I
switch
over.
I've
never
actually
contributed
back
to
the
project,
but
I've
been
a
very
vocal
user
like
where
does
that
fit
in?
I.
B
You
know,
like,
I
think,
your
twitter
followers,
your
youtube
followers
instagram,
you
know,
hits
on
your
blog
post
blog
subscribers.
A
D
So
sharing
my
screen,
this
is
a
platform
that
we
use
to
pull
leads
for
scientific
organizers
for
keystone,
symposia
and
you'll,
see
that
we
have
this
individual
who's
made
a
few
public
like
44
publications,
but
only
provided
one
poster
at
like
a
conference
or
anything
like
that.
So
this
person
seems
to
represent
essentially
like
the
primary
scientific
version
of
being
really
really
heavy
in
workshops.
D
This
is
all
publicly
available
information,
just
making
sure
okay
yeah
thanks
for
asking
sure
yeah
absolutely
so
what
we
have
here
is
we
basically
have
like
here's,
the
things
they've
done,
the
things
they've
contributed
and
then
here's
the
networking
diagram.
So
this
diagram
is
very
different.
D
B
So
we're
I
hear
what
you're
saying
where
I
would
caution.
This
group
is
that
we've
in
the
past
and
the
value
working
group
expanded
the
scope
of
a
metric
so
far
that
it
became
undigestable
by
the
community
and
I
think,
keeping
the
metrics
more
at
the
discrete
level
that
the
metrics
are
in
our
other
communities
will
make
them
more
consumable
and
I
think,
by
bringing
together
these
two
different
kinds
of
influence
into
a
single
metric,
you
make
it
harder
for
a
person,
that's
consuming
chaos,
metrics
to
do
so,
and
then
just
I
would
just
caution.
C
C
That's
fair,
I
mean
we
have
a
number
of,
so
they
could.
We
have
a
number
of
metrics
across
the
different
working
groups,
they're
clearly
part
and
parcel
to
each
other.
Right
I
mean
yeah.
They
are,
but
we've
disentangled
them,
at
least
from
an
atomic
kind
of
metric
perspective,
but
yeah,
so
that
that's
fair.
B
D
B
You
know
what
that's
a
very
cool
and
I've.
I
mean.
I
definitely
know
what
you're
talking
about.
I've
done
analysis
of
different
kinds
of
interaction
before
with
networks,
and
so
I
definitely
understand
the
strength
of
weak
ties
and
and
how
that
can
lead
to
influence
and
navigation
of
a
graph.
But
I
think
in
this
case
I,
like
my
the
visualization
you
have,
that
is
possibly
a
very
good
application,
but
I
would
like
to
get
to
that
application
and
I
think
we
can
get
there
quicker
if
we
have
discrete
metrics.
F
F
C
C
D
As
I
understand
it,
that's
what
we're
trying
to
track,
because
that
person's
attention
span,
if
they
are
a
particularly
strong
influencer,
is
also
going
to
impact
where
other
people
go
and
as
a
result,
it
will
ultimately
impact
the
projects.
But
the
projects
are
staying
still.
It's
that
transience
factor
that
we're
trying
to
track.
It's
that
behavior
from
my
understanding.
C
That's
taking
a
look
at
project
popularity,
trying
to
understand
the
popularity
of
a
project,
but
then
we
have
two
metrics
that
are
trying
to
take
trying
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
the
people,
the
the
influence
of
the
people
from
a
couple
different
perspectives,
one
from
say
a
development
perspective,
and
one
from
like
just
the
things
that
are
evident
in
github
and
the
other
more
of
a
social
perspective
as
to
how
they're
having
an
impact
in
individuals
having
an
impact
in
the
world.
That's
why
I
like
that.
A
Okay,
we
only
have
two
minutes
left.
Do
we
want
to
keep
continuing
with
this,
or
do
we
want
to
move
on?
We
had
a
couple
other
things
on
the
agenda.
H
Minutes
now
it's
gonna
be
seconds.
G
G
Garrick
and
matt
invited
me
here,
because
I've
got
this
open
programs
office
at
rit,
now
called
open
rit,
and
I
dumped
the
web
page
for
that
and
the
charter
for
that
into
the
the
chat
and
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
supposed
to
start
exploring
is
is
how
do
we
start
applying
metrics
in
an
open
work
writ
large
to
perhaps
influence
the
not
not
probably
not
to
replace
journal
articles
anytime
soon,
but
to
bolster
the
to
fill
the
gaps
between
journal
article
and
the
work?
That's
really
used.
G
There's
been
this
discussion
back
and
forth.
I
I'm
just
learning
in
academic
spaces
about
alt
metrics,
which
is
what
I've
dropped
in
here.
Oh
yeah,
which
is
yes,
I
know
which
is
several
platforms
but
they're.
Those
alt
metrics
are
trying
to
talk
about
the
kinds
of
things
you've
just
been
talking
about.
G
In
terms
of
you
know
the
twitter
stuff
and
how
many
people
are
reading
my
blog
posts
about
my
journal
and
all
that
other
stuff
yeah,
where
I'm
trying
to
get
to
is
in
between
those
things
where
you
know
the
alt
metrics
seem
to
have
been.
They
seem
to
be
really
exciting
to
people
briefly
and
then
seem
to
have
fallen
off,
primarily
because
they're
not
conceptually
tied
to
the
work
as
much
at
least
that's.
G
My
current
understanding,
yeah,
I'm
trying
to
find
a
way
to
place
the
the
data
and
the
metrics
that
we
get
out
of
open
work
communities.
How
many
people
are
using
my
data.
My
open
data
sets
that
I
published
how
many
people
are
forking.
My
project,
those
kinds
of
things
is,
is
ways
to
give
people
more
weight
to
their
annual
evaluations,
tenure
and
promotion.
G
B
B
Twitter
side,
I
don't
know
what
she's
doing
now.
It's
probably
been
five
six
years
since
I
actually
worked
directly
in
that
space
myself,
but
when
I
was
in
an
information
school
I
I
worked
a
lot
with
altmetrics
people,
because
I
was
a
source
of
data
for
them.
B
B
Yeah,
but
I
think
for
especially
in
in
some
disciplines
these
kinds-
I
mean
chaos
is
providing
another
set
of
metrics,
probably
less
focused
on
academics
than
on
technology
professionals
and
so
academics
kind
of
fit
in
that
broader
circle
and
who's
influencing
industry
is
a
different
question
than
who's
influencing
a
project
and
and
industry
takes
influence
from
all
kinds
of
places.
Right.
Academics
are
only
one
of
them.
B
Great,
I
wish
we'd
discussed
this
earlier.
This
is
of
interest
to
me.
B
B
Every
two
weeks,
two
weeks
next
week,
is
thanksgiving,
so
I'm
eating
a
big
turkey
yeah,
but
watching
football
gain
weight.
A
Okay,
cool
we'll
just
continue
this
I'll
make
sure
to
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
next
time.
First
on
the
agenda,
so
all
right,
everyone.