►
From YouTube: CHAOSS Project: GMD Weekly Meeting
Description
Weekly meeting for the Growth-Maturity-Decline CHAOSS WG
B
B
D
E
A
B
F
B
F
G
F
A
B
B
A
Yeah,
when
you
mention
it,
I
recall
exactly
what
we
said
that
and
my
only
I
guess
are
we
in
a
I
guess
my
life.
The
question
is:
I've
got
a
few
Agra
folks
working
on
things
that
use
other
like
get
GH
torrent
or
github
API
data
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
think
that'll
be
okay
or
if
they
need
to
gather
it
and
that
I
I
guess
that's
about
question
I
mean
I
could
see
we're
getting
it
in
personal
would
give
us
a
consistent,
easy
to
I.
D
B
Attack
with
that
one,
so
everybody
joining,
we
are
talking
about
pull
requests,
36
in
the
repository
and
I
was
proposing,
and
what
I
thought
was
the
last
meeting
where
we
were
talking
about
the
procedure
and
how
to
contribute
and
all
of
that.
What
I
tried
to
do
was
basically
to
write
a
readme
to
reflect
this
and
the.
B
Commenting
on
the
specific
case
of
how
to
build
a
reference
implementation,
how
to
build
an
example.
I
think
that
at
some
point
in
the
past,
we
decided
that
only
for
reference
implementations,
because
because
we
need
some
reference
implementation,
we
were
to
use
the
dams,
produce
it
by
first
of
all,
because
they
are
easy
to
use
and
basically
produce
the
same
information
that
you
have
in
the
original
data
source
yep.
The
main
idea
for
this
just
just
refers
to
you
all.
B
If
we
have
something
that
we
can
easily
convert
to
any
other
implementation,
so
that
if
anyone
decides
to
implement
the
same
metric
on,
say
github
archive
data,
for
instance,
the
result
should
be
the
same.
So
if
we
can
count
commits
that
in
the
way
and
with
Perceval,
we
get
the
result
of
35,
which
would
go
to
any
other
data
source
with
any
other
procedure
and
the
result
should
be
35,
and
that
was
the
main
idea
and
that's
what
what
what
I
try
to
qualify
in
this
mod,
so
opinions
and.
A
B
B
A
B
Mean
maybe
maybe
the
part
related
to
contributions
good
later
go
to
a
contributing
file
right
I
just
prefer
to
have
everything
in
one
place
now
for
is
in
the
discussion
once
we
are
ok
with
the
general
text.
We
can
decide
in
a
food
rapist,
for
instance,
to
a
structure
it
in
some
other
way
and,
for
instance,
taking
out
the
contributing
information
to
our
contributing
file.
But
right
now
it's
a
mixture
of
all
preceding
the.
How
we
proceed
in
the
in
the
group
and
variable.
Both
things
are
together.
The.
A
B
Questions
could
be
used
for
goal,
question
metrics
if
they
are
right
in
the
right
way,
let's
say
but
for
now,
I
really
don't
know
how
this
is
going
to
match
with
the
goal
question
metrics
process.
So
that's
why
I
pronounced
to
leave
it
that
way
and
maybe
try
to
refine
the
idea
during
the
next
week's
as
we
see
how
use
cases
are
coming
in
and
how
we
can
relate
them.
So,
for
instance,
if
you
have
a
look
at
the
one
that
way
ray
pike
is
proposing,
my
impression
is
that
could
be
very
easily
new.
B
How
do
you
call
that
and
you
a
focus
area
which
is
rested
in
basically
understand,
then
how
people
join
the
project
and
how
deal
with
when
they
joined
it?
For
you
and
that
focus
area,
for
instance,
okay,
and
maybe
what
he
is
proposing
to
be
the
goals
for
deaths
for
that
purpose
area,
but
but
I
think
the
bread
now
is
difficult
to
shake.
Okay.
C
A
B
A
A
I
G
G
One
of
the
best
shirts
ever
is
a
good,
a
great
shirt
yeah,
so
so
I'm,
mostly
interested
in
the
chaos
D&I
working
group
and
I
mean
the
kiya
project
generally.
Is
this
super
awesome
that
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
bandwidth,
so
I'm
sort
of
trying
to
target
my
involvement
and
just
kind
of
keep
an
eye
on
the
DNI
part?
Okay,
yeah.
G
D
G
Your
meeting
you're
welcome
to
stick
around
but
notice.
I
think
this
is
a
bit
bit
too
deep
in
the
weeds
for
my
for
my
day,
so
all
right,
they're
doing
amazing
work
and
the
communities
that
that
are
served
by
these
statistics
and
this
project
really
appreciate
it.
So
thanks
thanks
nice
to
meet
you
and
kill.
A
I
A
I
A
B
A
B
Had
some
comments
and
we
ascendance
and
some
messages
but
finally
I
decided
to
nurse
because
I
think
that
my
comments
can
be
addressed
later
on.
So
it's
because
amid
concern
were,
was
that
there
were
some
metrics
that
we
are
not
using
right
now
in
any
of
the
different
categories,
the
categories
that
we
have
but
were
still
defined.
So
maybe
at
some
point
we
need
to
remove
them,
but
for
now
we
can
keep
them
and
decide
later
on
that.
So
I
think
we
have
a
lot
that
didn't
get
mapped.
F
B
Undo
that
one,
it
say
three,
eight,
it's
it's
mainly
for
a
structure
in
a
bit
the
file
on
the
middle,
no
all
right,
again,
I
think
kind
of
housekeeping,
and
so
that's
it
okay
and
then
the
only
two
left,
the
only
two
left
is
21,
where
the
or
care
needs
to
do
a
minor
change
for
a
void
in
the
conflict
that
we
have
now,
which
I
don't
remember
now,
but
I
think
it
was
renaming
the
file
or
something
like
that.
York.
Maybe
you
remember.
B
I
B
The
file-
okay,
okay
and
then
there
is
the
other
one
which
is
related
to
some
changes
on
one
of
the
notebook.
Oh
sorry,
on
one
of
the
definitions
for
opening
issues,
yep,
they
think
it's.
Let
me
check
yeah
it
is.
It
is
still
waiting
for
your
comments
on
as
in
on
whether
all
the
parameters
make
sense
or
not
so.
B
F
A
F
A
B
A
F
B
B
So
the
idea
was
to
work
in
this
case,
which
is
important
to
Ray
and
to
his
company,
and
the
idea
is
to
check
specifically
the
case
of
first-time
contributors
on
how
they
are
revealed
and
how
they
are
deal
with
from
several
points
of
view.
So
he
started
with
the
template
that
we
proposed
by
having
a
name
by
having
a
general,
a
general,
let's
say,
goals
and
some
questions
as
you
can
see,
and
they
are
now
is
too
I
start
by
discussing
here
and
once
we
have
a
certain
consensus.
B
First
of
all
that
this
is
our
an
interest
in
this
case
and,
second,
that
the
general
structure
is
right
produced
the
first
pull
request
with.
It
would
be,
let's
say
that
the
first
discussion
on
the
text
of
the
use
case
so
right
now
the
discussion
should
be
general
and
then
in
the
pull
request
we
can
disk.
We
can
discuss
on
the
details
of
the
description
of
the
pull
request
according
to
the
template
that
we
are
borrowing
from
my
don't
remember
now,
we're.
B
A
As
I
read
through
this
one,
my
first
question
is
this:
this
I
think
the
main
thrust
of
the
use
case
is
focused
on
first-time
contributors.
I
think
there
are
some
questions
and
reading
about
core
developers
and
who
they
are
and
I
think
like
either
we
define
core
developers
which
is
I,
think
harder
than
new
contributors,
or
we
just
say
new
contributors
versus
the
rest
of
the
universe
or
perhaps
new
contributors
and
some
kind
of
tiered
comparison
with
other
other
contributors.
Now.
B
B
But
the
general
concept
is
clear:
is
basically
people
who
tend
to
have
a
social
network
in
and
use
of,
collaborating
and
contributing
to
this
project?
So
that's
what
many
people
call
the
core
group
or
whatever
I
agree
that
we
need
an
and
a
way
of
defining
them?
Maybe
we
can.
We
can
wait
for
that
to
the
specific
definition
of
the
use
page.
Oh
no!
I,
don't
know
so
what
do
you
think.
A
A
A
new
reading
are
several
use
cases
here,
actually
I
think
there's
more
than
one
use
case,
or
maybe
the
use
case
needs
to
be
defined
like
as
he
opens
within
the
first
time
contributor
and
the
first.
Several
questions
are
about
for
the
first
two
questions
with
first
three.
First,
three
questions
include
first-time
contributors,
but
then
it
quickly
involves
into
the
median
user
versus
first-time
contributors
and
core
developers
to
respond.
A
B
D
B
With
the
rest
of
the
creator,
you
can
compare
with
core
for
some
definition
of
coal
or
to
something
else.
The
general
problem
is
that
if
you
compare
to
the
to
the
rest
of
the
project-
and
there
are
a
lot
of
new
consumer
or
one
hand,
computers,
for
instance,
is
difficult,
make
a
sensible,
comparation
yeah.
Usually
you
want
to
compare
with
the
normal
and
the
normal
is
usually
what
code
developers
do.
That's.
A
A
He's
got
core
developers
and
some,
but
then
average
or
median
okay,
I
heard
you
mean
so
I'm
just
trying
to
get
like.
So
one
of
the
interesting
things
about
use
cases
is
as
I
read
through
it,
I'm
like
pulling
out
what
are
all
the
metrics
that
have
to
be
synthesized.
To
answer
to
address
this
use
case
and.
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
That's
quite
the
same,
so
he
needs
to
say,
I'm
thinking
about
regular
contributors
or
I'm
thinking
about
developers
that
are
recognized
the
score
available,
and
maybe
for
that.
What
we
can
do
is
to
include
a
section
on
book
of
Larry
and
any
term
which
is
not
clear.
Try
to
define
it.
Let's
say
in
later
in
in
layman
terms,
not
necessarily
a
metric
stone
but
lay
down
with
multi
matrix
yeah.
A
B
A
I
think
so
the
vocabulary
matters
the
most
when
we're
trying
to
define
like
how
we're
gonna
solve
these
case
right
mm-hmm
so
like
we
don't
have
to
define
some
things
that
we
have
to
define
other
things,
yeah
I,
guess
vocabulary
as
a
section.
What
would
give
us
that
and
I
think
we
could
even
include
an
example
in
the
template
like
new
contributor
and
core
developer
might
be.
A
Those
are
I
think
those
are
two
that
are
gonna
come
up
more
than
once,
so
we
might
even
provide
a
template
definition
of
at
least
new
contributor,
and
we
might
distinguish
between
new
how
we
define
new
contributor
if
it
includes
issues
and
code
or
just
one
or
the
other
than
we
would
want
to
define.
We
wanted
to
find
something
else,
then
more
broadly,
to
include
people
who,
in
you
know
their
first
contribution
is
an
issue.
I
think
people
are.
A
H
B
Okay,
so
I'm,
including
a
comment
on
this,
just
saying
that
we
need
some
definitions
for
at
least
contributor
new
contributor
and
call
the
global,
and
if
you,
if
you
agree
what
I'm
going
to
do,
is
to
in
the
template
that
we
have
read
for
sorry
for
use.
Cases
include
a
new
section
on
vocabulary
with
explaining
exactly
dates
exist.
B
F
B
B
B
H
B
B
F
B
D
B
A
B
C
All
right
so
I
brought
this
up
yesterday
in
the
general
meeting,
and
that
was
that
we
have
the
two
other
work
groups
right
now:
value
and
risk
and
I
think
right
now:
they're,
not
getting
very
good
attention
and
I
think
both
of
the
work
groups
are
actually
only
a
finite
set
of
metrics
mm-hmm
moment.
So,
for
example,
risk
seems
to
be
honing
in
on
there's
some
human
factors
in
risk,
but
a
lot
of
it
is
around
licensing
in
value.
We
have
kind
of
a
few
individual
metrics
which
might
be
around
downstream
dependency
relationships.
C
So
right
now
these
work
groups,
really
they
just
don't
have
people
honing
in
on
them.
So
I
had
suggested
yesterday
that
we
move
the
discussion
around
risk
and
value
into
GMD
so
that
we
could
at
least
consider
them
as
metrics
as
part
of
a
mature
project
mm-hmm,
and
the
logic
is
fairly
clear
that
if
a
lot
of
the
files
in
the
project
have
declared
licenses
that
might
indicate
maturity,
yeah,
that's
pretty
straightforward
to
me.
C
We
don't
care
in
this
group.
We
wouldn't
care
about
what
the
licenses
are.
Of
course,
we
make
no
judgment
on
like
a
Ferro
versus
MIT
and
then
same
would
hold
true
with
downstream
value.
I
think
we
just
have
a
few
fairly
straightforward
metrics
at
the
moment,
but
the
same
would
hold
true
if
a
project
has
a
high
number
of
downstream
dependencies
that
may
help
indicate
that
it's
a
fairly
mature
project,
at
least
within
an
ecosystem.
C
D
B
C
C
I
H
A
Right
and
if
you
want,
if
you
want
pieces,
I
can
just
include
those
new
directories.
In
my
pull
request
explaining
the
growth
maturity
decline,
working
group
because
I'll
probably
have
to
reference
those
directories
when
I
create
the
disk
are
which
there
do.
You
mean
the
the
new
directories
for
risk
value
under
focus
areas.
I,
explain
the
growth
paternity
decline,
working
group,
which.
B
A
A
D
B
E
D
C
D
They
did
pull
request
and,
unfortunately,
it
resulted
in
a
lot
of
changes.
So
when
I
get
DIF
locally,
I
only
see
the
change
that
I
made,
but
because
I
merged
all
of
the
changes
made
since
I
originally
created.
It
shows
up
as
a
lot
more
so
we
can
either
merge
the
pull
request
that
I
have
now
or
just
create
a
new
one,
with
only
the
new
change
I.
A
F
D
B
D
B
D
A
B
In
any
case,
I'm
looking
at
the
readme
and
yeah
you're
right,
it
seems
that,
for
instance,
the
readme
is
exactly
the
version
that
we
have
now
so
I.
Don't
I,
don't
understand
why
it
says
that
it's
changing
touching
so
many
files
but
yeah,
then
we
because
of
all
of
the
all
those
commits
are
touching
some
files
at
some
point.
So
whatever
you
do,
if
you
want
to
do
to
resubmitted
again,
that's
fine.
It's.