Proposal: Aligning Terminology Around “Signals”, “Metrics”, and “Impact” Across Working Groups

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed that across different CHAOSS working groups we often use terms like “impact”, “contribution”, “signal”, and “metric” but sometimes with slightly different meanings depending on the context.
For example, in some discussions a “signal” refers to observable data, while in others it’s closer to a proxy for impact. Similarly, “impact” can mean demonstrated real-world outcomes in one context and repository level indicators in another.
This isn’t necessarily a problem diversity of perspectives is healthy but it might be useful to have a lightweight conversation about where our definitions overlap and where they intentionally differ.
I’d like to propose a cross working group discussion to:
- Surface how different WGs currently interpret these terms
- Identify shared definitions where appropriate
- Clarify distinctions between signals, metrics, and verified impact
- Document areas where variation is intentional

The goal wouldn’t be to standardize everything, but to reduce ambiguity, especially for newer contributors and for external audiences who look to CHAOSS for clarity around community health and impact measurement.

If there’s interest, I’d be happy to draft an initial comparison outline to start the discussion.