►
From YouTube: Backdrop Weekly - Feb 13th 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
you're
live
on
YouTube
today
is
Thursday
February
13th.
This
is
our
weekly
development
meeting
this
week.
Meeting
structure
is
going
to
be
a
little
different,
but
I
wanted
to
start
off
by
thinking
people
who
are
working
on
contributed
projects
for
backdrop.
This
week
we
had
two
new
stable
releases
out
for
the
week:
module
in
the
taxonomy
set
lineage
module
and
also
like
there's
new
Josh
extension
1.3.
A
B
Okay,
so
the
plan
here
was
to
quick
recap:
over
the
last
couple
weeks,
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
goal-setting
and
just
sort
of
planning
for
the
year,
and
we
were
one
of
the
issues
that
has
come
up
is
how
to
better
set
priorities
and
focus
attention
on,
and
a
number
of
ideas
have
been
thrown
out
there.
One
of
them
is
the
idea
of
sort
of
PMC
endorsed
initiatives
with
possible
initiative
leads,
and
we
need
to
kind
of
flesh
out
what
exactly
I
mean
I,
don't
feel
like
I
guess.
B
Consensus
has
been
a
virgin
that
this
initiative
idea
seems
to
be
good.
I
would
assume
that
that,
for
this
would
be
okay,
so
the
PMC
might
have
to
take
some
action,
but
I
assume
that
what
we're
doing
today
is
kind
of
fleshing
out
like
a
specific
proposal,
but
the
PMC
could
does
that
make
sense.
People
to
just
nod
their
head,
so
we
did.
B
B
The
goal
here
was
to
provide
a
more
structure
and
incentives
to
work
on
issues
that
are
determined
to
be
important
for
the
project
and
the
solution
was
pmc
approved
initiatives,
and
what
might
an
initiative
be
I'm
just
going
to
throw
this
out
to
get
the
discussion
going,
and
this
has
been
decided
one
or
more
people.
An
initiative
could
be
one
or
more
people.
Collaborate
collaborating
on
a
specific
issue
or
topic
initiatives
might
be
a
single
task.
B
It
might
be
a
meta,
it
might
be
something
facing
Corps
or
it
might
be
a
contribute,
improving,
search
and
coentrão
or
generating
more
contribs
reworking
the
color
module
fixing
the
top
ten
critical,
critical
bugs
I
think
these
are
all
at
least
potential
initiatives.
Although
we
can
talk
about
that
today,
initiatives
might
have
meetings
on
their
own
outside
of
the
meaning
or
may
not
I
I.
Think
initiative
should
be
expected
to
report
back
during,
like
dev
meetings
might
be
a
chance
for
initiatives
report
doing
every
initiative.
I
think
needs
at
least
a
key
organizer.
B
It
doesn't
make
any
sense,
the
PMC
to
something
initiative
with
nobody,
but
there's
nobody
willing
to
take
some
leadership
responsibilities
and
I.
Think
there's
been
some
discussion
about
whether
or
not
an
issue
t'v
should
be
ongoing
or
have
time
limits.
I
think
in
my
graft,
I
had
proposed
that
they
do
have
time
limits,
but
I've
heard
Gregory
suggests
that
maybe
they
don't
but
actually
I
just
don't
go
so
I'd
be
curious
to
hear
with
that.
So
that's
some
of
the
ideas
that
I
think
have
been
thrown
out
there
just
to
see
the
discussion.
C
We
discussed
singing
jitter
the
way
that
did
help
offers
the
option
to
King,
certainly
issues
specific
issues,
so
they're
shown
atop
the
list
and
I
think
that
it's
more
realistic
both
for
us
to
set
those
three
initiatives
and
then
the
communities
of
like
group
surrounds
finishing
trying
to
finish
dollars.
What
can
happen
if
one
falls
through
or
does
not
activity
or
it's
being
blocked
to
a
point
where
no
one
is
actually
actively
working
on
it.
It
could
be
replaced
with
another
one.
C
All
that
would
have
to
be
decided
by
unit
PMC,
because
most
of
these
things
would
be
so
broad
that
they
would
basically
stay
in
the
direction
of
the
project.
As
a
like.
The
backdrop
is
a
product
and
I
think
that
the
games,
adult
should
not
be
the
sole
decider
or
lightly
be
deciding
they
should
be
input
from
the
community
and
I'm,
not
sure
what
that
means.
Maybe
it
could
be,
how
many
comments
were
in
its
meta
or
its
issue?
C
D
So
I
want
to
continue
the
thinking
of
like
how
is
this
different
from
advocates,
because
I,
like
our
advocate
system,
for
being
things
that
we
give
priority,
or
at
least
call-outs
to
during
our
weekly
meetings
and
I,
think
it
it
being
larger,
is
going
to
be
pretty
unquestionable
that
it's
not
like
a
specific
issue.
It's
it's
a
larger
thing
that
has
to
be
made
up
of
a
lot
of
different
issues.
D
I
also
think
that
it
we
probably
because
we
have
an
initiative,
lead
I,
think
that
would
necessitate
that
there
has
to
be
more
than
one
person
that
is
on
the
team.
If
you
will
so
I
think,
initiatives
would
almost
always
require
a
team
to
actually
be
committed
to
it,
rather
than
just
one
person
and
other
people
can
join
in
that
team.
D
You
know
like,
but
I
think
that
there
would
both
need
to
be
a
team
and
that
there
would
need
to
be
some
organizational
method
around
those
teams
like
we
have
these
weekly
calls
that
are
everything
meeting
and
I
think
that
if
you
had
an
initiative
that
kind
of
team,
they
would
need
to
separately
be
meeting
and
coordinating
on
a
regular
basis,
probably
also
some
kind
of
reporting
that
would
need
to
happen.
You
know
like
on
a
maybe
not
a
regular
interval,
but
at
least
some
kind
of
updates.
D
B
In
my
view,
an
issue
in,
would
you
do
initiatives,
don't
have
to
replace
the
advocacy
thing,
because
right
now,
I
know
so
the
way
Jen
has
presented
this
right
now.
Anybody
can
nominate
an
advocate
can
say
that
they're
advocating
for
issue
and
apparently
that
try
to
get
sent
to
the
PMC.
They
can
comment
on
that,
but
for
the
most
part,
I
think
it's
been
kind
of
up
to
an
individual
to
say:
hey
I
want
to
work
on
X
and
I.
B
Think
these
things
could
work
in
tandem
because
somebody
could
still
want
to
advocate
for
an
issue
just
because
that's
what
scratches
the
rich
and
whether
or
not
the
PMC
just
agrees
they.
You
know
we
ought
to
give
them
that
space.
For,
in
my
view,
initiatives
differ
from
advocacy
in
that
the
initiatives
rpm
are
definitely
PMC
approved,
they're.
Definitely
the
group.
Where
is
it?
You
know
an
individual
could
advocate
something
themselves,
just
working,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
could
I
think
they
could
work
in
tandem,
but
I'm
curious
what
it's
like
yeah.
C
Initiatives,
I
would
say,
but
it
would
be
expected
that
I'm
not
saying
that
it
will
happen.
But
if
the
community
is
focused
on
the
initiatives
it
might,
the
separate
advocated
issues
might
get
less
attention,
not
necessarily,
but
you
might
get
less
attention
or
currently
I
should
say
so.
I
guess
that
people
that
are
interested
in
the
most
important
things
and
they
have
the
capacity
and
the
skills
to
do
that.
B
C
That
we
should,
you
should
have
a
paints
describes
what
is
the
same
way
and
how
it
is
what
the
rules
that
govern
and
decided
that
something
is
an
initiative,
how
its
communicated,
how
it's
being
represented
in
Asia
q,
what
it
means.
If
something
is
initiative
things
like
that,
and
we
don't
have
to
just
do
it
all
now,
it
can
be
something
that
we
agree
with.
C
B
I'm
envisioning
right
now
is
that,
after
this
meeting,
somebody
is
going
to
have
to
draft
up
sort
of
a
formal
description
of
what
we,
what
we
think
we've
all
kind
of
agreed
to
today,
that
that
would
be
something
the
pmc
can
look
at
it
and
I
would
assume
others
would
have
the
opportunity
to
jump
in
and
say,
wait.
Wait,
no
I!
That's
not
what
I
thought
you
were
saying,
but
but
we
won't
get
that
done
in
this
call
right.
We're
not
gonna
have
a
formal
definition.
I
think
at
the
end
of
this
call
yet
looks.
E
The
air
CSU
I
have.
A
C
The
Gettier
Channel
document
has
posted
a
question
before,
but
I
think
that
you
would
like
to
bring
to
our
attention
is:
yes,
we've
specified
the
initiatives,
we
specified
the
subtest,
but
there
would
be
other
things
like
boundary,
which
are
important.
We
need
to
come
out
of
the
way
that
we
prioritize
those
things
as
well,
so
some
way
for
people
to
get
a
notion
of
what
is
high-priority.
This
one
I.
B
Would
set
that
question
aside,
because
I
I
think
that
there
is
a
broader
topic,
which
is
how
we
prioritize
things
right
in
that
initiatives
may
not
cover
everything
right
and
but
we
can't
I,
don't
know
if
we
can
solve
all
these
problems
at
work.
So
my
thought
was
we
start
with
its
initiatives,
discussion
and
that
might
partially
solve
like
the
individual
prioritizing
bugs,
but
to
the
extent
it
isn't,
we
keep
this
discussion
going
every
to
talk
about
that
next.
I
hope
that
initiatives
at
least
partially
solves
that
problem.
That's
my
time.
C
E
B
Other
thing
is,
in
my
view:
there
could
be
initiative
I'm
not
saying
there
will
be,
but
one
possible
initiative
is
identify
the
top
priority,
ten
bucks
and
work
on
them.
You
know
that's
like
a
possible
thing,
so
if,
if
that
happens,
that
woulda
grab
stock
Walmart's
concern,
but
we're
not
sure
yet
because
we
haven't
decided
what
the
initiatives
are.
C
C
B
B
But
I've
also
suggested
this.
Could
it
could
be
that
we
create
an
initiative
to
solve
that?
So,
let's
just
deal
with
the
initiatives
and
I,
don't
see
something
where
that
comes
from
so
okay.
Well,
next
to
the
decider,
don't
initiate
well
I.
Think
the
next
thing
is:
how
are
we
is?
How
do
initiatives
get
it
decide?
Okay,
yeah?
How
are
we
picking
them
and
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
worth
like
some
of
us
well
I've
thrown
out
some
examples
already.
B
There's
assumption
that
the
PMC
has
to
be
I
mean
our
definition
of
this
is
that
initiatives
have
to
be
PMC
approved,
but
I
guess.
The
question
is:
how
do
how
do
they
do
that?
Are
they
doing
that,
based
on
survey
results,
which
is
also
that
it
suggested,
or
you
know,
would
there
be
just
like
a
week
where
we
all
dump
our
ideas
for
initiatives
into
a
forum
topic
and
then
that
bmc's
has
the
job
of
sorting
through
that
result
of
I?
B
D
Well,
the
items
that
we've
got
in
the
agenda
include
some
kind
of
voting
process.
Community
vote,
plus
PMC
approval,
straight-up
PMC
assignment.
You
know
where
PMC
could
just
evaluate
what's
happening
in
the
community
and
then
decide
that
there
should
be
an
initiative
or
somehow
assign
it
to
people
or
direct
or
recruit
people
and
one
for
like
a
proposal,
and
actually
this
last
one
volunteer,
lead
plus
team
established
volunteer,
lead,
maybe
plus
PMC
approval
yeah.
That's
kind
of
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
differs
from
proposal
where
there
would
be
anyone
working.
E
D
E
A
A
E
C
I
have
I
have
thoughts
on
that
a
it
seems
that
this
place,
the
telemetry
thing
very
important
as
a
nation,
so
we
need
to.
It
will
help
us
to
wrap
some
so
metrics,
some
actual
numbers
that
we
can
let
it
in
focus
inside
and
the
other
thing
is
that
the
way
that
I
could
imagine
this
working
is
that
the
DMC
takes
into
account
the
community,
the
feel
of
the
community
and
what
they
would
like
to
privatize.
C
But
what
we
should
do
is
we
could
you
should
come
up
with
a
pool
of
meta
issues,
its
initiative
candidates
present
them
present.
These
pool
features
to
the
EMC
in
them
at
EMC.
Besides
I
just
said
three
before
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
said
on
that
number,
a
certain
amount,
if
initially
so
we
can
work
on
it,
which
has
to
be
realistic.
C
So
my
fear
is
that
if
we
keep
more
than
three
there's,
not
enough
handsome
dick
to
stop
like
sitting
through
in
a
relatively
short
amount
of
time,
so
maybe
we
should
decide
if
everyone
agrees
with
us
wishes,
and
then
we
get
10
or
12%
them
to
the
PM's
team.
That
wins,
who
decides,
which
ones
are
more
important
based
on
certain
things,
and
then
we
communicate
that
via
a
blog
post
and
we
give
people
the
opportunity
to
solve
a
project
and
but
present
arguments
as
to
why
some
initiatives
are
more
important.
A
A
That
makes
any
sense
like
it
would
be
really
clear,
I
think
people
to
come
to
like
the
roadmap
page
and
say
this
are
these:
are
our
initiatives
and
you
can
see
I,
don't
know
five
six
time,
however
many
these
are
the
things
that
Chuck
really
wants
to
improve
going
forward
and
in
any
given
release.
There
may
only
be
three
that
are
active
and
I
think
that's
totally
fine.
A
There
may
only
be
three
teams
and
three
people
moving
so
forward,
but
if
you
have
these
initiatives
that
spin
more
than
a
given
release,
it
will
set
like
a
longer-term
direction
of
the
project
which
I
think
it's
also
important.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
it
maybe
we're
talking
about
two
things.
It
may
be
initiative,
it's
only
something
for
you
and
these
are
like
goals.
But
I
would
like
to
see
some
parallel
between
that.
So
for
any
given
release,
we
can
look
at
a
goal
and
say
hey:
what
are
the
initiatives
we're
gonna?
A
C
So
I
wouldn't
wanna
sort
of
like
limits
extensively
or
specifically
initiative
and
bind
it
to
a
specific
release.
It
can
be
a
goal
but
because
because
the
initiatives
are
broader,
like
a
text
usually
think
of
the
immortal
ego
initiative,
since
we
have
all
of
the
group
as
well,
it's
such
a
big
aspect
that
will
not
be
solved
in
one
release,
but
still,
if
we
decide
that
these
apparently
it
should
be
a
priority
and
subtasks
should
be
worked
on
towards
that
goal.
I
know
that
it's
gonna
be
tough.
C
Decisions
made
that
one
thing
that
in
--see
will
take
on
like
out
of
the
12
volt.
Whatever
number
of
initiatives
we
have
to
carefully
pick
the
three
ones
and
I'm
sure
that
some
people
in
the
community
may
choose
to
not
work
on
those
like
it.
So
we
don't
want
it
to
be
limited
like
we
don't
want
to
say
to
the
community
we're
working
on
that
and
nothing
else
so
yeah.
This
is
so
long
as
we
have
an
understanding.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
as
I'm
unbated
with
David.
Of
course,
I
greet
yes,
I.
B
A
B
D
Thinking
about
inactive
initiatives
that
it's
almost
inevitable,
that
they'll
be
enthusiasm
at
some
point
that
will
wane.
You
know
I,
think
creating
an
initiative.
Once
we
figure
out
what
that
process
looks
like
I
think
that
can
be
pretty
clear,
but
then
like
decommissioning
initiatives,
I
think
is
gonna
come
into
questions
pretty
quickly.
You
know
that
I
kind
of
think.
Maybe
we
should
put
like
a
term
limit
or
something
on
them
like
an
annual
like
this
is
a
this
is
an
initiative
for
the
next
year
or
until
renewed.
D
C
Of
having
a
physical,
like
a
deadline
being
being
the
actual
release,
I
think
that
maybe
that
if
we
notice
that
initiative
has
had
no
activity,
it
can
at
anytime,
with
the
decision
of
the
PMC,
be
replaced
by
another
one.
So
we
decide
on
three
and
and
if
there's
no
movement,
we're
gonna
say
so,
like
the
community
did
not
sort
of
gather
around
this
issue
that
we
did
in
abstraction.
So
we
it
seems
that
there's
more
focus.
D
On
that,
so
what
worries
me
is
that
anything
that
requires
an
active
decision
both
might
not
be
done
and
could
be
taken
like,
as
as
the
the
pmc
saying
that
we
don't
think.
This
thing
is
important
and
I
think
if
we
had
to
be
upfront
saying
that
all
initiatives
last
you
know
one
year
from
the
time
that
they
start
until
they
get
renewed,
makes
it
so
that
it
would
passively
expire
if
they
weren't
active.
D
D
C
E
We
have
a
new
section
of
past
initiatives
that
has
maybe
a
summary
that,
like
this
is
a
past
initiative,
because
we
consider
a
complete.
This
is
a
past
initiative
because
we
lost
bandwidth.
If
you
have
been
with
three
open
that
you
know
as
little
summaries
of
of
the
past
ones,
I
think
I
think
that
estimate.
C
A
A
A
B
A
Also
like
to
see
like
if
we
come
up
with
a
set
of
ten
initiatives,
only
three
of
which
are
active
I
would
like
to
see
at
all.
A
ton
of
those
documented
somewhere
is
like
we
can
call
them
goals
or
future
initiatives,
or
you
know
whatever
you
want
to
call
them,
but
it
would
be
great
to
have
that
entire
pool
where
it's
like.
These
are
the
three
work
on
right
now.
A
These
other
things
care
about
an
end
to
have
a
summary
on
each
of
those
it'll
be
like
why
it's
not
being
worked
on
right
now.
Like
you
know,
we
have.
We
have
prepare
an
initiative,
small
work
on
Slater.
We
don't
have
a
team
leader.
We
ran
into
a
blocker
on
X
issue
or
whatever.
It
would
also
be
really
useful.
People
coming
like
oh
I,
really
care
about
that
thing.
I
want
to
work
on
it.
Why
isn't
it
active
and.
A
The
number
three
can
grow
if
we
start
getting
more
people
working
on
stuff,
too.
So
I
think
it's
a
very
good
good
number
right
now,
just
start
but
like
if
two
releases
from
now
we
have
a
bunch
of
people
who
want
to
work
on
something.
That's
not
an
initiative
and
our
three
initiatives
that
are
already
working
or
going
really
well
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
that
open
yeah.
So.
C
The
way
initiatives
work-
and
that's
in
that
aspect,
when
you
did
our
talk-
is
that
there's
a
landing
place
that
lists
all
of
them
with
a
company
and
it's
one
links
individually
to
their
own
page.
What
we
can
do
with
its
individual
pages,
we
can
have
effects,
so
we
can
have
like
a
field
that
hasn't
paid
in
a
short
summary
update.
This
thing
it
was
sort
of
so
I
think
they've
posted
links,
if
you
look
at
maybe
I,
can
share
my
screen.
C
So
the
the
way
that
initiatives
work
in
data
fog
is
that
they
have
a
bullet
point
list
and
the
ones
that
are
done
are
crossed
out
with
a
done
and
maybe
a
link
to
the
change
record
or
relation
of
the
sort.
So
people
don't
have
to
go
to
the
long
discussions
that
may
be
happening
in
very
chic.
You
making
just
go
that
there
and
see
the
summary
and
see
what's
next
I.
B
Think
a
pretty
big
issue
we
talked
about
yet
today.
It's
what
authority
finish
it
aside,
because
one
of
them
at
one
of
the
potential
benefits
of
initiatives
is,
if
we
had
a
UX
initiative,
is
that
they
could
make.
You
know
that
we
have
this
Airport
issue
that
came
up
during
our
outreach,
our
plan,
which
was
how
do
we
make
decisions,
ratios
good
stuff,
I
guess
what
I'm
giving
it
is
just
will
initiatives
help
us
solve
that?
B
E
B
D
Specifically,
so
that's
that's
an
another
potential
way
of
like
guiding
authority
into
actually
like
preventing
just
the
endless
bike
sheds
where
it's
like
you
know,
and
all
of
the
decisions
were
fine.
It's
just
nobody
committed
it
yeah
which,
which
happens.
That
might
help,
and
that's
just
an
idea.
Yeah.
C
I
agree
well
I'm
trying
to
share
my
screen.
Anyone
see
my
screen,
yeah
yeah,
so
this
is
what
what
is
in
the
logic
plates
that
I
was
referring
to
about
the
strategic
initiatives
retire,
nouns,
my
dress
and
its
economy.
So
there's
a
list
of
the
initiatives
and
it
has
a
planning
a
status
just
a
general
one,
and
then
each
one
of
them
has
its
own
page
or
sort
of
like
a
blurb.
And
what
are
we
working
on
it
and
some
of
them
I
like
that,
and
some
of
them
are
crossed
out,
saying
yeah.
C
C
B
D
So
it's
like,
if
it's
related
to
this
thing,
then
you
know
it:
there'd
have
to
be
some
discretion
involved
on
the
part
of
the
committee
that
provisional
one
to
say,
I'm
not
only
going
to
work
inside
my
space,
you
know,
but
if
we're,
if
we're
trusting
anyone
to
come
into
the
codebase,
we're
already
trusting
them,
you
know
extraordinary
amounts
so
letting
them
have
that
discretion.
I,
don't
think,
would
be
a
problem.
I
agree.
C
B
B
But
we
have
to
I
mean
I
think
we
should
leave
the
meeting
today
with
a
firm
idea.
What's
next
and
I
could
envision
here's
just
something:
I
can
envision,
which
is
a
one
or
two
leave
period
where
people
are
sort
of
proposing
initiatives
and
then
at
the
end
of
that,
it's
up
to
the
PMC,
the
kind
of
and
during
that
time
we
could
also
continue
to
Dennett
iron
out.
B
The
details
like
we
couldn't
have
a
formal
graph
proposal
on
how
they're
working
that
people
could
still
provide
some
people
feedback
and
input
on
that,
and
then,
at
the
end
of
that
one
or
two
week
period,
it's
up
to
the
PMC
to
vote,
to
prove
the
process
and
make
some
decisions
on.
What's
last
words
that
make
sense
this
might
have
Pacific
coastal
doesn't
involve
any
kind
of
building
yet
and
I'm.
Okay,
with
that
just
wanted
to
clarify,
like
voting
from
the
community,
that's
right,
yeah.
C
So
voting
from
the
community
in
telemetry
should
be
maybe
initiatives
that
is
prioritized
because
we
needed
for
the
initiatives
so,
and
one
thing
that
we
need
to
establish
is
that
we've
talked
about
that.
What
a
few
times
is
that
we
should
have
regular
meetings,
not
as
regular
as
that
weekly
leaks,
but
maybe
bi-weekly
like
fortnightly
meetings
with
the
PMC,
maybe
something
that
we
should
establish
like
15
minutes
or
30
minutes
discussion.
D
A
F
A
A
D
What
about
the
for
the
person
that's
submitting
the
proposal?
Maybe
it's
not
necessarily
like
an
email
to
the
PMC
or
something
like
that,
but
instead
it's
like
blog
post,
where
it's
like
a
call
to
action.
Saying
I
would
like
this
to
be
a
proposal.
Here's
why
I'm
looking
for
volunteers
or
really
furnishes
Oh
on
backdrop,
CMS
org
on
the
forum
Oh
on
the
forum,
yeah
yeah
I,
like
that
a
lot
more,
because
that
makes
it
so
that
it's
like
a
community
driven
place
where
it's
it's,
it's
clearly,
not
official.
B
A
C
A
C
B
B
Spoiler
for
those
who
haven't
heard
right
or
Jeff
and
I
at
least
are
started
talking
about
the
telemetry
right,
so
I
think
we
would
probably
propose
that
this
initiative,
but
it
also
occurs
to
me
that,
even
if
it
is
an
initiative
that
doesn't
mean
that
Jeff
and
I
have
work,
so
we
would
propose
that
as
an
initiative,
then
it
could
where
he
won't
be,
that
the
PMC
decides
yeah.
This
is
really
important,
but
it's
not
necessary.
You
know
we
think
it's
gonna
get
worked
out.
Anyplace,
that's
one
way
of
thinking
about
I'm.
D
A
C
The
limit
really
fits
in
that
thing,
because
things
around
dropping
PHP,
support
or
old
browser
support.
We
need
solid
data
in
order
to
make
these
decisions,
and
these
are
already
things
that
are
happening
in
other
communities
like
like
WordPress,
it's
sort
of
like
a
blocker
for
other
directional
sort
of
like
decisions
for
the
project.
C
If
we
dropped
PHP
version,
five,
for
example,
there's
one
less
test
running
in
the
CI,
which
is
a
bit
longer
than
the
seven
there's
other
aspects
of
it,
a
kind
of
a
bit
now
we're
lucky
they
were.
We
had
a
time
kind
of
load.
What
the
attack
is
like.
It
needs
metrics
or
something
like
that.
So
we
we
might
have
a
rating.
Some
some
think
it's
in
the
queue
that
I've
talked
with
it.
C
B
Okay,
well,
I,
think
I
think
we
have
kind
of
decided.
We
have
at
least
a
rough
idea.
What
we
think
initiatives
are
and
a
proposal
for
moving
forward.
So
is
there
anything
else
that
urgently
has
to
be
decided
about
initiatives
today,
or
should
we
save
a
few
minutes
to
see
if
anybody
else
anything
else.
A
In
the
chat
and
that's
the
setting
up
initiatives,
it's
gonna
help
us
determine
we're
gonna
sort
of
a
future
goal
what's
important
to
backdrop,
but
it's
not
going
to
help
us
look
at
the
current
issue.
Queue
and
say:
is
this
a
priority
or
not?
If
it's
not
in
an
initiative,
it
might
get
missed
entirely,
and
so
he
also
recommended
that
maybe
we
have
somebody
as
a
needed
job
it
is,
is
to
like
review.
They
shoot
something
like
oh
this
one
actually
is
important.
A
D
B
B
A
B
B
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
we're
done
with
the
initiative
discussion
for
today
and
then
we
sort
of
table
the
bug
fix
the
issue
that
that
a
mite
is
raising
can
be
discussed
through
the
emissions,
or
we
can
have
a
separate
discussion
about
that
in
an
upcoming
meeting.
I,
don't
think
we
can
solve
it
today.
Is
there
anything
else
we
need
to
talk
to
that?
We
have
that
issue.
C
A
D
D
Also
new
this
past
week,
issued
2805.
Allow
config
overrides
was
something
that
also
been
worked
on
several
months
ago.
Her
bill
came
back
in
and
added
tests
to
the
work
in
progress,
all
requests
that
make
it
so
that
we
can
do
config
overrides
in
settings
PHP.
So
that's
very
exciting.
It's
been
marked.
Our
TBC
will
need
to
get
the
another
set
of
eyes
on
that
and
then
potentially
we
could
see
that
in
116
as
well.
The
cool
thing
about
it.
D
D
Yeah
right
so
right
now,
there's
settings
that
are
for
certain
things
like
secret
credentials
and
things
like
that,
but
for
config
that
is
public
and
stored
in
config
files.
This
will
allow
you
to
hard
coded
or
make
the
values,
dynamic
or
environment
specific,
all
those
those
things,
so
it's
very
cool.
A
D
That's
it
for
the
116
milestone,
update,
I,
don't
have
anything
to
add
in
the
115
milestone
update,
which
is
great
news.
We
have
merged
I,
think
like
I,
don't
know
half
dozen
or
dozen
small
bug
fixes,
but
none
of
which
have
been
substantial,
and
so
one
15
point
Oh
has
been
rolling
on
now
for
almost
a
month
without
really
any
need
to
make
a
bug-fix
release
within
immediacy,
so
I
think
also
related
to
115.
Being
world
outs.
Herb
dual
updated
Pantheon
upstream,
is
that
right,
Jenna.
D
Don't
remember
somebody
I
did
yes,
so
we
normally
have
this
two-week
grace
period
before
we
update
all
of
our
up
streams
for
the
next
minor
version.
At
this
point,
if
we
haven't
updated
in
the
up
streams
like
go
ahead
and
do
it
because
there's
no
immediate
need
for
115
one
that
is
seen-
okay,
that's
it
for
the
product
update.
B
C
B
A
B
So
I'm
gonna
take
a
stab
at
describing
this
issue
without
I.
Don't
have
it
open
in
front
of
you
right
now?
It's
the
workflow
States
water,
and
it
has
to
do
with
basically
right
now
that
a
node
is
either
published
or
not.
Publish
and
I
think
that
the
ultimate
goal
was
to
add
some
more
flexibility.
They
are
part
of.
My
understanding
is
deboers,
at
least
behind
the
scenes
to
make
that
more
consonant
so
that
there
could
be
other
states
in
that
can
also
contribute
could
take
advantage
of
what
I
think
my
sense
is
what's
happened.
B
What's
sort
of
the
minimal
you
I
did
the
minimal
amount
of
functionality
that
would
be
useful
to
me,
but
with
that
state,
which
was
just
the
ability
to
like,
have
an
unpublished
draft
ahead
of
a
publisher
out.
So
we
have
a
publish
mode,
we
revised
it,
but
we
don't
publish
that
revision.
So
that's
in
advance
and
I
have
been
sort
of
describing
what
I,
what
I
thought
a
good
UI
would
be
for
that
minimal
use
case.
B
What
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
something
a
little
bit
different
and
you
can
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
that
you're
looking
at
a
workflow,
what's
the
work
that
I
work
flow
and
describing
that
would
be
a
little
bit
more
advanced
there,
where
you
might
actually
have
an
actively
published
version,
and
then
you
might
have
another
version,
that's
being
drafted
and
waiting
for
approval
from
another
user,
and
that's
I
mean
to
me
that's
just
a
different
use
case.
It's
a
little
bit
more
complex
use
case
and
one
of
the
things.
B
B
B
A
B
The
active
version
is
the
most
recently
edited
right
and
whether
that's
published
or
not
it's
the
most
recently
edited
if
by
definition
is
active
and
you've
described
that
differently.
A
B
A
It's
not
and
any
individual
revision
is
either
active
or
it's
not
active
being
the
one
that
you
can
see
on
the
site
or
not.
So
if
you
have
an
unpublished,
node,
if
you
look
at
it,
some
thing
is
active
because
you're
reading
the
page,
but
it's
not
published
the
node
itself-
is
not
visible
to
the
public.
It's
only
visible
to
whoever's.
Reading
it
so
active
for
me
has
nothing
to
do
with
time.
A
It
has
to
do
with
what
is
currently
viewed
so
I
think
that's
probably
one
communication
issue
we
were
having
and
we
can
use
different
work
and
then
so
my
use
case
would
be
like
look.
A
So
then
the
second
one
remains
active
and
then
fourth
one
was
created
later,
but
I
don't
know
there
whatever
it
is,
but
the
note
whole
note
itself
as
never
been
published.
I
think
that
the
confusion
to
me
is
whether
I
know
in
the
database.
It's
called
status
in
both
the
in
my
mind,
the
question
is
like:
is
that
the
same
thing
when
on
a
node
or
on
a
node
or
vision
like
do
we
call
it
published
in
both
places?
Or
can
you
have
an
unpublished
no
to
the
published
revision
it
just
that
make
sense.
C
To
me
to
me,
publish
this
is
being
governed
by
the
permission
that
says
people
can
view
published
content.
So
it's
published
to
me
translates
to
something
that
can
be
viewed,
usually
I
decide.
Visitors,
love
people
that
are
necessarily
long
think
this
is
the
default
out
of
the
box.
You
can,
of
course,
assign
the
permission
for
anonymous
users
to
view
on
publish
content
which
I
don't
think
anyone
does,
but
it's
a
possibility
so
published
is
governed.
By
that
permission,
then
we
could
have
a
revision.
That
is
the
active
one
as
in.
A
C
Previous
revisions
are
there
for
backup
reasons
through
veteran
and
the
forwards.
The
forward
ones
are
there
for
back,
there
is
being
potentially
Danny
yeah,
so
the
actions
of
making
a
revision
is
a
fast
or
forward
active
and
the
action
of
publishing
remount
a
different,
so
publishing
publishes
whichever
region
is
active.
A
Because
I
think
that
bunch
people
are
also
gonna
get
tripped
up
on
the
same
thing.
Tim
is
that
like
I,
don't
care
about
the
one
that
people
are
seeing
because
I'm
not
working
on
it?
The
active
one,
the
one
that's
getting
acted
on
is
not
visible
like
what,
if
we
just
saw
that
like
visible
or
something
sure.
B
B
There
are
six
versions
of
the
site
right
one
through
six
and
if
somebody
wants
to
edit
version
four,
but
if
what
does
that
mean
right
and
originally
and
and
I
have
been
looking
at
angle
handles,
which
I
thought
was
simple
and
easy
to
understand
in
in
Jango
you
in
in
an
earlier
version
of
the
PR
any
time
you
edited
a
revision,
it
became
a
new
revision.
You
can't
like
change
the
fourth
revision,
because
that
doesn't
make
semantic
sense
right.
The
hope
that
that
is
like
locked
in
time
once
you've
saved
provision
number
four.
B
It
is
number
four
and
anything
any
changes
you
make
to
any
relation
become
a
new
division.
The
current
the
current
version
of
the
PR
doesn't
Gustaf's
the
current
version
of
the
PR
actually
lets
you
go
back
and
change
history,
you
can
change
version
four
and
it
doesn't
become
a
new
and
does
that
make
sense
is
my
question?
Yes,.
A
I
think
the
issue
here
is
like
what
the
node
forum
does
versus
what
the
Edit
revision
form
does,
because
on
the
node
forum,
if
you're
on
on
a
revision,
there's
a
checkbox,
that's
like
making
your
vision
or
not
and
if
you're
editing
a
revision.
If
you
have
that
checkbox
and
you
don't
check
it,
you
should
be
editing
history.
A
We
need
to
make
sure
that
functionality
is
possible.
I,
don't
know
whether
I
should
do
that
by
default,
but
if
it
whatever
we
do
by
default,
we
need
to
make
it
clear
to
the
user
that
that's
what's
happening.
So
if
from
the
revision
page,
you
want
to
edit
an
old
one,
you
don't
act
so
the
use
case
that
I'm
have
encountered
most
commonly
with
this
is
that
you
have
a
new
version
of
the
article
that
is
under
review
and
it's
not
ready
to
go
yet,
and
somebody
needs
to
make
a
change.
A
Quick
change
of
typo
fix
and
grammatical
errors.
Whatever
to
the
page,
that's
live
now
you
have
to
have
you
know
your
old
version,
which
is
the
one
being
viewed
the
new
version
that,
when
you're
working
on
now,
you
gotta
edit
this
one.
So
if
you
were
to
create
a
new
revision,
that's
fine!
A
You
get
a
third
one,
and
now
this
is
the
one
that
is
live
now
in
your
draft
is
altered
and
that's
fine
as
long
as
we
can
indicate
to
people
that
that's
what
happened
is
that
your
draft
is
a
previous
revision
to
the
one.
That's
because
that
one
got
copied
into
a
new
one
or
if
you
started
with
the
ability
to
just
edit
your
old
one.
You
could
just
end
it
fix
the
typo
and
save
it,
and
you
still
have
only
the
person.
A
That's
under
review,
innovations
live
and
I
think
that,
because
this
is
temerity,
supports
both
ways
to
do
that,
we
just
need
to
be
really
careful
about
and
clear
what
was
happening
in
any
given
interface.
So,
if
we're
on
an
interface
that
has
the
checkbox
it
needs
to
either
allow
you
compute
a
new
version
or
not,
or
we
remove
the
checkbox
and
how
I'm
indicating
like
this
is
always
going
to
be
a
new
revision.
A
C
A
C
About
to
say
that
it's
time
that
a
person
creates
a
revision
when
someone
else
edits
that
revision,
they
don't,
we
don't
use
the
word
edit,
that
a
vision
we
cloned
that
revision
and
make
a
copy
that,
where
the
author
of
that
provision,
that
will
there
is
about
to
be
edited,
is
a
person
currently
editing
yeah.
So
the
other
people
cannot
edit
other
people's
revisions
as
in
they
can
click
a
button
that
says
edit.
It
shouldn't
say
it.
It
should
say
something
else
present
what
it
does
clicking
the
button
times.
C
It
creates
a
copy
of
the
changes,
the
author
and
then
they
can
save
it
as
they
religion,
but
when
they
there,
when
they're
doing
that,
the
check
box
that
says
create
a
new
revision
means
that
another
revision
with
that
author
will
be
created,
but
still
yeah,
second
one.
So
if
you
call,
if
you
go
back-
and
we
add
it
to
your
own
revision,
the
check
box
means
that
there
will
be
another
one
created
with
you
as
the
author.
If
you
don't
get
that
you,
you
will
be
everything
your
own.
A
C
D
I'm
going
to
be
tempted
to
try
to
simplify
this
and
just
say:
if
you
pastor
vision,
it
always
has
to
create
a
new
one.
There's
no
option
to
edit
the
past
one
like.
If
it's
not.
If
it's
not
the
active
revision,
then
any
editing
creates
another
revision.
What
do
you
mean
by
active
the
active
being
the
one
that's
currently
visible
on
the
site?
You
know
the
active
revision
you
can
edit
and
uncheck
the
box
and
say
I,
don't
want
to
create
a
new
revision
for
removing.
D
F
A
Yeah
as
long
as
we
remove
that
each
interface
element
from
everywhere
and
change,
the
word
edit
I
think
that's
this
yeah,
yes,
so
not
from
everywhere!
Well
from
every
active
and
I,
don't
know
what
we're
gonna
use
for
active
I
think
visible
is
fine.
If
I
don't
know,
if
anyone
has
any
objections
to
that
default,.
G
A
A
B
B
C
A
A
Drastically
up
aren't
visible,
but
the
note
so
I
think
the
publish
that
only
needs
to
apply
to
the
note
like
you
can't
have
publish
on
revisions
and
notice,
all
the
sure
it's
not
published
and
the
revisions
are
visible
or
they're,
not
visible
yeah,
but
we
can't
have
an
unpublished
revision
on
a
published
note.
That's
just
not
well.
A
G
C
D
A
D
A
C
A
A
F
D
A
D
C
My
ideal
workflow
would
be
you
have
an
existing
piece
of
content
right
and
you
click
the
edit
button
during
the
page.
And
then
you
need
to
decide
if
you're
gonna
save
on
top
of
what
you're
editing
which
doesn't
create
a
religion,
you're
overriding
what
exists
there
or
you
take
the
tech
box.
That
says,
create
a
new
revision
and
then,
when
you
say
what
you
do
is
you're
saving
a
new
revision.
C
D
C
D
C
D
A
B
Gonna
make
a
counter-argument
which
is
once
you
started
doing
revisions
that
button
goes
away
that
that's
that,
like
as
soon
as
you
get
into
having
multiple
revisions,
every
time
you
save
you're,
creating
a
new
revision.
I
think
you
don't
have
that
option.
I,
just
don't
see
through
the
value
of
that.
Even
if
you
know
the
active
version,
if
you're
editing
that
just
create
a
new
revision.
C
C
So
on
that
issue,
on
the
comment
that
you
made
on
the
27th
of
October,
there's
a
screenshot
that
has
a
tab
that
says
revision,
information
and
it
says,
make
a
default.
This
is
an
action
which
should
cancel
be
funny
sure,
and
it
would
make
things
so
much
easier,
so
the
default
would
be
to
Alamo
update
the
currently
region,
but
you
could
have
a
secondary
button
which
would
be
wait
so.
B
If
we're,
we
still
haven't
settled
on
a
term
whether
its
current
default,
whatever
the
version
that
people
see
right,
I
would
say
that
you
could
on
any
note
on
any
no,
you
could
click
the
box.
I've
said
that,
and
that
became
the
one
that's
visible,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
you
would
never
have
the
option
to
edit
a
revision
and
not
create
a
new
revision.
B
B
D
A
C
Book
this
comes
back
to
the
the
thing
that
I've
mentioned
earlier
during
the
meeting
when
I
said
that
we're
thinking
with
a
developer
mentality
of
what
happens
in
the
background
and
we
sort
of
like
put
on
user
interface.
This
is
the
same
as
in
the
custom
blocks.
Where
we
make
a
custom
block
reusable
we
take
a
box
to
make
it
reusable.
It
should
be
an
action.
It
should
actually
be
about,
and
I
mentioned
that
before
anything,
we
have
an
issue.
The
same
applies
here.
C
D
C
Buttons,
yes,
it's
obnoxious
to
submit
buttons
yeah
how
you
have
when
you
create.
When
you
create
a
view,
you
have
one
that
says,
save
and
one
that
says,
save
the.
Maybe
it's
the
same
with
content
types
you
have
one
that
says
save
and
one
save
in
manage
feels.
So
this
is
what
we're
doing
either
save
or
saving
make
actors
clear
people
don't
have
to
dig
again.
Yeah
people
don't
have
to
dig
into
the
vertical
type
things,
because
they're
secondary
elements
unimportant
every
option
that
they
have
when
they
save.
Is
there?
Okay.
C
All
right
this
is
this:
is
revision
scheduling
we
we
have
we
can.
We
can
agree
on
that.
What
we
have
in
core
now
is
scheduling
the
active
or
current
revision
to
be
published
or
unpublished.
Now
it
has
a
feature
of
publishing
or
publishing
feature
future
revisions
or
password
regions.
Okay,
be
a
separate
thing.
Okay,.
A
So
you
said
things
that
confuse
me,
so
I'm
gonna
say
them
back,
and
you
can
tell
me
if
I'm
saying
what
you
said:
okay,
so
what
we
have
in
call
right
now
is
the
ability
to
schedule
weather
odhh
is
published
or
not.
We
do
not
currently
have
the
ability
to
schedule
whether
a
revision
is
current
or
not
so
she
removed
with
a
scheduling
UI
from
the
node
edit
form.
If,
if.