►
From YouTube: Configure team meeting - 2020-12-02
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).
C
Nice,
sorry
for
the
slow
start,
my
video
I
I
just
just
now-
I'm
seeing
everyone's
video,
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
my
internet
or
zoom
cool
well,
I
guess
we'll
dive
into
it.
This
is
the
configure
team
meeting
for
wednesday
december
2nd.
C
C
So
that's
really
great.
It's
definitely
I
mean.
Obviously
you
know
it's
a
team
effort
and
and
everyone's
working
really
hard.
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
other
things
going
on
as
well,
obviously
pandemic.
You
know
things
happening
people
taking
time
off
so
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
really
appreciate
everyone's
hard
work.
There.
C
Obviously
mr8
is
not
our
sole
focus.
It's
more
of
like
one
metric
that
engineering
management
uses
just
understand
productivity
over
time.
You
know
understanding
trends
and
things
like
that,
so
our
team
is
definitely
trending
upwards
and
is
probably
on
the
higher
end
of
productivity
scale.
So
I'm
going
to
create
an
issue
to
just
kind
of
discuss.
C
D
D
18.4
yeah
narrow
rate
yeah,
that's
the
narrow
rate.
Why
do
I
see
like
around
10
or
november
ac
7.57.
A
B
C
Yeah
christopher
wanted
me
to
link
to
the
exact
url.
C
C
And
I'll
create
an
issue
to
discuss
it
further
next
item:
if
you
haven't
already
contributed
to
the
13.6
retrospective,
please
do
so
I'd
love
to
get
your
thoughts
there
and
I'll
just
keep
going.
I
have
requests
regarding
deliverable
labels
I
and
and
and
victor
feel
free
to.
We
could
chat
about
this
more.
I
I
noticed
that
sometimes
the
deliverable
labels
get
added
to
things
that
are
not
ready
for
development
yet
or
not.
They're,
maybe
like
a
milestone
ahead
or
little
little
ways
ahead.
C
C
Well,
I'm
thinking,
for
example,
the
the
private,
the
the
agent
private
repo
authorization,
for
example,.
E
If
you
add
a
green
check
mark
in
the
whether
we
expect
to
deliver
the
given
issue,
that
means
that
it
is
deliverable-
and
I
I
tried
to
try
this
already
a
few
times,
but
we
might
miss
this
from
time
to
time.
So
question
mark
means
that
we
don't
expect
to
deliver
or
we
don't
even
plan
to
deliver
beginning
before
the
milestone
the
specific
issue.
E
But
if
you
add
the
check
mark-
and
I
consider
that
to
be
deliverable
and
when
we
start
the
milestone,
I
go
through
all
the
issues
I
apply
the
milestones
and
which
has
a
green
check
mark.
I
apply
the
deliverable
label
as
well,
but
actually
I
apply
it
based
on
your
feedback.
So
if
you
don't
add
it
there
as
a
green
check
mark,
I
will
never
apply
it
because
I
think
deliverable
is
to
be
decided
by
the
engineering
team,
not
by
me.
C
Yeah
totally,
and
basically,
what
I've
noticed
is
that
we
have
a
lot
of
carryover
deliverables.
For
example,
we
had
the
the
like
move
features
to
core
deploy
boards.
We
had
the.
E
And
then,
basically,
what
happens
is
that
we
remove
it
from
that.
So
we
we,
if
you
might
thought
that
we
gonna
deliver
it.
I
don't
know
13.4,
we
have
removed
it
from
then
we
added
deliverable
label,
we
removed
it
from
the
milestone
later,
but
the
label
remained
and
then,
when
we
added
back
to
the
milestone,
the
labor
is
still
there
and
it's
pretty
misleading.
C
Yeah
and
it's
not
like
anyone's
doing
anything
particularly
you
know
wrong
here,
it's
more
just
that
yeah
just
be,
let's
all
be
more
cognizant
when
we
add
a
deliverable
label,
maybe
maybe
just
victor
or
I
should
add
it
just
so
then.
E
I
think
we
could
be
more
cognizant
on
removing
something
from
the
milestone
that,
together
with
removing
it
from
the
milestone,
we
should
probably
change
remove
the
deliverable
label.
Actually,
we
should
remove
that's
totally
logical.
We
don't
do
that.
I
remember
that
you,
you
mentioned
beyond
a
few
issues,
that
we
should
move
it
to
the
next
milestone
and
then
never
check
if
they
are
deliverables.
E
On
the
other
hand,
it's
definitely
not
me,
so
I
shouldn't
be
involved
in
adding
something
a
deliverable
label.
I
just
do
it
kind
of
so
that
I
don't
have
to
ask
people
just
to
add
the
label,
because
you
did
it
when
you
added
the
green
check
mark.
E
E
E
I
I
try
really
hard
not
to
push
anything,
but
it's
better.
If
it's
not
me
who
says
this
and
I'm
trying
and
I'm
trying
to
make
it
clear
that
I
really
I
just
take
your
words.
If
there
is
the
green
check
mark,
I
will
add
the
labels
because
nobody
else
did,
but
otherwise
I
it's
it
shouldn't.
Be
me
who
says
that
your
verbal
labels.
F
C
Yeah,
no,
I
I
totally
get
it
and
can
appreciate
that
maria
do
you
want
to
vocalize.
B
B
So
that's
why
I
also
asked
you
about
wait,
wait
waiting
waiting
on
monday,
but
that's
a
different
conversation.
C
Yeah
yeah
I
to
me,
like
I,
I
think
that
I'm
not
seeing
a
huge
problem
with
the
deliverable
label.
It
was
more
just
I'm
speaking
out
loud,
like
I'm
going
to
be,
I'm
going
to
be
auditing
it
more
because
I'm
getting
flack
around
this,
so
I'll
be
auditing
it
more.
Everyone
could
just
be
more
cognizant
of
of
deliverable
labels.
Sort
of
help
me
out.
F
So
one
thing
I
found
was
there
was
some
issues
that
had
slipped
and
had
the
deliverable
label
for
like
three
or
four
milestones
already,
but
just
weren't
in
our
planning.
I
wrapped
up
one
of
them
just
this
milestone,
so
yeah.
C
C
D
E
I
just
would
like
to
start
reviewing
the
roadmap
and
I
have
an
issue
for
it.
That
issue
contains
the
link
to
the
actual
roadmap,
that
what
is
the
same
that
we
had
last
week,
the
bureau
board
at
the
end,
but
I've
added
a
few
notes
to
this
issue
already.
That
might
be
useful
to
go
through
and
please
add
your
own
thoughts
into
this
issue.
If
you
have
anything
else,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
so
that
we
don't
not,
everybody
has
to
open.
So
this
is
the
board
itself.
E
The
issue
just
added
some
reasons
why
I
already
changed
the
board.
I
started
discussing
yesterday
with
me
kyle,
and
that's
where
I
started
to
do
all
this,
so
the
biggest
motivation
is
that
our
last
week,
discussion
around
the
gitlab
managed
apps.
I
would
say
we
see
a
clear
direction,
what
we
want
with
gitlab
managed
apps
now
and
when
we
want
to
get
where
we
want
to
reach
with
the
agent,
which
means
as
well
that
it's
clear
now
that
having
the
tunnel
moving
forward
is
important.
What
are
the
prerequisites
of
the
agent
tunnel?
E
One
thing
that
nikolas
mentioned
is
that
the
current
protect
stage
developments
are
adds
a
bit
of
support
in
that
direction.
Then
the
basic
insights
is
already
clearly
in
that
direction.
E
The
basic
insights
are
needed
as
well
for
some
other
thing
that
I
don't
remember
what
is
yeah
the
tokens
but
actually
deploy
tokens
are.
I
would
like
them
to
re-prioritize,
I'm
thinking
more
and
more
about
them
and
feel
free
to
come
back
to
if
you
think
that
this
is
not
a
good
idea,
but
what
we
have
shipped,
what
we're
going
to
ship
now,
the
single
project
setup
is
a
great
solution
to
get
started
with
the
agent.
You
can
have
it
a
private
project
as
well,
so
it
it
works
already.
E
F
C
Interrupt
I'm
curious,
I
I
didn't
totally
follow
that
so
so
so
we
we
basically
enabled
a
single
project
to
have
configuration
manifest.
We
can
deploy
from
that
yeah.
That's
great
awesome!
E
We
just
said
yeah:
yes,
it's
not
it's
not
that
important,
because
what
was
important
is
really
to
have
private,
manifest
repository
support
with
the
agent
and
what
it
means
we
realized
it.
It
has
multiple
levels
of
meaning
one
is
that
single
project
set
up
great
the
other
option.
Is
that
really
deploy
token
live
setup,
where
you
can
specify
other
manifest
projects
that
your
agent
can
access?
E
Very
interesting,
just
just
started
such
a
discussion
with
tong
in
in
one
of
the
issues
as
comments
to
me,
it
seems
more
and
more
that
agents
are
really
per
environment
so
that,
in
my,
if
I
have
a
single
cluster
in
my
dab
name
space,
I
would
like
to
have
an
agent
if
I
have
a
development
cluster
with
many
many
namespaces
or
whatever
that
club.
That's
one
agent
and
right.
That's.
C
E
Yeah
and-
and
so
for
this
reason-
it's
something
like
that-
I'm
thinking
about
it
what
environments
might
be-
and
I
think
that
similarity
will
have
to
to
think
of
it-
a
lot
because
really
what
we
are
dealing
with
here
is
that
we
are
managing
or
we
are
connecting
to
users.
Environments
like
a
cluster
or
even
a
review.
App
is
an
environment
or
does
graham
test
every
time.
E
E
Just
allow
every
developer,
deploy
into
that
namespace
who
is
under
that
group?
That's
a
clear
abstraction
and
then
the
deploy
token
approach
is
could
be
just
a
work
around
for
something
that
we
miss.
D
B
Can
I
say
from
a
ux
perspective:
it's
not
the
ui
work
that
I'm
relieved
about,
but
it's
more
the
user
experience
which
I
didn't
like.
So
I
think
that
will
give
us
time
to
speak
to
customers,
see
the
use
cases
and
figure
out
what
says
the
best
solution
from
a
ux
perspective.
I.
D
E
So
I
that
that's,
why
I'm
not
prioritizing
that
one
and
another
topic
here
is
the
the
kubernetes
versions,
so
it's
like
version
119.
I
would
do
it
today,
hoarder.
What
you
sent
me
yesterday,
so
I
will
try
and
then,
which
doesn't
show
up
yet
anywhere
in
this
mural
board.
Is
the
secrets
management
part.
E
E
I
had
a
discussion
with
jack
yesterday
where
he
pointed
out
five
items
that
are
really
highly
valued
requests
among
our
gitlab
customers,
and
sooner
or
later
I
I
would
have
privatized
them,
even
if
I
would
oversee
the
whole
product
management
at
gitlab,
not
just
this
category,
because
some
of
those
are
really
high
value.
Even
I
I
was
aware
of
them
without
owning
this
category,
so
this
drives
my
reprioritization
and,
as
you
can
see,
what
happens
mostly
is
that
I
removed
only
items
from
here.
E
The
module
registry
is
ongoing.
Protective
states
are
ongoing.
E
E
Gitlab
managed
that
application,
and
now
we
have
much
better
understanding
what
we
mean
by
it.
So
it's
great
and
then
I
have
kubernetes
one
night
and
for
next
milestone
as
topics
and
if
you
have
seen
the
planning
issue,
it's
a
bit
more
detailed
in
the
planning
issue,
since
there
are
more
goals
set,
but
from
direction
point
to
you.
These
are
the
bigger
teams
and
otherwise
direction
did
not
change.
So
we
just
move
forward
in
the
same
direction
and
that's
it
until
now.
Secrets
management
issues
might
change
this
a
bit,
but
not
yet.
E
Yeah
is
that
yeah
that's
totally
correct.
This
is
not
hundred
percent.
It's
really
weird
that
we
have
to
use
a
separate
tool
for
road
mapping
and
I'm
not
duplicating
everything
here
yeah.
I
did
not
add
already
in
this
original
list
last
month
because
it
was
ongoing,
but
you
are
totally
correct
that
we
should
probably
add-
and
that's
a
that's,
an
ongoing
thing
anyway
for
a
few
milestones.
So
it's
not
something
we
don't
want
to
stop.
Definitely
that
work.
E
E
E
C
I'm
just
gonna
just
gonna
ask
the
so
that's
that's!
That's
the
mr
experience
of
the
terraform
widget
yep,
okay,
that
seems
very
popular
like
it's
even
more
popular
than
the
state.
C
I
wonder
I
wonder
if
prioritizing
that
up
might
not
make
sense.
It's
like
kind
of
one
of
the
more
popular
you
know.
E
Not
for
a
reason,
the
reason
is
that
the
state
we
started
it
very
simple
without
any
ui,
if
we
want
to
have
a
production
already
set
up,
that's
enterprise
ready.
We
need
the
management
ui
there.
We
might
not
need
all
the
features
around
it,
but
we
need
at
least
the
various
actions
there
version
listing
there.
E
We
can
probably
stop
before
the
specific
actions
and
we
might
not
even
need
the
version
comparison
for
that,
but
we
need
many
things
to
say
that
that's
enterprise
ready
now
we
can
step
away
from
it
and
focus
on
something
else,
and
I
totally
agree
that
the
draft
from
our
experience
is
super
exciting
for
many
users,
because
they
don't
have
to
switch
anything.
They
just
have
to
add
a
few
lines
to
their
ci
job
and
they
they
get
a
really
helpful
thing
in
the
emergency
quest
and
I
would
love
to
prioritize
it
as
well.
E
I
would
love
to
focus
on
the
mr
experience.
I
just
don't
want
to
have
too
many.
Parallel
builds
tracks
going
on.
C
Yeah,
that
makes
sense,
and-
and
I
definitely
appreciate
the
context
around
focusing
on
enterprise
customers
right
and
kind
of
starting
to
build
out
that
feature
complete
right.
A
I
was
just
wondering
if
you've
had
any
thoughts
around
the
auto
devops
stuff
that
popped
up
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
how
that
might
fit
into
1310
plus,
because
I
have
people.
I
have
multiple
teams
that
are
one
team's
going
to
be
talking
to
me
tomorrow
and
then
I
know,
secure,
defend
or
scam.
Protect
is
trying
to
figure
out
how
it
fits
in
with
them.
E
What's
what's
the
right
word
here?
If
you
look
at
ops
in
the
op
section
slack
channel,
there
is
recording
from
kenny
cabin
and
sid.
I
think
it
was
made
yesterday.
Actually
maria,
do
it
to
my
attention
where
they
are
discussing
autodesk
as
well,
and
the
biggest
takeaway
of
that
discussion
is
that
autodevops
is,
is
really
badly
positioned
inside
of
gitlab.
E
It's
it's!
For
this
reason,
it's
probably
not
used
by
many.
There
were
probably
quite
a
few
product
decisions
that
were
wrong.
Product
decisions
made
that
were
never
fixed
and
it's
it's
a
huge
mess
what's
going
on
there.
Currently
they
are
trying
to
clean
this
up.
Thankfully,
I
had
a
discussion
about
it
with
kenny
last
week
as
well
and
and
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
the
ultra
devops
idea.
E
I
propose
it
might
be
actually
a
better
place
with
with
pipeline
authoring,
and
he
liked
this
idea,
so
they
are
considering
to
move
in
the
category
there,
but
I
don't
know.
The
other
thing
is
that
I
would
be
happy
to
have
a
pm
focused
on
how
to
develop
separation,
because
I
think
it's
a
great
direction
and
a
great
product
opportunity
there.
E
So
that's
it,
and
for
this
reason
I'm
I
don't
want
so
I
don't
want
to
to
kind
of.
E
I
have
language
problems
here.
Give
me
a
sec.
E
So
yes,
I
I
really
don't
like
to
drag
the
engineering
team
just
because
we
got
some
feedback
or
whatever
we
have
really
strong
directions.
I
think
both
in
humanities
and
in
terraform-
and
I
don't
want
to
drag
us
into
other
categories,
just
to
fix
something
that
that
otherwise
is
not
in
our
current
focus.
E
B
Yes,
well,
there
is
a
big
thing
next
thursday,
so
once
per
month,
I
think,
or
by
weekly
we
have
an
ops
cross
stage,
big
thing,
I'm
not
sure
if
engineers
are
already
invited,
but
I
think
no,
but
it's
a
great
place
to
discuss
these
cross-stage
features
and
although
I
proposed
the
devops
for
the
previous
one
which
got
cancelled
so
it's
gonna
moved
next
thursday.