►
From YouTube: CHAOSS.Community.July.21.2020
Description
CHAOSS.Community.July.21.2020
A
Okay,
we
are
recording.
This
is
July
21st
chaos,
community
weekly,
call
hi
everyone
I'm,
your
host,
Elizabeth
I,
see
you.
Please
put
your
self
in
the
attendee
list.
If
you
have
not
done
so,
and
let
us
know
how
you're
doing
or
what's
going
on
it's
ridiculously
hot
in
Ohio
still,
it
has
been
four
days,
but
hopefully
it's
not
as
hot,
where
you
are.
B
B
It's
it's.
We
chose
the
word
reviews
for
pull
requests
and
merge
requests
across
platforms,
and
it
is
often
confused
with
code
reviews
which
we
discussed
when
we
chose
the
term
but
landed
on
reviews,
so
a
that
glossary
could
be
important
as
part
of
the
release
just
to
the
people
so
that
it's
more
clear
what
we're
talking
about.
B
B
D
B
C
B
B
B
B
E
B
A
B
E
Yes,
all
right,
and
then
I
guess
has
where,
as
we
are
going
through
the
release,
we
should,
as
Elizabeth
was
mentioning
that
there
is
a
chance
that
other
metrics
are
actually
referencing
the
code
review
metric,
so
we
might,
we
want,
might
want
to
scan
that
and
make
sure
that
we
change
all
references
to
it.
Code.
B
Reviews
is
actually
a
metric,
that's
released.
That
is
a
separate
thing
entirely,
compounding
the
confusion
so
there.
Basically,
there
are
four
metrics
that
are
released.
Reviews,
reviews,
accepted
reviews
declined
at
reviews,
duration
that
would
be
affected
by
this
change,
and
my
suggestion
would
be
that
I
changed
the
name
of
both
the
file
and
the
heading
in
the
metric.
Does
that
break
anything?
No.
E
B
Actually,
I
can
do
a
search
on
all
the
working
groups
for
references
to
reviews
that,
in
fact,
if
I
looked
at
the
released
metrics
alone,
I
would
find
those
phenomena
right.
So
I
could
look
on
the
website
for
that.
Yes,
all
right,
I'll
be
sort
of
softly
working
on
that.
While
we
continue
with
the
agenda.
A
B
G
Yeah
yeah,
basically
I
agree
that
there
is.
There
is
definitely
some
confusion
here,
so
if
you
can
make
sense
but
yeah,
and
indeed
I
can
I
can
bring
other
discussions
here.
If
you
want,
one
of
them
is
related
to
the
cult
review
itself,
because
sometimes
we
say
code
review
for
the
whole
process.
Sometimes
code
review
is
he
asked
for
the
plus
one
or
minus
one,
for
instance
in
Jeffery
after
you
have
certain
process,
their.
G
Request
seems
to
be
like
the
whole
process
as
a
whole
by
the
view,
but
if
you
move
this
to
a
carrot,
discussion,
for
instance,
in
Garrett
as
far
as
I
remember,
they
only
have
like
when
you
know
produce
one
commit
for
each
of
the
four
request
processes
while
yeah.
While
if
you
can
produce
to
get
happy
in
a
Kubrick,
as
you
may
have
several
comments
at
the
same
time,
then
there's
a
difference
as
well.
H
Know
I
just
well:
we
use
Garrett,
for
example,
with
the
OpenStack
community
and
I
know
about
several
other
communities
as
well,
and
the
the
pool
and
merge
requests
are
very
different
concept
from
how
Garrett
works
in
terms
of
the
comets
and
change
sets
and
patch
sets.
Rather
so,
I
don't
know
how
much
is
the
is
the
goal
here
to
describe
every
process
and
sort
of
have
a
I.
H
B
B
D
Mean
maybe
I
mean
old
ago,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
it's
maybe
the
better
term.
Here
is
not
just
reviews
being
accepted
by
changes
being
accepted.
All
right,
like
I,
mean
I
think
like
in
Garrett
land
like
to
use
a
term
like
you
said
they
only
go
like
patches,
but
those
are
basically
changes,
not
necessarily
just
reviewed
yeah.
D
H
So
that
might
be
a
good
compromise,
because
in
other
terms,
if
you
look
into
the
the
github
get
live
workflow
with
pull
requests,
which
is
practically
a
fork
which
has
multiple
comments
and
whatever
other
things,
and
you
try
to
map
that
fully
to
the
Gerrit
workflow,
where
you
have
one
comment
and
several
versions
of
that.
One
particular
comment
until
it's
good
enough
for
the
reviewers
to
actually
merge
it
yeah.
H
B
Then,
in
the
definition
forward,
views
which
I
can't
remember
if
I
posted
it
does
say,
reviews
correspond
to
cool
pull
requests
in
the
case
of
github,
the
merge
requests,
get
lab
and
two
code
reviews
which
I'm
not
sure.
That's
that
kind
of
happens
in
the
context
of
a
coder
full
request,
sometimes
or
in
some
contexts
change
sets
in
the
case
of
Garrett
is:
does
the
term
change
that
resonate
with
you
at
all
I.
H
Rather
heard
patch
set,
as
opposed
to
change,
said
I.
Think
it's
a
more
often
used
term
but
again,
I
I
might
be
wrong
as
I
assume
as
many
communities
who
are
using
the
same
tool
as
many
versions
or
variations
of
of
the
terminology
that
they
are
vocabulary
that
they
also
use.
But
at
least
I
myself
usually
hear
or
end
use
patch
that,
rather
than
change
that
much.
G
G
B
So
I
think
maybe
this
discussion
has
to
be
postponed
for
the
next
evolution
meeting,
but
one
more
question:
if,
if
I
have
eight
commits
and
I
do
and
github
I
would
run
them
as
a
pull
request
that
because
they're
fixing
all
one
issue
and
they're
related
in
Garrett,
am
I
creating
sort
of
eight
of
those
patches
or
can
I
bundle
those
eight
commits
together?
So.
H
You
always
have
eight
patches,
you
can
structure
them
as
a
chain
or
in
Garrett.
You
can
have
the
same
topic
for
them,
and
then
it
puts
them
into
kind
of
the
same
group
in
terms
of
visualization.
If
those
comets
are
dependent
on
each
other,
then
you
usually
choose
to
organize
them
into
a
into
a
chain,
but
those
are
still
separate
comets
and
you
review
them
correctly
and
merge
them
separately.
B
It
sounds
more
like
a
way
of
managing
commits
individually
than
it
does
a
parallel
to
a
polar
merge
request.
I
mean
it
just
sounds
like
a
fundamentally
more
granular
way
of
managing
changes,
but
ultimately
mapping
to
individual
commits
so
I'm
like
I've,
never
used
Garrett's,
so
I
don't
know,
but
it
sounds
more
like
a
commit
process
than
a
polar
merge
request
process,
but
I've
never
done
it.
So
I
don't
have
any
experience
to
base
that
on
when.
I
G
Then
you
have
you
have
a
patch
which
is
we
got
your
file,
then
you
have
a
budget
which
is
a
set
of
patches
and
then
all
of
this
is
sent
through
thread
in
a
mailing
list.
Then
you
review.
If
you
are
the
specific
flag
in
the
answer
of
the
email
as
reviewed
by
your
act
by
and
then,
if
you
want
to
have
another
iteration
of
the
whole
pod
set,
you
send
another
new
thread,
but
they
are
using
the
concept
of,
but
and
that's
it.
E
E
B
E
B
C
A
J
C
A
C
F
A
A
K
Yeah,
okay,
so
currently
of
I
just
sent
what
I'm
working
on
so
I
kind
of
did
an
overview
kind
of
an
illustration
on
the
how
the
translation
process
is
in
look
as
being
done
so
I
attached
pictures
and
also
documents.
It
was
found
documents
to
each
exchange,
so
so
far,
I've
been
able
to
explain
how
the
key
value
content
using
these
pieces.
K
D
K
C
G
C
And
I'd
like
to
to
just
say
for
the
mentors
Mentors:
could
you
encourage
all
of
your
mentees
all
of
the
people
participating
in
either
out
Ricci
or
google
Summer
of
Code
to
have
have
those?
Have
those
people
make
sure
to
post
their
blog,
their
blog
blogging
to
the
chaos
room,
email
list
so
I
know
a
number
of
them
do
on
a
regular
basis,
but
I
mean
I
think
we
have
ten
people
involved
as
mentees
this
summer.
I
don't
think
I'm
seeing
ten
come
across
the
email.
C
A
C
C
Very,
very
briefly,
so
we
the
Kaos
project
right
submitted
under
the
Oregon,
the
LF
and
so
there's
a
smaller
number
of
slots
available
for
google
season
of
docs,
and
I
think
right
now
the
LF
is
putting
in
the
request
for
slots.
So
we've
put
forward
the
names
based
on
our
applicants
in
the
chaos
project,
so.
C
A
A
So
so,
if
someone
else
did
great
but
I,
don't
think
we've
really
done
anything
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
ask
you
know
what
what
you
all
think
would
be
a
good
next
step
to
kind
of
keep
these
things
moving
forward
so
that
we
can
loop,
Chris,
Beck
and
Chris
Hanna
check
back
into
kind
of
what
we've
talked
about
so
I
see.
There
are
several
of
us
that
are
interested
in
talking
about
that.
Do
we
want
to
schedule
a
meeting?
C
I
D
C
Pretty
that
seemed
like
that
had
a
pretty
easy
point
of
connection
right
out
of
the
gate
and
I.
Don't
think
it
would
take
it
terribly
long
time
to
develop
a
relatively
short
survey,
just
in
terms
of
I
think
the
survey
was
I
remember
largely
around
the
metrics
were
kind
of
a
health
indicators
that
I
suppose
use
and
then
maybe
how
they
use
those
health
indicators.
You
know
what
they're
doing
internally
was
that
that
was
pretty
much.
The
aim
of
the
survey
right,
yeah.
A
A
And
looking
at
well,
okay!
Well,
let's
just
start
a
Google
Doc,
then
throw
some
ideas
down
and
then
I'll
loop
in
whoever
had
listed
themselves
as
interested
to
be
part
of
the
conversation
mm-hmm
and
if
anyone
else
wants
to
be
part
of
that,
just
add
your
name
to
the
list
and
we'll
make
sure
to
loop.
You
in.
I
A
C
C
G
C
Okay,
so
Chris's
thought
was
that
we
could
create
a
landscape
map
for
us
beause.
It
would
be
what
are
the
technologies
or
programs
that
pospos
should
keep
on
their
radar
when
trying
to
do
open
source
engagement,
so
just
kind
of
what?
What
needs
to
be?
What
needs
to
be
in
front
of
you
right,
and
so
that
was
what
that.
Second
one
is
about
developing
a
landscape
for
spose.
C
D
Yeah
I
mean
that
one's
like
I
mean
obviously
I,
don't
have
a
pool
of
contacts.
Cuz
I
wasn't
on
the
call,
but
that
one
seems
like
I.
Don't
know
how
it
fits
in
with
our
Chaos's
mission,
like
that
doesn't
seem
like
community
health
or
metrics
related
like
I,
feel
like
we're.
Putting
together
I
mean
I'm,
trying
not
to
be
a
I'm,
not
trying
to
be
pejorative
like.
C
C
D
A
Yeah
I
think
Chris
was
just
kind
of
throwing
some
ideas
out
into
the
ether
to
see
you
know
what
would
stick
and
what
made
sense,
and
so
yeah
I
mean
that
everything
is
very
written
in
pencil.
We'll
say
so.
Oh
definitely
can
be,
can
be
altered
or
changed
to
kind
of
fit
a
little
bit
better
and
then
the
third
initiative,
which
I
didn't
even
move
up
from
last
week,
was
the
badging
part
of
that
which
was
still
again,
you
know
kind
of
in
the
ether.
A
But
if
you
click
on
those
cards,
then
you'll
see
like
little
badges
and
so
like
we
kind
of
had
a
discussion
about
how
we
could
perhaps
help
them
and
them
help
us
like
where
we
can
collaborate
on
those
badges
for
those
cards,
specifically
with
regard
to
the
D&I
badging
program
and
then
potentially
like
an
overall
health
badge
of
some
sort.
So
definitely
something
that
needs
to
be
worked
out
a
lot
again.
It
was
just
one
of
those
ideas
that
we
had
so
we'll
wait
on
that
as
well.
A
J
C
Just
as
an
update
were
we're
meeting
with
we're
continuing
to
me
this
week
with
folks
from
the
Linux
Foundation
to
help
us
in
develop
the
process
by
which
people
can
request
community
reports.
So
again,
these
would
be
very,
very
high-level
kind
of
one-page
documents
that
the
organization's
could
request.
The
thing
I
was
going
to
bring
up
is
last
week
on
the
call,
if
you
recall,
we
talked
about
metrics
or
probably
visuals
is
a
better
word.
C
B
General
projects
are
keenly
interested
in
new
contributor
attention
so
around
really
the
and
also
responsiveness,
so
they
be
responsiveness
to
pull
requests
or
issues
as
antecedents
to
retaining
new
contributors,
and
so
the
three
reports
that
we've
released
our
focused
first
on
pull
requests,
including
volume
number
of
Merck
Lisa.
We
incorporate
the
total
volume,
those
merged
those
not
merged
the
response,
the
time
to
first
response,
not
including
BOTS
for
each
type
and
time
to
last
response,
including
not
including
BOTS,
reach
type
and
then
the
time
to
close
for
each
type
of
flow
request.
B
So
there
are
a
number
of
metrics
that
are
in
there
and
then
those
you
could
organize
that
we
do
it
by
here,
because
that's
what
projects
asked
for
and
in
the
case
of
Zephyr,
we
did
a
competitive
analysis
of
five
other
projects
in
their
space
that
that
they
didn't
want
named
on
the
report,
so
that
they're,
not
names
they're,
just
projects
like
ABCDE
or
something
like
that.
Those.
So
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
people
have
been
asking
for.
B
Oh,
oh,
oh,
so
this
is
a
first
kinship,
so
these
are
the.
This
is
a
first-time
contributor
graph,
so,
okay,
all
the
people
in
a
given
month
who
made
their
first
contribution.
So
this
gives
you
a
rate
of
first-time
contributors
and
it
identifies
what
that
first
contribution
was
okay.
This
can
be
filtered
to
not
include
so
there
was
some
discussion
about
whether
or
not
for
several
comments
ought
to
be
included
as
a
first
contribution
in
the
case
of
community.
They
wanted
that.
C
B
There's
like
something
yeah
well
I
mean
there's
several
that
go
along
with
this
right.
You
can't
display
everything,
one
graphs,
so
the
next
thing
that
folks
were
interested
in
it
are
repeat
contributors,
so
how
many
of
these
so
there's
a
separate
report
or
graph
that
shows
how
many
of
these
first-time
contributors,
okay,
contributed
again
or
at
least
one
other
time,
and
that
is
also
a
parameter.
You
could
say:
five
counts
as
a
repeat
contributor,
yeah.
K
B
F
B
All
is
it
absolutely:
Zephyr
came
to
github
I
want
to
say
mid,
2017,
I
believe
the
first
report
we
did
started
in
2017
on
pull
requests.
We
have
we've
done
these
on
longer
running
projects,
and
so,
for
example,
we've
got
one
project
we
ran
it
on,
that
was
at
least
eight
years
old
and
so
a
new
contributor.
A
B
H
C
C
They
don't
paint
the
picture
of
an
entire
landscape
of
how
to
understand
health,
obviously
so
part
of
what
I'm
trying
to
do.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
these
reports
is
just
get
people
get
information
in
front
of
people
that
get
off
a
square.
One
yeah
get
off
a
square
one.
So
are
there
things
in
your
day-to-day
lives
that
you
are
hearing
people
asking
for
on
a
regular
basis?
J
J
B
I
agree
and
and
I'd
say:
I've
been
working
with
Kate
for
years
and
I
haven't
gotten
access
or
an
API
key
from
her.
Yet
so
I
mean
I.
Think
projects
protect
that
even
a
read-only
key,
pretty
free
tightly,
usually
but
I
think
it's
worth
it
I.
Don't
think
it's
good
to
ask
for
it
like
if
you
would
like-
and
you
can
only
go
back
to
week,
so
you
haven't
gathered
over
time,
but
you
can.