►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Community.April.9.2019
Description
CHAOSS.Community.April.9.2019
B
B
Okay,
I
guess
I
had
it
just
a
couple
things
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
One
is
I,
don't
know
if
all
of
you
know,
but
the
Linux
Foundation
is
participating
in
the
Google
season
of
Docs,
and
so
I
know
that
Dee
and
I
had
mentioned
about
possibly
wanting
to
participate
in
this,
and
so,
if
we
want
to-
or
if
you
want
to,
then
I
can
add
some
information
to
the
Linux
Foundation
I'm.
Sorry
I
should
turn
on
my
video.
B
B
A
B
E
B
A
B
A
B
E
Thank
you
baby.
There
may
be
some
submissions
that
just
communicated
with
the
projects
directly,
so
they
have
to
submit
to
Google
if
they
do
not
know
right
right
right,
that's
what
it
yeah.
Of
course
you
can
get
I
just
meant
it's
not
like
the
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
he
or
ik
was
gonna
look
at,
but
on.
B
The
governance
document
we've
asked
all
students
to
kind
of
follow
the
protocol
on
how
to
engage
with
the
project.
Okay,
you
know,
okay,
that's
it
so
he's
talking
about
all
right.
Yes,
okay!
That's
that,
let's
see
I,
honestly
I
don't
have
a
ton
today,
sorry
I,
just
don't
sometimes
I
have
more,
sometimes
I
have
less.
It
sounds
like
DCO
is
moving
forward.
It
sounds
like
the
licensing
issues
are
moving
forward.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
big
big
items
that
need
to
get
off
the
ground,
at
least
in
my
mind.
F
And
that
is
we're
at
the
point
now
where
we
can
start
to
move
forward
on
Devon
extracting
metrics
for
value
from
public
source
information
from
Twitter
feeds
from
software
repos.
That
sort
of
thing,
and
what
would
be
extremely
helpful
for
us,
is
to
find
somebody
who
wanted
to
take
the
lead
in
that
role
to
be
the
hands-on
person
begin
to
auger
and
percival,
and
the
other
tools
that
Kaos
has
to
start
building
out.
Our
kind
of
grunt
work
flow
and
the
framework.
F
And
and
the
reason
why
is
you
know
in
my
experience,
just
learn
so
much,
you
know
by
seeing
them
actually
like
live
on
the
screen
and
practice,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
sort
of
just
defining
them
in
the
abstract,
I'm
Andy.
F
B
B
Let's
see
oops
I'm
thinking
in
your
repository
right
now,
so
you
I
mean
you're
familiar
with
the
the
focus
area
and
then
gold
question
metric
approach
and
yeah
yeah
I'm
thinking
in
there
in
the
repo
that
you
have
right
now.
Perhaps
identifying
I'll
just
put
it
up
here
for
everybody
identifying
kind
of
the
initial
focus
areas
right,
even
if
it's
just
one
at
this
point
and
then
kind
of
a
gold
question
metric
to
get
down
to
the
things
that
you're
interested
in
actually
deploying
so.
A
B
E
E
We
also
shared
and
reviewed
our
Oh
bonus
s
summit,
North
America
proposal
and
just
talked
about
how
we're
going
to
work
as
a
group
which
is
basically
following
the
same
template
that
most
of
the
other
workers
are
following
really
going
we're
going
to
have
a
work
group
risk
repository
that
we
do
a
lot
of
our
coordination
work
in
and
then
we
may
develop
risks
there,
but
then
push
push
them
when
they're
ready.
The
metrics
repository
for.
B
Those
of
you
that
are
shown
I'm
going
to
share
that
doc.
Yeah
yeah
go
ahead,
so
this
is
accessible
out
of
the
risk
repository
but
anybody's
interested.
These
are
the
the
initial
focus
areas
that
risk
is
is
putting
forward
and
Andy.
Actually,
this
might
be
a
just
because
it's
such
a
kind
of
a
raw
form
document
here.
This
might
be
something
that
you
could
kind
of
follow
up
by
the
time
being
sounds
good.
Okay,.
D
F
D
E
Have
have
we
ever?
We
actually
started
with
a
fork
of
the
metric
suppository.
There
was
actually
a
risk
fork
still
in
there
and
in
that
risk
fork.
We
who
have
identified
a
couple
of
metrics
that
we
intend
to
work
on
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
what
do
we
think
I
mean
with
five
working
groups
and
it
might
be
harder
to
have
mutual
exclusivity
on
all
of
the
metrics
all
the
time,
because
I
could
see
common
and
evolution
and
risk
having
a
shared
interest
in
some
things.
What
do
we
but
may
be
different
perspectives?
E
D
No
but
I
think
I
think
it
might
be
good
to
at
least
indicate
in
the
cut
that
there's
a
column
for
which
working
group
is
working
on
it.
I
think
it
might
be
worth
updating
that
column
for
the
ones
that
probably
fall
within
that
working
group,
because
it
doesn't
forget
anyone
from
working
on
them.
So
if
somebody
wants
to
work
on
one
of
the
security
metrics
they
can.
You
know
pop
into
your
working
group
and
start
start
working.
B
B
I,
don't
have
any
problem
and
if
they're
defined
the
same
way,
then
we
won't
run
into
that
problem
with
two
people
trying
to
groups
trying
to
define
it
differently
and
I
do
think
if,
if
the
the
name
starts
out
the
same,
but
it's
clear
that
the
groups
are
actually
looking
at
two
different
things,
but
they
settled
on
an
initial
name.
Then
perhaps
we
just
renamed
one
of
the
metrics
to
something
that's
more
applicable
to
that
working
group.
That's
kind
of
yeah.
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
if
it
doesn't
fall
within
one
of
the
focus
areas,
but
I
think
if
something
falls
pretty
clearly
within
the
focus
areas
of
one
of
the
working
groups,
then
it
just
makes
sense
for
them
to
okay,
so
take
it,
I
mean
if
something
yeah
and
we
could
talk
about
those
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
I
think
if
there
are
any.
A
B
A
A
A
We
have
been
seeing
this
from
the
beginning
and
I
think
for
now
being
fairly
well,
but
just
accepting
that
some
are
composite
and
some
are
more
atomic
and
once
we
have
the
first
release.
Maybe
we
can
revisit
this
to
see
if
it
is
worthwhile
building
out
a
framework
and
differentiating
between
basic
and
composite
metrics.
A
A
A
B
B
E
B
A
We
are
not
doing
any
to
talk
about
things
right
now,
moving
slowly
forward.
One
of
the
activities
that
we
are
starting
this
week
is
looking
at
the
metrics
that
we
have
and
assessing
the
completeness
level
of
completeness.
Okay,
and
one
of
the
conversations
we
had,
which
actually
might
be
interesting
for
them,
is
what
do
we
do
with
focus
areas
where
we
have
one
really
good
metric,
but
three
that
are
met
or
undefined
and
the
conversation
we
had
is
there
ways
to
deal
with
it?
A
Okay
and
the
approach
that
be
favored
on
the
DNI
call
is
option
two,
where
we
include
all
of
the
really
well
defined
metrics
in
the
release
plus
disclaimer,
pointing
people
who
want
to
know
more
to
the
repository
and
inviting
them
to
participate
and
Don
had
framed.
It
really
nicely
as
a
way
to
invite
people
who
are
really
interested
to
work
with
us
on
the
metrics.
Okay,
always.
D
I
think
the
other
thing
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
that
I'd
also
be
curious.
What
other?
What
other
groups
are
thinking
is?
Is
it
better
to
so?
Let's
say
we
have
a
focus
area
where
we
have
maybe
four
really
good,
metrics
and
one
that's
maybe
not
defined
at
all,
and
then
maybe
we
have
another
focus
area
where
we
don't
have
any
of
the
metrics
to
find.
D
Is
it
better
to
focus
on
completing
a
focus
area
or
defining
one
metric
within
the
other
focus
areas
so
that
we
can
at
least
show
the
breadth
of
a
focus
areas
so
I'm
curious
what
the
other
working
groups
are
planning
to
where
they're
planning
to
put
their
efforts,
because
we
could
kinda,
we
could
kind
of
go
either
way
but
I'm
curious.
What
other
people
were
thinking.
D
E
B
So
I
guess,
then
the
question
that
dawn
would
raise,
but
dawn
was
raising
kind
of,
for
you
would
be.
Are
you
gonna
from
a
release
perspective?
B
E
D
B
Personal
preference,
if
I
had
one
which
I
do
actually
try
to
represent
as
many
focus
focus
areas
as
we
can
I
think
the
focus
areas
are
very
interesting
and
I
think
they
tell
a
nice
story
of
the
work,
that's
being
done
or
the
potential
of
the
work
that's
being
done
in
the
in
the
working
groups.
But
that's
just
me
especially
I'm
liking
version,
zero.
F
B
Okay,
so
I
guess
that's,
maybe
a
call
to
action
for
all
of
the
working
groups
start
thinking
about
the
release.
I
know
DNI
is
and
I
know
that
evolution
is
but
then
risk
and
value
as
well.
It's
common
gonna
release
is
that
said
on
the
agenda
for
comment.
I,
don't.
A
D
E
Did
we
discussed
the
I?
Don't
remember
all
of
it
and
they
don't
remember
who
took
minutes
but
I.
Remember
one
discussion
item,
which
was
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
where
to
put
the
Rini
and
we
kind
of
thought.
Maybe
it
was
a
good
idea
to
create
a
working
group
common
repo
only
for
the
stuff
about
like
what
time
we
meet
and
what
the
what
the
documents
are,
four
minutes
and
things
like
that,
but
you
weren't
there
and
because
you
weren't
there
we
didn't
want
to
make
any
decisions.
B
Know
just
kind
of
carry
on
on
that
one
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
last
week,
I
think
it
might
have
been
in
this
call
was:
do
we
recommend
how
working
groups
work
like
how
they
actually
do
their
work
and
the
ultimate
answer
was
no.
The
working
groups
worked
the
way
that
they
work
best
appropriately
for
just
because
there's
a
lot
of
there's
variation.
F
B
That's
in
the
github
chaos
organization.
Common
is
obviously
using
the
metrics
repository.
That's
also
it's
a
list
of
everything.
It's
not
just
the
common,
the
common
metrics,
so
I
think
to
Sean's
point
for
common.
Would
you
be
interested
in
having
a
common
repository
that
just
talks
about
like
what
your
the
mission
is
kind
of
where
you
could
talk
about
when
you
meet
as
Sean
was
pointing
out,
and
then
you
choose
to
do
your
work
in
the
metrics
repository?
That's
great
yeah,
yeah.
D
C
D
B
D
E
D
But
I
also
think
if
we
start
putting
focus
areas
in
the
metrics
repository.
That's
also
going
to
confuse
people,
because
those
would
just
be
the
focus
areas
for
the
common
metrics
working
group
and
not
the
focus
areas
for
the
other
four
working
groups,
and
so
the
more
we
start
to
to
think
about
how
to
do
this
work.
D
B
B
A
F
A
One
of
the
improvements
is
in
the
menu
under
the
community
tab.
There
is
now
a
page
for
every
working
group
and
right
now
the
working
group
reach
me.
Files
are
being
pulled
in
here
all
yet
because
relative
paths
obviously
don't
work
once
you're
outside
the
repository
and
they'll
still
have
to
fix
that,
but
as
a
first
prototype
of
having
the
working
groups
on
the
website,
that's
the
goal
here
to
have
some
groups
on
the
website.
A
B
C
B
F
D
D
D
F
D
A
To
that
point,
having
two
files
with
the
same
information
in
the
same
repository
and
having
now
now
pulling
in
information
from
not
the
cup
set
repository
seems
to
be
counterintuitive.
So
if
we
duplicate
the
file
at
least
partially,
and
we
might
as
well
have
it
in
the
website
repository
because
that
is
the
first
place,
someone
would
look
for
when
updating
the
website.
Okay,
yeah.
D
And
the
other
thing
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
is
we
have
the
participate
page,
which
already
has
an
overview
of
each
of
the
working
groups
along
with
where
they
meet,
and
so
what?
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
community
section
versus
the
participate?
Section?
I
mean
I'll,
be
honest.
It
almost
seems
like
we
could
delete
that
whole
the
whole
community
section
because
it
seems
like
we
have
what
we
need
on
the
participate
page.
B
D
B
E
B
A
D
B
B
Trying
to
convert
it
to
your
idea,
so,
ok
fight,
so
the
I
think
the
idea
was
to
give
the
working,
because
that's
really
where
the
work
is
being
done
in
chaos.
Right
I
mean
the
99%
of
that
work
is
being
done
on
working
groups,
and
so
it's
just
making
sure
that
the
working
groups
feel
like
they're
being
recognized
in
the
work
that
they're
doing
and
I
don't
mean
like
recognized
like
way
to
go.
I
mean
recognized
like
you
want
to
join
here.
It
is
here's
who
we
are
and
here's
what
we're
working
on.
B
A
B
B
B
A
D
Although,
if
we,
if
we
leave
the
stuff
that,
like
the
first
bet,
which
is
kind
of
the
social
media,
stuff
upcoming
events,
the
news
is
that
this
is
community.
The
right
word
for
that
now,
because
I
feel
like
when
people
land
on
the
community
page
of
an
open
source
project,
they're
expecting
to
find
working
groups.
Github
repos.