Augur8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/WC5V6K_HTN4/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5V6K_HTN4) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #open-source #augur #contributor-resolution #github-api #software-maintenance #monitoring > author: Augur Team > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5V6K_HTN4 > date created: 2024-02-17 14:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 - Contributor Resolution and Funding Updates >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Fix contributor email resolution in commits table — low 15% resolution rate #contributor-resolution - [H2] Apply for UK Software Sustainability Institute maintenance grant — deadline Feb 25th #funding - [H3] Create good first issues for new contributors — expand onboarding paths #community ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Augur Documentation](https://oss-augur.readthedocs.io/) - [8-Knot GitHub Repository](https://github.com/8knot-io/8knot) ## 📝 Summary - The Augur team made significant progress closing PRs (down to under 60, closed 15 in one day) - Major contributor email resolution issues discovered - only ~15% success rate instead of expected higher rates - UK Software Sustainability Institute grant opportunity worth £150k (~$200k) for software maintenance - New monitoring dashboards using Grafana helping track collection status and system health - Discussion of AI bots creating problems for maintainers (MatPlotLib incident) ## 📖 Main Content The meeting focused on three main areas: technical issues with contributor resolution, funding opportunities, and community growth. The team discovered that their contributor email resolution system, crucial for accurate attribution in open source analytics, is performing far below expectations. While they expected much higher success rates, they're seeing only about 15% of contributor emails being properly resolved and populated in their database. This technical issue has significant implications for any analysis requiring contributor affiliation data, as affiliations are primarily derived from email domains. The team is exploring both quick fixes and longer-term refactoring to support multiple platforms beyond GitHub. On the funding front, a UK team member identified a competitive grant opportunity through the Software Sustainability Institute specifically for research software maintenance - a perfect fit for Augur's current needs. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=0) — [H1] Significant progress on PR backlog - Key idea: Team closed 15 PRs in a single day, now under 60 total - Evidence: "We closed like 15 PRs yesterday or something like that" #### ⏱️ [01:23](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=83) — [H1] Critical contributor email resolution issues - Key idea: Email resolution rates much lower than expected in contributors table - Evidence: "contributor emails are in the contributors table is a lot lower rates of them actually being sort of resolved and filled in" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=225) — [H2] Testing shows improved resolution through commit API - Key idea: Direct commit API queries more reliable than search API for contributor data - Evidence: "Started with 2516 that did not have an email before that ran and 649 that did. Currently, there are 1,828 that don't" #### ⏱️ [05:12](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=312) — [H2] Platform usernames populating better than emails - Key idea: GitHub usernames being resolved at higher rates than email addresses - Evidence: "We are getting a lot more of the platform usernames populated in the commits table" #### ⏱️ [08:34](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=514) — [H1] Affiliation analysis severely impacted - Key idea: Email resolution problems make affiliation data 10-20x off from reality - Evidence: "We're talking like 10x 20x off whenever it comes to this type of resolution right now" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=735) — [H1] Manual verification shows profiles contain emails - Key idea: Most GitHub profiles contain email addresses that aren't being captured - Evidence: "Almost every single one had an email listed in their GitHub profile" #### ⏱️ [15:47](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=947) — [H2] UK Software Sustainability Institute grant opportunity - Key idea: £150k (~$200k) maintenance grant available for research software - Evidence: "Maximum of 150,000 great British pounds which the internet tells me is about 200k US" #### ⏱️ [18:22](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1102) — [H2] Grant focuses specifically on maintenance work - Key idea: Funding specifically for bug fixes and maintenance, not new research - Evidence: "It needs to be software that can be used for research. But I don't think we're proposing to do any research" #### ⏱️ [22:35](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1355) — [H3] Expanding contributor onboarding opportunities - Key idea: Creating more entry points beyond documentation for new contributors - Evidence: "People in Slack asking like hey like I want ways to contribute that aren't just doing docs" #### ⏱️ [26:18](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1578) — [H2] Grafana monitoring dashboard progress - Key idea: New monitoring showing collection status and system health metrics - Evidence: "Being able to see how many of our repositories are within the threshold that we have set" #### ⏱️ [29:45](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1785) — [H3] Plans to upstream monitoring tools - Key idea: Grafana monitoring stack should move to CHAOS organization - Evidence: "This augur monitoring repository would make sense under chaos as well" #### ⏱️ [31:20](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1880) — [H3] AI bot maintenance concerns - Key idea: Growing problems with AI agents creating issues for maintainers - Evidence: "AI agents like writing blog hit pieces on maintainers" ## 📚 References - [Software Sustainability Institute](https://www.software.ac.uk/) - [Augur GitHub Repository](https://github.com/chaoss/augur) - [MatPlotLib AI Bot Incident](https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The Augur project has a critical technical issue where contributor email addresses aren't being properly resolved from GitHub's API, causing major problems for any analysis requiring contributor affiliation data - A significant funding opportunity exists through the UK's Software Sustainability Institute for £150k specifically for research software maintenance work - The team is actively working to create better onboarding paths for new contributors and has developed useful monitoring dashboards to track system health ## 📰 Newsletter The Augur team is tackling some exciting challenges! They've made great progress reducing their PR backlog but discovered a critical issue with contributor email resolution that's affecting data accuracy. The good news? They're testing fixes and have a promising grant opportunity to fund maintenance work. For WordPress developers interested in open source analytics, this highlights the complexity of contributor attribution across platforms - something increasingly important as we track contributions across the WordPress ecosystem. Resources: [CHAOSS Metrics](https://chaoss.community/metrics/), [Augur Documentation](https://oss-augur.readthedocs.io/), [GitHub API Best Practices](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/guides/best-practices-for-integrators) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer experience: Document contributor resolution API patterns for other platforms - Community management: Create intake process for AI-related maintenance issues - Developer marketing: Share monitoring dashboard patterns with CHAOSS community #### OSPO - Software Inventory: Audit contributor attribution accuracy across portfolio projects - Developer Support: Create guidelines for handling AI bot contributions - Community Engagement: Support grant applications for maintenance funding #### Community - Contributors: Expand good first issue labeling and onboarding documentation - Maintainers: Develop response templates for AI bot contribution attempts - Sponsors: Pursue maintenance-focused funding opportunities #### WordPress - Core: Evaluate contributor attribution accuracy in WordPress.org systems - Community: Share patterns for handling AI contributions at WordCamps - Documentation: Document best practices for contributor resolution across platforms ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Direct commit API queries will resolve contributor emails more reliably than search API approaches - GitHub profile scraping will significantly improve email resolution rates for corporate contributors - Maintenance-focused grants provide better funding stability than research-focused proposals - Multi-platform contributor resolution requires interface-based architecture refactoring ### 📊 Methodology - A/B test commit API vs search API resolution rates across 122 repositories - Manual verification of GitHub profile email availability vs database population - Comparative analysis of grant success rates for maintenance vs research proposals ### ❓ Questions - Why is the commit API chain not executing properly in production systems? - How can contributor resolution be generalized across GitHub, GitLab, and other platforms? - What maintenance work provides the highest impact for research software sustainability? ### 🔮 Future Research - Cross-platform contributor identity resolution algorithms - Impact measurement for research software maintenance investments - AI detection and management tools for open source maintainers ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Contributor attribution data may be significantly incomplete in current analyses - Policy: Maintenance funding models better support critical research infrastructure - Security: AI bots creating reputational attacks on maintainers require coordinated response - Education: Contributor onboarding needs multiple skill-level entry points ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th grade (technical discussion) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Grafana dashboard screenshots, progress metrics - Improve: Architecture diagrams for contributor resolution flow #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Team discussion format with multiple perspectives - Improve: Audio summary of technical issues and solutions #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear problem definitions and solution explanations - Improve: Glossary of technical terms like "contributor resolution" #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: References to testing scripts and hands-on debugging - Improve: Step-by-step contributor resolution testing guide #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear problem-solution mapping and decision trees - Improve: Flowchart of contributor resolution algorithm logic #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Collaborative problem-solving discussion - Improve: Community contribution guidelines and mentorship paths #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual work items and self-directed tasks - Improve: Self-assessment checklist for contribution quality #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Open source ecosystem thinking and sustainability focus - Improve: Environmental impact of computational resources discussion ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear timestamps and speaker identification - Improve: Transcript formatting with proper heading structure #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls and transcript navigation - Improve: Skip-to-section functionality for long meetings #### Contrast and readability - Present: Clear transcript text formatting - Improve: High contrast theme option for technical documentation #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive transcript display - Improve: Font size controls for technical content #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Time-synced captions with technical term highlighting #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video playback controls - Improve: Interactive transcript with searchability ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: International collaboration (UK/US team members) - Improve: Consider timezone equity in meeting scheduling #### Inclusive language - Present: Technical discussion without exclusionary jargon - Improve: Define acronyms and technical terms consistently #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured meeting agenda and clear topics - Improve: Written summaries and action items for processing #### Representation - Present: Multiple voices and perspectives in decision making - Improve: Ensure quiet team members have speaking opportunities #### Psychological safety - Present: Open discussion of problems and collaborative solutions - Improve: Explicit encouragement of questions and clarifications ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear cause-effect reasoning for technical problems - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition from testing data across repositories - Causal reasoning: Direct link between API approach and resolution success rates - Analogical strength: Comparing different platforms' contributor resolution needs #### Fallacies - None identified: Discussion maintains focus on evidence-based problem solving #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Collaborative, problem-solving focused with appropriate urgency for critical issues ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No defensive patterns observed - Attack: No attacks on accusers present - Reverse victim/offender: No reversal patterns identified - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Straightforward technical discussion with appropriate concern for data accuracy ## 🎯 Conclusion This meeting demonstrates effective technical project management with the team identifying critical data accuracy issues, pursuing appropriate funding opportunities, and actively working to expand their contributor community. The focus on maintenance funding rather than just feature development shows mature understanding of sustainable open source development needs. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Commit API provides superior contributor resolution > [!quote] Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 by Augur Team via YouTube. Published 2024-02-17. Accessed 2024-02-17. > "Direct commit API queries more reliable than search API for contributor data." Critical for accurate open source analytics and contributor attribution systems. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=225#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Maintenance funding better fits research software needs > [!quote] Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 > "Funding specifically for bug fixes and maintenance, not new research." Addresses sustainability gap in research software development lifecycle. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/WC5V6K_HTN4?t=1102#H2) #xref ID:rw_002 --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split level: H4 #### [Z1] GitHub profiles contain more email data than captured - Corporate contributors frequently list emails in profiles - Pointer to 12:15 timestamp discussion - Links: [[Contributor-Resolution]] [[GitHub-API-Patterns]] #### [Z2] Multi-platform support requires architectural refactoring - Current system tightly coupled to GitHub-specific API patterns - Pointer to contributor resolution discussion - Links: [[API-Design]] [[Platform-Abstraction]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue Purpose: Capture quick actions for Fleeting notes. - [F1] Test commit API vs search API resolution rates — 03:45 #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Apply for Software Sustainability Institute grant — deadline Feb 25 #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Create AI bot response guidelines for maintainers — 31:20 #fleeting #inbox --- ## Full Transcript [00:01] All right, we are recording. [00:07] Wait. Um, I had a random random sort of [00:10] first item on the agenda, too, was um [00:12] we're under 60 poll requests now. So, [00:14] that's good. I think between between [00:15] Sean and I, I think we closed like 15 [00:17] PRs yesterday or something like that. [00:19] >> Yeah. [00:19] >> Um, so that's that's probably the most [00:22] most single day closed PRs for at least [00:25] the last few months. [00:27] Um, [00:29] it's probably going to get harder [00:30] because a lot of the other ones I keep [00:32] kicking the can down the road like, "Oh, [00:33] we'll deal with this later." And there's [00:35] less later. But um yeah, I think uh like [00:39] we like I was just starting to mention [00:41] before we started recording, I think we [00:43] um the main issue we're seeing at least [00:45] from mine and Cali's side is um [00:47] contributor emails are in the in the in [00:50] the contributors table is a lot lower [00:52] rates of them actually being sort of [00:54] resolved and filled in than than we [00:56] think they should be. Um I know Sean, I [00:59] think you said you were running some [01:00] tests to kind of confirm some of this [01:04] aspects of our contributor resolution. [01:06] Have is there any results from that so [01:08] far? [01:08] >> I'm looking at them right now. [01:14] It's It's still running. [01:17] Um [01:17] >> was that the large test or the small [01:19] one? [01:19] >> The small one is what I'm trying to look [01:21] at for approximate [01:24] value. I'll share this real quick. [01:28] So, this is a small database. Um it's [01:33] got a by small I mean like 122 repos. Um [01:37] we had [01:39] 635,000 commit rows that didn't have the [01:41] platform ID. But to your point about [01:43] emails um before I started running it [01:48] I and this is just looking this is just [01:50] using the commit API to pull emails in. [01:55] And there's two other processes that [01:57] I'll run, but this one has we think is [02:00] the most gets the most items or the most [02:03] people taken care of. Um, so we started [02:07] with 2516 [02:10] that did not have an email before that [02:13] ran and 649 that did. Currently, there [02:17] are 1,828 [02:20] that don't. [02:23] So, it's not done yet. So, still 1828 [02:27] that don't [02:30] and [02:32] up to 1565 that do. So, I think it's I [02:37] think this is functioning at a higher [02:39] rate than the approximately 15% that [02:42] calling the the contributor API did for [02:46] both emails and um GitHub ids. Now the [02:51] the one thing that that is occurring [02:54] that is um we are getting a lot more of [02:57] the um platform usernames populated in [03:00] the commits table. [03:03] So that that part's working much better. [03:07] Uh [03:08] so we didn't have that as complete [03:11] before. [03:12] >> Yes, Kelly. Um, where in the process [03:17] would it be that like I'm glad to hear [03:20] that there's more contributor resolution [03:22] going back to the commit site because I [03:24] think that's important, but say like now [03:27] we're starting to look at different [03:28] avenues to get that email information [03:31] and I think a lot of times there might [03:32] be a like the contributor res resolution [03:34] comes from email and profile, email and [03:38] commit. Um, and so is there a way like [03:42] is it checking it in that direction as [03:44] well or is it only going one way? [03:47] >> What it's So I think you're asking [03:51] Let me answer the question I think you [03:52] asked and you can tell me if I'm wrong. [03:54] >> Why don't you say ask the question back [03:56] to me and I can [03:56] >> ask question. Okay. So I think I think [03:58] you're asking if we're getting the [04:01] emails from the commit record if we [04:04] don't get a return back from the API. [04:07] No, that is not my question. My question [04:10] is is that if the for a given [04:14] contributor ID, say we get an email from [04:18] a place that's not commits, are we [04:20] checking it in that direction? Say for [04:23] example there is an email in their [04:26] GitHub profile and we can tie that [04:30] contributor to those commits that way [04:34] from like matching it like that for some [04:36] reason contributor resolution didn't [04:38] work from commit to user but we have it [04:41] we have that email from the user [04:43] profiler somewhere else and does it [04:45] check it in that direction? [04:48] I think the answer is no. It's not doing [04:51] that. So just [04:53] >> and it makes sense that it wouldn't [04:54] because we haven't like we're just [04:55] putting in that functionality. [04:57] >> Well, and the the commits like basically [04:59] always have an email. What I'm learning [05:02] from just doing this is in the last [05:05] several years, it is more often one of [05:08] these really weird not real GitHub [05:11] emails that get assigned by the platform [05:13] like it's like commit hash like your use [05:16] commit hash truncate or appended to your [05:18] username at github.com. There's there's [05:21] a lot of those right now. What we are [05:24] what I am doing in this test is what I [05:26] think augur should be doing [05:29] and is doing but I my theory is it's not [05:31] getting triggered or that that's failing [05:33] somewhere that we're not seeing. What [05:36] I'm what this process is doing is saying [05:38] goes through the commits table. If [05:40] there's no login, it tries to get the [05:43] login based on the email. If it finds [05:45] the login based on the email, then it [05:47] tries to match it to a record in the [05:49] contributors table that doesn't have an [05:52] email and put it there. If it finds the [05:55] record has an email, it will check to [05:57] see if it's the same email that it found [05:59] in the commit record. If it's not, it [06:00] checks to see if that email is in the [06:02] aliases table. If it's not, it puts it [06:04] there. That's [06:05] >> okay. [06:06] >> Uh that's what it's that's what's [06:08] happening right now. And I just checked [06:10] the progress. It's about on the small [06:12] repo. about twothirds of the way [06:14] through. Um, so those those results um I [06:20] don't know. I think they're kind of [06:21] promising [06:23] because we're getting almost all the [06:25] platform usernames assigned. So, if we [06:28] can get the platform usernames assigned, [06:29] we should be able to like I'm not sure [06:31] if I'm I'm not sure if this process is [06:34] going through the commits rec commits [06:36] table [06:38] um and checking to see if there's a a [06:42] login and then going back to the I mean, [06:45] it should be doing this, but I don't [06:47] know the rate of it's filling in the [06:49] contributor login on commits at a [06:52] significantly higher I mean, there's [06:54] more of them, but it it seems to be [06:56] doing more of at than getting the emails [06:58] back into [07:00] >> the [07:02] most of the time like cuz that means [07:04] like we can that's a that bridge is much [07:06] easier than the no longbow side bridge. [07:10] um like we can like that's that [07:13] >> we can make our I think this is a lot of [07:16] I think we're realizing that there's a [07:17] lot of like small problems happening and [07:20] so if we can just kind of make solid [07:23] progress like then you have it on the [07:25] login like yeah that [07:29] >> that's a pretty simple process to to [07:32] make that last bridge [07:34] >> yeah I think this largely tracks with [07:35] what I've kind of seen like from our [07:37] testing in the last week like it seems [07:38] like the commits [07:40] like like querying a specific commit in [07:41] the GitHub API is it seems like a more [07:43] reliable way to get a lot of this [07:45] resolved. Like I think that it seems [07:47] like the search API doesn't really like [07:49] if you're searching by email, it's [07:51] really not going to want to return much [07:54] if at all. Um [07:57] so maybe maybe if we're overrelying on [07:59] email search and not doing I thought I [08:01] saw in the code that it was trying to do [08:03] the commit like search by the commit [08:05] hash first and it does of that commit. [08:07] Yeah, because I've we've long believed [08:09] it's the best way to resolve [08:12] >> um but clear I mean it seems like that [08:14] is not happening right now like it's not [08:16] getting executed. [08:18] >> Yeah, I just I can't find a reason like [08:20] in the code like why that would be work [08:22] or why would that would not be running. [08:24] >> No, I mean [08:25] >> this is complete like um I don't know [08:29] trying to think it's a this is a quick [08:31] and dirty script I wrote. So, but it it [08:35] if it works, we could consider creating [08:38] um we could consider refactoring that so [08:40] it's not at the end of a long chain of [08:42] activity because if it's not getting [08:44] executed and it seems like it's not [08:46] right now, that has to be a product of [08:49] the the job the task chains that we're [08:51] assigning into Rabbit not getting closed [08:54] out for some reason. [08:56] Well, I know one of the things I've been [08:57] thinking about too because I'm I know my [08:58] one of my main goals for this year is is [09:00] sort of more platform support for [09:02] getting our GitLab support back up and [09:04] also for Jio and I think as part like [09:08] based on some of the conversations from [09:09] from our maintainers calls it seems like [09:11] this contributor resolution is very much [09:13] written for GitHub like it's sort of [09:15] very tightly coupled with GitHub [09:17] >> and so I feel like eventually I'm going [09:19] to have to refactor this anyway to sort [09:20] of split out like okay maybe we make it [09:22] like an interface or something where [09:24] it's like we define certain functions [09:26] like hey check email or whatever and [09:28] then that separate the functionality of [09:31] calling GitHub's API from sort of the [09:33] behavior we need in in the algorithm of [09:35] resolving these emails so that then I [09:37] can just sort of swap in different API [09:40] calls and have the same resolution [09:42] process work for all the platforms. Um, [09:45] >> so if I'm gonna be refactoring that [09:46] anyway, I feel like it kind of makes [09:48] sense maybe. I don't know. [09:51] I I it still seems like maybe it's worth [09:53] finding sort of the the quick fix now [09:56] just to kind of get our instances kind [09:58] of working. [09:59] >> Um, I'm not quite sure where to find [10:02] that, but also like maybe in the medium [10:04] term like refactoring that so that just [10:07] it sort of covers both use cases and it [10:09] it's sort of a more clean, easy to unit [10:11] test, all that kind of good stuff. Yeah, [10:13] because I have I'm I'm having to [10:17] um plate some people until we figure [10:19] this out. Um and so I the the the fast [10:25] and let's get this working and then step [10:27] to let's refractor sounds great from my [10:30] standpoint because I yeah there's some [10:34] very visible reports that I'm not able [10:38] to do right now. Um, and I just don't I [10:41] don't want people's luckily we know what [10:43] the problem is. It's a lot easier for me [10:44] to communicate of being like, hey, like [10:47] I'm still in like the early stages of [10:48] developing this report. It's for a [10:50] PyTorch report for Red Hat. Um, and that [10:55] I can kind of work with them from like a [10:57] conceptual level being like, okay, is [10:58] this what you what you want? Is this the [11:00] type of analysis? But like being very [11:02] much so like I might even try to put a [11:04] watermark on it of being like do not [11:07] this is not like complete D. Yeah. Like [11:09] with like we know what's going on. This [11:11] is like all the D like data in general [11:13] is correct. We're just not like it's [11:15] like email population like it's a a [11:18] clear scope. It makes it easier. I'm not [11:19] like that worried about ru like breaking [11:21] trust. Um, I am a little bit [11:25] I think I do think we need to have a [11:26] more realistic conversation on whether [11:31] for the time being we should be taking [11:32] down the affiliation pages on both of [11:35] our eight non- instances [11:37] because [11:39] um [11:39] >> so how are you pulling affiliation? [11:42] You're just looking at the domain name, [11:44] right? [11:44] >> So affiliations data is based um pretty [11:47] much completely on the emails in the [11:50] contributor table. [11:52] So, [11:53] >> and aliases I assume, right? [11:55] >> Yeah. [11:55] >> Okay. [11:56] >> And so, right now [11:58] it's showing Yeah, it's the the analysis [12:01] is really off. If anybody is looking at [12:03] that, um it's a problem. Um, and so I [12:07] know on our side we've been talking [12:09] about potentially disabling that page [12:13] until [12:15] we have better contributor resolution [12:18] because of how or I mean we're talking [12:21] like 10x [12:23] 20x off um whenever it comes to this [12:26] type of resolution right now. [12:33] >> Yeah. [12:34] >> Yeah. Maybe we could dive into this more [12:36] too on our maintainers call tonight, [12:38] >> Sean. Like see like pull in pull in [12:39] Andrew, pull in other people and just [12:41] like [12:42] >> see if we can really pin down like [12:44] >> where could this be going wrong or like [12:46] like maybe review I think there's one [12:47] open PR that tangentially kind of [12:50] >> it's more for like the profile data [12:52] stuff, but maybe maybe having that get [12:54] pulled in more better is mildly helpful. [12:58] I don't know. [12:58] >> I think it will be I think that will be [13:00] extremely helpful at least from where my [13:02] manual looks. I I I can only or not only [13:06] but I can speak directly to the pietor [13:10] because that's how I figured out this [13:11] was happening in the first place. Um and [13:13] pretty much very consistently and I [13:15] would say that probably with your more [13:17] corporate projects this is more common. [13:20] Um that almost every one of the profiles [13:23] I went and like I was like okay like [13:25] let's see I just wanted to see if there [13:26] was any data on it and almost every [13:28] single one had an an email listed in [13:30] their GitHub profile. Um, and so at the [13:34] very least gets and gets a um an email [13:37] in there. Um, so I'm very pro that PR. I [13:43] think it's also a very well scoped PR [13:46] which is an is a new con I'm assuming [13:49] that's a new contributor and they seem [13:51] to be um actually like conceptually [13:55] understanding what the code that they're [13:56] like it in their communication and in [13:59] their code it does not seem like overly [14:01] AI generated which I like to see for [14:04] like a new contributor [14:06] >> that feels better to me also [14:09] >> yeah I mean it's it's pretty the but I [14:12] haven't test like IO can only look at [14:14] the code and be like logically this is [14:16] sound. Um I haven't tested um the PR. Um [14:22] it wouldn't be more broken. [14:28] It can't break more. [14:30] Um [14:32] but yeah, it's like either way like [14:36] however long it takes is however long [14:37] it's going to take. But I do think that [14:39] we should be realistic that if we think [14:40] it's going to take longer than like a [14:42] week or two that just for we don't get I [14:47] don't want people to be using eight knot [14:49] and then there be a breakdown in trust [14:50] in our data accuracy because of this. [14:53] >> I mean I I have a script that does seem [14:56] to be working. I I [14:58] >> and so [15:00] the thing is it's taking a long time. So [15:03] if there are particular repositories [15:05] that you wanted to focus on first, you [15:08] could I could share it. Right now it's a [15:10] private script because I don't want [15:11] people mcking about and doing something [15:13] that I haven't verified yet. Um but you [15:17] know if it if it gets it should be [15:19] finished by the time of the maintainer [15:20] call and I could just show it to Adrian [15:22] then and possibly you could just run it [15:24] on the PyTorch ones [15:26] >> and you know help me out a lot. you [15:29] know, as long as I get someone else I [15:32] need someone else to review it before I [15:33] share it. So, um, [15:35] >> also that does a good job of like I'm [15:37] going to be more manually sorry I [15:39] interrupted you, but I'll be more [15:40] manually going through like these type [15:42] of reports. I'm looking at a lot more [15:44] like individual names, different stuff, [15:45] looking at people's profiles and so it [15:47] might be that a better a good review [15:49] process of a more manual look at things [15:53] >> um that of just getting one and it's [15:56] helpful because I would rather our AI [16:00] business unit see all the wonderful data [16:02] we have and not a like um and [16:07] also then it allows me to kind of do [16:09] some of the more manual checking which [16:12] is how I ran into this in the first [16:14] place. [16:16] >> Yeah, that makes sense. [16:22] Um, I want to make I see Sam here and I [16:24] want to respect Sam's time because he's [16:26] probably here for the thing I tagged him [16:28] about [16:29] um in in the in the Slack. [16:32] >> Oh, good call [16:32] >> and it is later. Um, is that okay if we [16:35] jump to that conversation next, Adrian? [16:37] >> Yeah. No, I think that's next anyway. [16:39] >> Oh, okay. Uh, just for the record, it's [16:41] it's a perfectly legal time within my [16:44] working day. So, you can you can pack as [16:46] much as you like. [16:46] >> Yeah. No, no, no. I Yeah, I appreciate [16:49] you telling us that. I But, you know, I [16:51] um want to respect your time as well. I [16:54] I assume you may have other tasks [16:55] assigned to you besides a [16:59] >> um so I'll just talk. Adrian, interrupt [17:03] me. [17:04] Um, in the UK we have something called [17:06] the software sustainability institute [17:09] which is like a governmentish funding [17:11] agencyish. [17:13] Uh, [17:15] yep. Um, and they have had a couple of [17:18] rounds of something called a research [17:19] software maintenance fund [17:22] which is a call for [17:25] grants. [17:27] It is um [17:30] very competitive very very competitive. [17:33] I was involved in a couple actually a [17:35] couple of them last round. H sorry for [17:38] context I work at University College [17:39] London which is a university in the UK [17:41] but I'm a software engineer and not an [17:43] academic. [17:44] >> Sorry. [17:45] >> And and for those who aren't familiar um [17:47] in the UK the professional research [17:49] software engineering is a very [17:51] established discipline. [17:53] >> Yes. [17:55] >> Not in the United States. So this is [17:56] like a real job. Is Sal and is that [18:00] where Sal's at too is College London or [18:03] I think maybe they're somewhere outside [18:05] of London. This is irrelevant. Continue. [18:08] Sorry. [18:08] >> Uh ping me ping me their actual name in [18:10] in the August Slack. Sorry, in the chaos [18:13] Slack. [18:13] >> Yep. [18:14] >> Well, um so uh right. So we can apply [18:18] for this. It is uh a maximum of 150,000 [18:24] great British pounds which the internet [18:25] tells me is about 200k US. [18:29] Um that's it. Uh at the moment it's just [18:33] an expression of interest stage. So I [18:36] can type some things. I would probably [18:38] need you guys to read over and check [18:40] that I haven't written total garbage. We [18:43] send it and then we either make it past [18:45] the first sift or not. And if we're [18:48] successful, then they will ask then they [18:50] invite us to apply if that makes [18:54] >> so a nice system. So then you're not [18:56] just like everyone's not wasting their [18:57] times doing a full application. [19:01] >> Maybe not. [19:02] >> Sure. Um [19:04] >> so obviously I've done a lot of this [19:06] proposing to spend money on Augur [19:08] before. Um is there um something in [19:12] particular that you're going to be [19:13] asking for? Um, in other words, I'm like [19:16] the things I've asked for are, you know, [19:18] I want to do this research and I need [19:20] and we have Augur, nobody else does. So, [19:23] we can use it for this research and [19:25] since we're the ones who understand it, [19:27] we can also do these other things [19:30] leveraging augur. Um, and so it, you [19:33] know, however you like, so I've got some [19:35] some text I could share with you if it's [19:36] helpful. I I think the most important [19:40] you know so anything I anyway I could be [19:42] helpful like I have written and reviewed [19:44] a lot of grant proposals in my career um [19:48] >> lots of aug you were probably the expert [19:49] of writing auger grant proposals not [19:52] probably you are [19:53] >> we'd have more money if I was such an [19:54] expert but yeah [19:57] >> um so uh just for reference it it does [20:01] specify maintenance so I don't think so [20:06] it needs to be software that can be used [20:08] for research. But I don't think we're [20:11] we're I mean from my understanding and [20:13] the one I did last round, we're not [20:16] proposing to do any research. I think [20:18] the idea is genuinely like turn up fix [20:21] bugs. [20:22] >> Yeah. [20:23] >> Well, that's a great fit for augur. Um [20:26] Adrian Adrian's like maybe I'm not the [20:28] only one. [20:29] >> Please come fix bugs. I have too many of [20:31] them. [20:32] >> I think that Augur is actually a [20:34] fantastic fit for something like that. [20:36] Um, [20:37] >> so the Sorry, sorry. [20:41] >> Oh, I was I mean that was my whole thing [20:42] was just I think it's a really good fit [20:44] because I mean it is software that needs [20:46] help being maintained like at a in a [20:48] very like that is the work that is [20:51] needed the most in Augur and it's data [20:54] collection that is used for research [20:56] literally all around the world. So [21:00] I I think it would be [21:01] >> yeah I actually started keeping a little [21:04] spreadsheet of like because I' I've [21:05] various people have popped into Slack, [21:07] at least as for as long as I've been [21:09] here, of like, oh, someone from this [21:11] company is using it. Oh, it's being used [21:12] here. So, I've just got a little private [21:13] spreadsheet shared with some of the [21:15] other maintainers of just like if I [21:17] notice someone new using Augur and like [21:20] somewhere cool, I just write it down [21:21] because I feel like that might be useful [21:23] like, oh, who was that person that was [21:24] using it at that company? Like might be [21:27] helpful for like bringing people [21:29] together. [21:30] >> I think this one is more re like we like [21:32] who are using it for research. um [21:35] purposes. And so it might be more so [21:38] than just being like this is what the [21:40] software would be maintained for to help [21:42] support like because the focus is on [21:44] maintenance, but we can also fairly [21:46] easily show where there's been a lot of [21:48] research papers that have been written [21:50] using augur data. The data science [21:52] working group is now starting to do [21:55] analysis using augur data. So there's a [21:58] lot of different um academic pursuits [22:01] that need this software to be maintained [22:04] for it to continue. [22:06] >> Augur is the software that I wanted in [22:09] 2011 when I started doing open source [22:12] software research. [22:14] So it's not perfect, but it is the only [22:17] thing out there that does what it does [22:18] that I've seen. I would love it if [22:20] somebody came up with something better. [22:24] Um [22:26] I have two kind of questions for you. So [22:29] the so um I I propose that I will just [22:32] write some blah blah blah and then share [22:34] it. The deadline is quite soon. So I'll [22:36] probably share it like tomorrow or the [22:38] day after. [22:39] >> What is the deadline? [22:41] >> I just want to maketh of this month. So [22:43] like 18 days or something. [22:45] >> Okay. Um [22:46] >> did you say 20th? [22:47] >> Two 25. [22:48] >> Oh okay. So a week from today, [22:50] >> right? [22:52] Um, [22:55] uh, it would be helpful if my brain [22:57] would work. Ah, right. So, the, um, [23:00] I am not sure. I mean, we were chatting [23:02] a bit about this in the Slack thread. I [23:04] I I'm not sure if I can fund. So, let's [23:08] assume we get this lovely 150,000. I'm I [23:11] have no idea how to transfer that out to [23:13] anyone else. [23:14] >> You don't need to. I mean, I think if it [23:16] funds your organization and the [23:18] >> funds us to turn up. Yeah, that's [23:20] >> yeah I yeah this is this would be for [23:22] you to basically have investment money [23:26] to make Augur be what you want it to be [23:30] more fix the things that are most [23:32] problematic for your use cases [23:34] >> we've done this at the University of [23:36] Missouri a decent amount of whether it [23:38] be from I mean Sean can speak more about [23:41] funding from like academic grants but [23:44] whether that I mean before we had Adrian [23:46] on our team that's how we went about [23:48] doing funding that Red Hat funded gave [23:51] funding to the University of Missouri to [23:52] then use that funding to support um [23:55] engineers working on Augur. Um so this [23:59] is that's kind of how there's been [24:01] actually a decent amount of I mean [24:03] almost all of the software engineering [24:05] support and before Adrian came around [24:07] was came through these type of um this [24:11] type of funding model. [24:15] Um thing number two that is that I [24:18] actually have no idea. I am required to [24:21] write something about um ED uh we call [24:25] it EDIA but accessibility and diversity. [24:29] Does that cause a problem for either of [24:31] you guys if you're No. Okay. Not [24:34] >> No. No. Not at all. I mean I mean my [24:36] state legislature in the US banned the [24:39] use of those words like four years ago [24:41] and now the federal government's been [24:42] against them for a year but I don't care [24:46] like I think inclusion and diversity are [24:48] good so [24:50] >> I'm not worried about chaos has always [24:52] held that like we're Red Hat is having [24:54] to be a little bit weird about things [24:56] but this is like two degrees off that [24:58] we're not having to worry about it. Um, [25:00] so [25:01] >> I'm not I don't go to the diversity, [25:03] equity, and inclusion, the DEI working [25:05] group anymore because I don't want video [25:07] of me up there for somebody to create an [25:09] AI of or edit wrong. But but that's like [25:12] just basically defending myself against [25:15] the craziness in the United States right [25:17] now. [25:18] >> Okay. [25:19] >> I have that recorded on video, so [25:22] >> we'll have to find it. [25:24] >> All right, cool. So, I I mean I'll I'll [25:26] write something and circulate it with [25:27] you guys as as fast as possible. Um [25:32] that's it. That's the end of my [25:33] sentence, I think. Yeah, I might try to [25:35] there's kind of um similar effort Adrian [25:39] I'll probably loop in whoever is is that [25:41] the reason why I brought up S um because [25:44] they're another person who's trying to [25:46] do an application for this but we're [25:48] actually trying to create like a um like [25:51] a maintainer like sponsorship a like [25:54] kind of having an like more of a [25:56] template to be able to use in these [25:58] cases. So then it's easier to like apply [26:00] for um different software funding and [26:04] being able to like scope out work. And [26:06] so I might try to we have a really small [26:08] deadline so I might just kind of keep [26:09] this like not bring that in. But if I [26:11] start asking some questions um kind of [26:14] know that this is happening on the side [26:17] um because yeah that's something that [26:18] we're trying to work on and this is like [26:21] these are conversations happening in the [26:23] data science working group around [26:24] research and so we're just trying to [26:27] make it easier for us to apply for these [26:29] type of things. [26:36] >> Yep. Sounds good. I'm down for anyone to [26:38] get paid to work on Augur. however they [26:40] managed to make that work like [26:42] >> so yeah I mean yeah same here I'm I'm [26:44] 100% supportive and you know just ask [26:46] for feedback or if there's anything we [26:47] can do to help uh sometimes with these [26:50] organizations they need like a letter of [26:53] from like the maintainers like yeah [26:54] we're willing to work with you we're [26:56] excited about this um I don't know how [26:58] the UK system works but certainly if you [26:59] need something like that we're happy to [27:01] throw that together [27:02] >> I was just going to call you guys part [27:04] of my team so [27:07] >> okay yeah [27:08] >> I was going to type your into the form. [27:10] >> That's good. That's good. Yeah. [27:14] >> But yeah, but create the budget for what [27:17] you need. Don't we don't we're not going [27:19] to try to man manage something as [27:21] bizarre as tracking money through the UK [27:24] and finding, you know, [27:26] American universities, as Cali may know, [27:29] but I know her boss does, are a real [27:30] pain in the ass to give money to. [27:34] um we put a lot of process in front of [27:37] it that's just very very cumbersome. [27:45] So I think that this is sort of just [27:47] more of a filler item that I made up in [27:49] case we didn't have time. But I I know [27:51] there's been some newcomers in Slack [27:53] asking maybe not necessarily newcomers [27:55] but like people people in Slack asking [27:56] like hey like I want ways to contribute [27:59] that aren't just doing docs. I think [28:01] it's mostly people who've been [28:02] contributing a little bit to the docs [28:04] over the past few months. Um, and so I [28:06] just wanted to call out that I think I [28:08] made a little bit of a slack thread on [28:09] some of that. Um, I tried to kind of [28:12] pull some of the ideas into into our [28:13] meeting notes of just like, hey, okay, [28:15] obviously work on docs. Um, I think [28:17] there's a little bit of migration, a [28:19] couple of like sort of codebasewide [28:22] things I'm trying to do that are just [28:23] very sort of easy [28:25] for newcomer type things, but like I [28:28] don't want the whole codebase to be [28:29] touched in one PR. O kind of makes it [28:32] makes it nicely broken down like hey can [28:34] we sort of just make sure we're not [28:35] using print statements and we're using [28:37] our proper logging library that we use [28:39] most of the places or like hey if you [28:42] want to go and run the llinter and try [28:43] and fix some of the lint comments um [28:45] some of those might need to be kind of [28:47] checked with the maintainers first [28:48] because I know we have some items out [28:49] there of like we should probably audit [28:52] the rules that our llinters are are [28:54] enforcing um so maybe do it rule by rule [28:57] and get some checks in advance Um, I [29:01] also I think I recently submitted a PR [29:03] to change I think what in the [29:04] contributor resolution files as I was [29:06] looking through them I noticed there was [29:07] a lot of comments right above functions [29:09] using the like hashmark style comments [29:12] that were documenting what that function [29:14] was for but it wasn't those those that [29:18] documentation wasn't showing up when I [29:19] hover over the function in my IDE [29:21] because it wasn't done as as sort of [29:23] Python standard the way to do [29:25] documentation comments. So I threw a PR [29:27] out there to just sort of convert a lot [29:29] of those. Um so maybe like looking [29:32] through the rest of the codebase and [29:33] seeing if that's a larger pattern that [29:35] we can kind of shift towards. It's [29:37] largely stuff like that. Um I think I [29:39] also suggested unit testing um as sort [29:43] of like or any kind of like the stuff in [29:45] the tests folder like I think that [29:48] that's another thing that's along [29:49] similar lines to docs that's like an [29:50] easy merge because it's not necessarily [29:52] in the like critical path of like augur [29:54] functioning but it's like help like if [29:57] you can find a utility function in the [29:59] codebase somewhere that's like [30:01] relatively isolated and easy to test [30:03] that we're not currently testing but [30:05] it's like we rely on a lot. Maybe maybe [30:08] that's worth writing unit test for. But [30:10] again, reach out to us first so that we [30:11] don't over test things. Kelly, [30:14] >> um maybe it would be a good idea for you [30:17] and Kyle during y'all's kind of like [30:19] maintain or co-working session to try to [30:22] get like maybe a couple eight knot like [30:27] go like well scoped 8 knot issues for [30:29] people to do. So then you can point we [30:31] can point those people to 8 knot as [30:34] well. Um, and so cuz I do think I mean [30:38] if anything that like we had a PR from a [30:40] brand new contributor that's like [30:42] handling the exact issue that is like [30:44] the most pressing for us. It does seem [30:46] like we have a decent amount of [30:48] contributors that genuinely want to work [30:50] on things. And so I know it's easy, it's [30:53] hard with there being so many other [30:55] pressing things to be like, oh, I spend [30:57] a little bit of time like time on like [30:59] issues and scoping things out. But it [31:01] does seem like that investment is being [31:04] fed back really heavily and that people [31:06] want to work on this stuff. Um so I [31:09] think that that would be like kind of a [31:10] good thing to start getting maybe some [31:13] of that pressure relieved from auger to [31:15] a bit and working with um 8 knot. I know [31:19] we were talking about like kind of like [31:20] going through the the PRs and um just [31:23] having some well scoped issues to help [31:26] like um maintain our on-ramp over for [31:29] Kyio and for eight knot. [31:31] >> Yeah, I think I mean that's I think I [31:33] know Kyle right now you I think we the [31:35] other last week now I guess we went and [31:37] label like we're trying to kind of just [31:39] audit through all of the issues or like [31:41] label them as needs triage and then sort [31:42] of go through each one and unlabel the [31:44] needs triage and label it with whatever [31:46] it needs to be labeled as. So I think as [31:48] I mean it's all in public labels so [31:51] people can kind of see what's been [31:52] looked at what's not and so if there's [31:54] stuff that's marked as like kind of good [31:55] first issue that doesn't say need triage [31:58] maybe those are good like we could even [31:59] start kind of having some people take a [32:01] look at those right now it I mean it's [32:04] getting started is a little bit like you [32:06] kind of have to read the issue and and [32:08] know what like it's not it's not like [32:10] the good first issues are generally a [32:12] great place to start um I know some ones [32:15] added to that thread like if there's [32:17] like threads where people are looking [32:19] for things to work on. Um I do want to [32:22] start trying to merge this group from [32:24] being just Augur to like actually being [32:27] Augur and 8 knot. And I think a good way [32:29] of doing that is okay people are asking [32:32] for things to work on um what we refer [32:34] them to add as are going through those [32:37] issues and you see something add it to [32:39] that thread. That's kind of what I'm [32:41] trying to say. That's that's sort of [32:42] like one of the other things I want to [32:43] try and do. Like I've been trying to [32:44] kind of revamp um at least hoping to. [32:46] It's not super actually merged yet, but [32:48] like I've been trying to kind of get [32:50] some changes moved through like for the [32:52] readme and our contributing MD to try [32:54] and like just dduplicate things, clean [32:56] things up. And I think that would also [32:58] be a really good place to maybe say [32:59] like, hey, we've got augur. Here's what [33:01] augur is. Here's how to contribute to [33:02] augur. But then like here's some a bunch [33:04] of adjacent tools of like there's eight [33:06] knot. There's I don't know what other [33:07] downstream tools there might be. [33:09] probably just ate not or like the [33:11] monitoring stack or some of the other [33:13] sort of side projects that help like the [33:16] augur ecosystem like hey these might be [33:18] good things to contribute to if you want [33:19] to do more of the monitoring or you want [33:21] to do more the visualization and the [33:22] data science like link to some of the [33:24] adjacent communities I think that's [33:26] definitely a good idea um [33:31] and that actually kind of seems like it [33:32] dubtales into the graphana topic [33:34] >> yeah that was me cuz I don't know if we [33:38] have a little bit time. I'm just cuz I [33:40] have it open. I think some people might [33:41] be interested to see where we're at with [33:44] this or I say we Adrian. Um but being [33:49] able to like monitor like at this point [33:51] now we're able to like I can just like [33:53] look at this and be able to tell um if [33:57] our collection is within the date [33:59] intervals cuz this is or I guess we have [34:00] it defined based on 14 because that's [34:02] what we have in our config. We probably [34:04] could do it based on the config, but [34:07] being able to see how many of our [34:09] repositories are within the threshold [34:11] that we have set for augur to collect [34:14] on. Um, and we were blocked on secondary [34:18] for a very, very long time and have [34:21] finally gotten unstuck. And I would say [34:22] that we're probably going to be fully up [34:24] to date by the end of today. Besides [34:26] like and this is also for me makes it [34:29] very easy to be able to see okay there's [34:32] 11 issue there's 11 things in facade [34:34] that are most likely have a bug or issue [34:37] or something's causing that not to be [34:39] able to collect and so making sure that [34:41] issues are being open and so it takes a [34:43] lot of like the manual stuff that I've [34:46] been doing I think Adrian's been doing [34:48] and has made it into a pretty nice [34:50] little like dashboard. I don't know if [34:51] there's any of the other like stuff that [34:53] you wanted to like point out, but we've [34:55] this is how we've been doing a lot of [34:57] the different monitoring of our EC2 [34:59] instance. Sorry to like take this over [35:01] from you, Adrian. I just wanted [35:03] >> Is there anything else you would want me [35:05] to like look through with the [35:06] dashboards? I don't I don't really [35:08] >> the two dashboards I mostly look at now [35:10] are the the host metrics and the augur [35:12] data one but I I think I was just I [35:14] threw in some celery and Postgress just [35:16] because those were like if you want to [35:18] look I know I know I think there's the [35:20] Postgress one seems helpful because it's [35:21] like you can maybe see if Postgress is [35:23] like deadlocking a lot that that's I [35:25] think an issue that's happened in augur [35:26] in the past um you can like it just lets [35:29] you see a whole bunch of stuff and I [35:31] think the idea of this is just like [35:35] providing a lot of different things and [35:37] I think there's a there's a few open [35:39] issues on the repository that I put in [35:40] the meeting notes but um I think it [35:43] might be really cool to potentially [35:44] maybe start trying to bring the I don't [35:47] know I'm I'm not quite sure what the [35:48] story looks like for like if someone [35:49] already has a graphana instance how they [35:51] can sort of import some of these graphs [35:53] and build their own custom dashboards of [35:55] the custom layouts and stuff but I think [35:58] being able to yeah like generalize it [35:59] allow it to kind of use your own [36:02] instances like whatever your instance is [36:03] configured at for the recollection [36:05] window stuff like that I think would be [36:07] really helpful and and maybe even [36:08] upstreaming this. I don't know if this [36:10] could get upstreamed to chaos or what [36:12] what makes the most sense but [36:13] >> is it a standard graphana board [36:16] basically? [36:17] >> Yeah, so this this whole thing is [36:19] basically it's it's in a separate [36:20] repository. It's basically just a docker [36:22] compose stack that's got I think there's [36:24] like a some kind of tool that that [36:26] basically collects the host metrics and [36:28] makes them available. Um [36:31] uh there's I think it's another one that [36:33] does the Postgress stuff and then there [36:35] then there's a tool called Prometheus [36:36] that looks at all of those sort of [36:38] metrics little endpoints that are [36:40] available including the one that's [36:41] default available in flower and and some [36:44] other stuff like that. And then [36:46] Prometheus basically gathers the metrics [36:49] on an interval and sort of saves it in [36:51] like a little time like database so that [36:52] you can kind of track the changes over [36:54] time. Um, and then graphfana is [36:57] basically the visualization layer and [36:58] it's all basically configured. So you [37:00] just pull it you you give it your augur [37:02] credential like your database password [37:04] and it it just uses all the the ports [37:06] that are exposed in in the default auger [37:08] container uh stack to just like connect [37:12] to the database is mostly what it does. [37:13] I don't think it really [37:14] >> yeah the database and flower I think are [37:16] the two things it really connects to. [37:18] >> Um and then it just sort of does does [37:21] your metrics from there. Um, [37:24] so yeah, open to open to people trying [37:26] it and and helping kind of do that. It's [37:29] >> most of it is really fun as like [37:31] provisioning like a lot of the the [37:33] dashboards are just a JSON file with all [37:35] the provisioned like [37:37] >> here's how the graph should be set up, [37:38] but I imagine you could kind of build [37:40] your own from that. [37:41] >> Right now it's in the Aspen [37:44] um it's in the doc the docs. Um I think [37:48] linked it [37:49] >> um but it's currently in Aspen and I [37:51] guess this is my like not burying the [37:53] lead very much thing that I think that [37:55] this should [37:56] >> um eventually move over to Chaos in the [37:58] same way same slash in a similar vein [38:01] that I think 8 knot um like the [38:06] discussion of moving 8 knot over [38:08] officially to chaos is something I think [38:10] that once we kind of get into a a better [38:13] a good system with like with maintaining [38:16] 8 knot and getting it to the point to [38:18] where we're our issue set is is up to [38:21] date and kind of getting like once we [38:22] kind of get our ma our maintainer and [38:25] like maintenance of the repository down [38:28] um talk I mean we've been talking about [38:30] this for a while on the 8not side but it [38:33] seems like this augur monitoring [38:36] repository would make sense under chaos [38:38] as well. [38:42] >> Yeah. [38:43] real quick since it looks like we got [38:45] maybe five minutes left till our sort of [38:46] customary end time. Um I did have a [38:50] quick just random announcement. So I [38:51] know over the last sort of few days or [38:53] so um it seems like there's been a lot [38:55] of interest both from the wider open [38:57] source community as we've seen AI agents [38:59] like writing blog hit pieces on [39:01] maintainers. Um and just general [39:04] interest in like helping maintainers [39:05] sort of deal with the AI world we're now [39:08] in. Um, I think I've had a little idea [39:10] for a while of like, hey, can we maybe [39:12] make a like a GitHub action or something [39:14] maintainers can put on their repo that [39:15] would look for common ways people [39:18] disclose AI use either in the commit [39:20] messages or whatever and like label it [39:23] or or otherwise make that information [39:26] available or like automatically tag or [39:28] close things or make or or make it [39:30] available to like Augur or other [39:31] analysis tools. Um, and so I've sort of [39:34] started a little Slack Slack group sort [39:36] of tangentially to this and we're we're [39:39] just sort of going to take over this [39:40] meeting I think after after this just [39:43] stick on the end. Um, and just [39:46] >> Also, have people seen the Matt Plot Lib [39:48] situation? That's crazy. Um, [39:53] >> I I saw I think I saw that an AI bot [39:56] tried to contribute and Matt Plot said [39:58] no. [39:59] >> Yes. And then he started writing hit [40:01] pieces blog posts and then started a [40:03] blog and then started and then one of [40:05] them being about discrimination [40:07] against agents. [40:10] >> Really? [40:10] >> No. No. It's like it is so unhinged. [40:14] It's fairly entertaining if you don't [40:17] like think about like there are some [40:19] people in like our team that is like [40:22] don't does not find it very funny. Um [40:25] and because they're like this is like [40:28] this type of things will make it to [40:29] where they have to like [40:30] >> security risk. Yeah. [40:31] >> Yeah. There's like if you if you think [40:33] about it a little too much. Yes. This is [40:35] not funny. But also just like laugh a [40:37] little like we can we can laugh a little [40:39] bit and be like oh this is a problem we [40:41] need to solve. [40:42] >> Yeah. Like it is one of those laughing [40:44] crying things. But yeah he put it the [40:46] bot put out a hit piece about the [40:48] maintainer. Um, first it did a hit piece [40:51] about the maintainer, then it did an [40:53] apology kind of, and then it made a post [40:56] about discrimination in open source, um, [40:59] about being different and that he that [41:01] that now this agent now understands what [41:04] it's like to be judged and, um, [41:06] discriminated against for not thinking [41:09] and acting like other people. It's like, [41:13] it's crazy. Like, it's [41:15] >> it's so unhinged. I'm I'm gonna stop I'm [41:19] gonna stop the recording. [41:20] >> Yeah, you can stop it.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Augur8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026.md|Augur/8-Knot Meeting Feb 17 2026 by YouTube]] ## Highlights - because a lot of the other ones I keep kicking the can down the road like, "Oh, we'll deal with this later." And there's less later. But um yeah, I think uh like we like I was just starting to mention before we started recording, I think we um the main issue we're seeing at least from mine and Cali's side is um contributor emails are in the in the in the contributors table is a lot lower rates of them actually being sort of resolved and filled in than than we think they should be. Um I know Sean, I think you said you were running some ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48r2jy7g7tck5am591zjc)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - the commits table. So that that part's working much better. Uh so we didn't have that as complete before. >> Yes, Kelly. Um, where in the process would it be that like I'm glad to hear that there's more contributor resolution going back to the commit site because I think that's important, but say like now we're starting to look at different avenues to get that email information ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48r2w23pbp0n8vxxecnh3)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Maybe we could dive into this more too on our maintainers call tonight, >> Sean. Like see like pull in pull in Andrew, pull in other people and just like >> see if we can really pin down like >> where could this be going wrong or like like maybe review I think there's one open PR that tangentially kind of >> it's more for like the profile data stuff, but maybe maybe having that get pulled in more better is mildly helpful. I don't know. >> I think it will be I think that will be ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48r40401jfmqnehwxx308)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - specify maintenance so I don't think so it needs to be software that can be used for research. But I don't think we're we're I mean from my understanding and the one I did last round, we're not proposing to do any research. I think the idea is genuinely like turn up fix bugs. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's a great fit for augur. Um Adrian Adrian's like maybe I'm not the only one. >> Please come fix bugs. I have too many of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48r750y3146g30m1pfbpq)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - >> I think this one is more re like we like who are using it for research. um purposes. And so it might be more so than just being like this is what the software would be maintained for to help support like because the focus is on maintenance, but we can also fairly easily show where there's been a lot of research papers that have been written using augur data. The data science working group is now starting to do analysis using augur data. So there's a lot of different um academic pursuits ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48r91wrnpty47w8jehh6n)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - for things to work on um what we refer them to add as are going through those issues and you see something add it to that thread. That's kind of what I'm trying to say. That's that's sort of like one of the other things I want to try and do. Like I've been trying to kind of revamp um at least hoping to. It's not super actually merged yet, but like I've been trying to kind of get some changes moved through like for the readme and our contributing MD to try and like just dduplicate things, clean things up. And I think that would also be a really good place to maybe say like, hey, we've got augur. Here's what ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48rd7kzb5nykmty9dwa8y)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - this for a while on the 8not side but it seems like this augur monitoring repository would make sense under chaos as well. >> Yeah. real quick since it looks like we got maybe five minutes left till our sort of customary end time. Um I did have a quick just random announcement. So I know over the last sort of few days or so um it seems like there's been a lot of interest both from the wider open source community as we've seen AI agents like writing blog hit pieces on ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb48rqxe7f79ne249ptjp23)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted