►
From YouTube: 2021-03-10 Code Review Weekly PM+Eng+UX Sync
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
It
might
not
be
the
same
okay,
it
might
not
be
the
same
people.
What
I'm
concerned
about
is
that
it
might
not
be
the
same
people
working
on
the
same
things.
A
So,
for
example,
in
my
second
point,
so
in
2b,
I
link
to
an
issue:
that's
called
restructure,
merge
request,
merge,
widget,
and
that
is
basically
would
be.
The
changes
like
the
smallest
changes
that
we
can
do
to
the
ux
that
I
think,
will
have
the
biggest
impact
for
sure
and
I'm
I'm
talking
with
phil
there,
because
he
was
the
first
person
that
that
came
to
mind.
A
But
I
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
phil
that
is
going
to
be
working
on
that.
So
whoever
is
working
on
re-architecting
the
merge
requests,
mergeability
widget.
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
guess
that
sort
of
is
I'm
most
concerned
about
the
person.
I
guess
my
point
is
more
that
if
you
look
at
like
restructuring
the
mr
merge
widget
right
that
could
my
concern
is
that
what
we're
about
to
do?
If
you
look
at
the
re-architecting
a
market,
is
someone
is
trying
to
dictate
a
data
model
based
on
what
they
know.
B
Today's
world
looks
like
and
design
like
an
api
and
a
data
structure
and
how
all
of
that's
going
to
happen,
and
then
we're
going
to
come
in
starting
in
a
couple
milestones
and
go
well.
This
is
what
the
new
world
looks
like,
and
if
that
data
model
and
data
structure
doesn't
line
up
anymore,
we're
just
throwing
away
sort
of
all
of
the
work
for
for
sort
of
no
good
reason
right
like
for
we
really
shouldn't
be
to
me.
B
B
B
But
if
it's
not
an
additive
action,
then
we've
sort
of
like
we're
just
wasting
time
right
now
and
I
think
my
biggest
I'd
rather
us
if
this
was
anything
else
right
if
we
were
driving
the
re-architecting
and-
and
I
again
I
think,
like
this-
is
sort
of
a
problem
that
another
group
is
trying
to
drive
this.
But
if
we
were
driving
the
re-architecting
it'd
be
the
same
way.
We
do
anything
else
right.
We
would
start
with
designs
and
we
would
say
hey
engineers,
here's
what
the
in-state
user
experience
is.
B
This
is
what
the
designs
are
for
this.
How
should
we
do
this
right?
That's
how
we
would
do
this
and
we're
about
to
go
down
that
path
with
the
restructuring
of
the
mr
widget,
which
will
likely
lead
us
into
like
hey.
We
should
redo
all
these
other
things,
but
we
should
be
redoing
them
all
in
the
context
of
where
we
want
to
end
up,
not
redoing
them
all,
so
we
can
redo
them
all
again.
C
Yeah
one
thing
I
would
I
would
add
here
is
that,
although
this
issue
has
been
open
on
verify,
carrie's
involvement
is
exactly
so
that
we
can
take
a
driver's
seat
approach
here
and
we
can
dictate
more
of
the
changes
being
done
exactly
to
support
our
vision
for
longer
term
and.
B
B
C
I
think
taking
a
step
back
is
like
we
don't
know
exactly
what
the
states
are
going
to
be,
but
we
do
know
that
we
want
a
very
reliable
and
robust
single
source
of
truth
for
the
state
representation
and
that's
what
the
proposals
that
I've
been
discussed
on
the
engineering
side
have
been
so
far
is:
how
can
we
make
this
representation
of
state
more
reliable
and
more
robust
and
not
have
the
state
on
the
back
end
thinking
it's
one
thing
and
then
the
front
end
thinks
it's
another
thing,
regardless
of
what
the
individual
states
they
are
and
what
how
they're
represented
on
the
ui.
C
That's
where
I
think
this
effort
is
focusing
on
is
establishing
a
baseline
of
the
representation
of
states
and
make
sure
that
backend
and
front
that
are
aligned
and
they
have
a
single
source
of
truth.
I
don't
think
nobody
is
proposing
updating
any
of
the
logic
in
terms
of
which
states
we
have
or
how
they're
represented
on
the
ui,
because
we're
waiting
for
guidance
on
that,
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
assume
that
we
will
have
to
represent
the
state
of
the
merge
request,
how
it
is
and
have
messages
and
ui
react
to
each
state.
C
The
question
we
have
right
now
is
that
we
have
such
a
mess
on
the
code
that
for
us
to
implement
any
vision
that
pedro
has
then
coming
back
to
peter's
point.
I
do
think
this
has
to
be
done
regardless
anyways.
It
has
to
be
done
anyway
for
us
to
start
implementing
anything,
but
I
can
also
see
your
point
that
if
we
had
a
better
vision
of
the
endpoint,
we
could
totally
prepare
the
architecture
better
for
the
end
result.
C
But
the
thing
is
again:
the
pressure
comes
with
the
bugs
we're
facing
and
the
the
lack
of
reliable
way
to
debug
these
problems
today
and
that's
the
problem
that
is
kind
of
forcing
our
hand
and
instead
of
just
stopping
everything
all
together,
we
we
thought
and
the
team
thought
that
we
can
start
cleaning
up
the
act
of
state
representation,
make
that
reliable
so
that
whatever
comes
next
we're
able
to
reliably
represent
it
and
to
work
with
it.
C
So
that's
kind
of
like
the
idea
behind
it,
but
I
I
think
we're
missing
michelle
here,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
have
happened
out
of
my
radar,
since
we
had
that
call
that
I
think
it
would
be
important
to
get
michelle's
feedback
here.
C
When
michelle
is
back,
maybe
perhaps
hopefully
hope
she's
better
at
the
end
of
the
week,
we
can
have
a
call
just
about
this
topic.
I'm
happy
to
jump
on
a
call
quickly
and
discuss
this
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
discuss
it
properly,
because.
A
A
I
know
he's
aware
of
the
mapping
that
I
did
of
the
current
states
and
also
the
design
exploration
actually
involved
him
to
make
sure
he
validated
everything
or
that
he
was
like
felt
that
he
can
give
feedback
and
I'm
having
an
ongoing
discussion
with
him
in
that
issue
of
re-architecting,
because
he
wants
me
to
validate
that
like
this,
this
structure
is
this
aligned
with
what
you
were
seeing
and
I
don't
think
I
know
honestly.
I
don't
think
the
current
structure
of
how
we
present
the
mergibility
checks,
so
why
the
merge
button
is
disabled.
A
Why
you
can't
merge,
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
change,
because
it's
the
ideal
ux
as
I
wrote
there
is
also
like
the
most
simple
and
basic
thing
like
this
is
why
you
can't
merge,
and
this
is
what
you
can
do
to
unblock
it.
So
it's
the
information
of
the.
Why
and
the
what
you
can
do
and
I
think
that's
what
from
what
I've
seen?
That's
what
he
and
the
other
engineers
are
trying
to
follow
with
that
data
structure.
A
A
B
A
B
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
I
just
like
and
honestly
that
most
recent
discussion
is
sort
of.
What's
concerning
to
me
in
that,
if
you
look
at
that,
what
you
presented
back
was
really
what
the
ui
should
say
is
here
are
three
reasons
why
you
can't
merge
when
there
are
three
reasons
you
can't
merge
and
the
ui
doesn't
actually
do
that
today.
B
So
what
we're
trying
to
tell
him
now
is
design
the
data
structure
for
a
future
model
of
a
ui
that
doesn't
exist
yet,
but
we're
not
also
worrying
about
that,
and
I
think
that's
where
my
concern
is
right
like
if,
if
you
have
that
conversation
and
you
cross
those
paths-
and
you
say,
design
a
data
model
for
the
ui
that
doesn't
exist,
yet
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
problem,
because
we
don't
know
that
that's
the
right
thing
or
the
right
way.
We
want
to
consume
that
data.
C
And
supports
what
wants
to
build
so
that
it
supports
what
peter
wants
to
build?
I
get
it.
I
get
it.
I
get
your
point
if
I
can,
if
I
can
add
a
little
bit
of
an
example
right
now,
we
have
random
properties,
sprinkled
all
over
the
response
right
and
by
unifying
that
into
one
representation
will
be
easily
later.
So
your
example.
So
we
have
one
on
his
proposal,
which
is
just
very
drafty.
C
A
C
Let's
bring
michelle
over
and
and
discuss
this
on
a
call
specifically
for
1311
if
you
want
to
get
started
right
away
or
not,
because
right
now,
I
feel
like
we're
missing
an
important
part
of
this
conversation,
which
is
the
backend
architecture
and
how
whether
we
can
take
so
what
kind
of
initial
steps
are
we
thinking?
C
Because
that's
I
don't
know
what
they're
thinking
exactly
and
some
of
them
might
be
totally
harmless,
although
other
ones
might
be
a
little
bit
more
committing,
so
we
would
have
to
know
a
little
bit
more
what's
in
their
minds
and
right
now
I
don't
know
I
don't
have
a
visibility
of
that
I'll
I'll.
Think
michelle
and
we'll
schedule
that
once
she's
back.
A
All
right
so
yesterday,
in
the
ux
sync
and
after
digesting
the
amazing
feedback
that
the
whole
team
left
in
that
issue
about
updating
the
drop
down
to
distinguish
between
incomplete
and
complete
reviews,
and
the
purpose
that
I
had
there
me
and
kai.
We
felt
that
the
proposal
is
in
good
enough
states,
and
I
mean
there
was
no
big
concern
about
anything
in
specific
that
we
can
move
forward
with
this
and
yeah.
A
We
would
like
to
engineering
to
own
the
breakdown
of
the
work
instead
of
being
me
dictating
like
this
is
what
we
do
first,
and
this
is
the
size
of
the
scope
or
whatever.
It
is
just
to
take
that
proposal
and
the
the
end
goal
and
try
to
break
it
up
in
within
the
constraints
that
we
have
and
also
investigate
the
constraints
right.
We
have.
The
filter,
which
would
be
a
new
filter,
is
does
this
work?
What
is
the
required
work
and
also
the
other
all
of
the
other
aspects?
C
I'll
add
that
I'm
still
trying
to
catch
up
with
the
whole
thread
and
all
the
discussions
and
I'm
still
trying
to
make
up
my
mind
how
I
feel
about
this
myself,
because
it's
like
you,
said
like
this-
is
not
a
slam
dunk
that
it's
as
obvious
as
as
we
first
thought,
I'm
okay
in
the
engineering
owning
the
breaking
down
of
things.
So
I'm
I'm!
Okay
with
that
from
the
looks
of
it.
It
feels
like
we're,
leaning
towards
having
a
filter
for
waiting
for.
C
The
building
of
the
of
the
y
for
the
sidebar
is
what
concerns
me
a
bit
more
and
that's
why
I
haven't
even
published
anything
there,
because
I
I'm
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
here.
The
assignees,
for
example,
it's
owned
by
another
group
and
it's
a
different
code
base.
So
if
you
have
to
support
the
waiting
for
for
assignees,
that
doesn't
make
sense
for
issues,
so
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
only
have
that
enabled
for
merging
quests.
C
And
so
it's
it's
a
tricky
tricky
ground,
because
they're
also
refactoring
these
the
sunnis
widget
at
this
point.
So
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
to
account
for
it,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
visibility
of
the
runway
ahead
of
us.
And
perhaps
I
think
that's
what
you're
asking
that's.
What
you're
asking
us
for
us
to
look
into
the
exactly
the
blockers.
C
Okay,
we'll
we'll
totally
take
up
your
your
request
and
try
to
break
it
down
for
iterative
steps
that
we
can
push
things
forward
meaningfully.
Do
you
think
you,
even
if
that
concept
only
exists
for
reviewer?
No,
actually,
then
you
have
to
toggle
the
authors
to
actually
have
the
whole
flow
work.
A
C
B
I
think
the
the
point
is
sort
of
that.
You
know.
One
of
the
things
that
we've
heard
is
like
engineering
wants
to
be
involved
much
earlier
in
the
process
and
like
get
that
say
in
sort
of
like
what
can
work
and
what
can't
work,
and
so
this
was
like
a
good
one
that
pictured
to
find
an
end
state
like
we
haven't
now
an
end
state
defined
here's.
B
B
You
gets
added
as
a
filter
and
that
gets
added
to
it
as
a
filter
sort
of
by
itself
right
and
that's
an
issue
that
could
ship
and
like
whether
or
not
the
rest
of
this
stuff
is
built,
and
you
could
even
use
waiting
for
you
who
cares
like
they
just
exist
as
a
filter
and
like
all
of
these
pieces,
we
that's
sort
of
the
other
push
we
want
for
engineering
is
like
how
do
we
ship
all
of
this?
B
B
Yeah
you
go
and
do
it
and,
let's
see
like
let's
see
how
this
works
and
where
we
can
like
fix
this
for
the
next
one
that
we
experiment
with,
and
so
it
is
going
to
feel
probably
more
uncomfortable
than
most
stuff.
We
do,
but
that's
I
would
say
it
is
by
my
by
my
ask
and
design
that
we
make
it
feel
more
uncomfortable
for
engineering
and
we
give
you
we
give
you
the
opportunity
to
go
and
sort
of
figure
this
out
and
come
back
and
do
it.
C
Yep,
that
makes
sense
it's
exciting
as
well
comfortable
and
exciting.
We've
all
been
feeling
the
pains
of
like
the
gaps,
and
just
today
we
have
people
on
the
on
the
on
the
channel
asking
for
clarification
of
a
feature,
because
it's
not
super
clear.
So
we
definitely
want
to
get
this
in
shape
and,
yes,
we
will
gladly
break
it
down
and
try
to
find
a
way
forward.
C
I
think
that's
there's
a
couple
of
more
unknowns
on
the
front
end
just
because
of
that
crossover
to
another
plan,
but
we'll
I'll
sync
up
with
michelle
and
we'll
try
to
come
up
with
a
plan
for
for
rolling
this
out.
C
Issues
first,
thirteen
eleven
so
hopefully,
over
the
next
couple
of
days,
we'll
be
able
to
clarify
the
the
road
ahead
and
we'll
be
able
to
schedule
at
least
one
issue
for
front
end
and
one
for
for
back
end
for
1311
at
least
whether
that's
a
spike
or
an
actual
issue.
I
hope
that
it's
an
actual
issue.
We
can
do
the
spike
before
the
starting
of
the
milestone,
so
an
important.
A
C
My
idea
is
to
create
a
sub
epic
or
something
and
come
up
with
all
the
steps
that
we
envision
already.
What
I
was
saying
about
scheduling
one
issue
is
that
we'll
start
with
scheduling
those
two
issues,
but
we
already
have
the
visibility
ahead,
maybe
even
more
than
two,
depending
on
the
size,
so
my
and
I'll
be
completely
clear
and
transparent.
My
biggest
question
right
here
is
whether
we
can
clearly
and
easily
implement
this
waiting
for
across
the
signees
and
reviewers.
C
B
Sorry
for
it
being
last
night,
but
all
right
last
one
up
is
just
okay,
our
planning
I
mentioned
it
in
slack
yesterday
it
was
a
collective
we've.
All
done
a
bang-up
job
like
I
also
didn't
do
anything
for
this
issue
other
than
created.
B
Originally
I'm
going
to
post
some
stuff
back,
I
think
in
sort
of
the
product
issue,
just
to
originally
say
we
participated,
I
I
said
I'll:
do
it
at
the
end
of
the
day,
so
if
pedro
and
under,
if
you've
got
some
time
today,
great,
if
not
and
it's
tomorrow
or
you
know,
by
the
end
of
the
week
or
whatever.
I
think
at
this
point-
it's
already
late.
B
So
we
can
get
something
and
we
can
get
something
in
but
feel
free
to
add
to
that
issue
and
I'll
try
and
try
and
get
it
wrapped
up
in
the
next
day
or
so.
C
On
that
issue
very
quickly,
are
we
supposed
to
involve
quality
as
well
the
quad
planning
of
things,
or
is
it
just
the
three
of
us?
So
the
four
of
us.
B
In
theory,
we
should
also
like
incorporate
yes,
it's
supposed
to
be
across
all
stable
counterparts.
I'm
I'm
content
with
just
keeping
it
to
the
three.
B
C
B
Cool
thanks.
Everyone
enjoy
the
rest
of
your
day.
Sorry,
if
you're
starting
the
recording
late
but
we'll
at
least
get
some.