►
From YouTube: Data Meeting 2019-07-09
Description
See agenda for links
A
B
Yes,
so
I
was
I
was
looking
through
open
issues
when,
when
looking
at
stuff
for
this
milestone-
and
we
have
some
issues
there-
that
are
quite
outdated
things
over
six
months
old
Helen
sold
some
of
them
referencing
our
previous
bi
tool,
some
of
them
referencing
things
that
have
already
been
merged,
possibly
in
different
issues.
So
I
was
wondering
what
our
process
should
be
for
old,
outdated
issues
so
that
our
report
remains
relevant
and
I
was
proposing.
B
B
C
I
have
some
I,
don't
necessarily
need
to
go
first,
but
can
I
think
it.
We
definitely
want
to
go
through
and
take
things
out.
There
are
out
of
date
from
the
obsolescence
standpoint.
I
think
we
should
feel
comfortable
with
a
long
backlog.
I
think
like
that's,
that
is
sort
of
one
of
the
truths
that
comes
with
open
source
mentalities.
Is
you
have
this
long
trail
of
stuff
that
hey
you
might
like
to
get
to,
but
it
doesn't
reflect
your
priorities
right
now
and
we
shouldn't
be
afraid
to
keep
this
things
around.
C
Obviously,
if
they're
relevant
to
a
tool,
we
no
longer
have
get
rid
of
it,
but
I
I,
don't
like
just
blanket
time-based
pieces.
I.
Think,
though,
like
it
does
create
a
little
bit
noise
but
I
think
if
we
have
effective
labeling,
we
can
manage
that
stuff.
It
does
require
some
grooming,
otherwise
sort
of
as
you
reference
if
there's
stuff,
that's
totally
obsolete,
like
that'd
be
becomes
not
it's
not
no
longer
a
library
of
things
we
can
look
into
to
see,
but
it's
instead
just
a
bunch
of
noise.
So
I
don't
know,
that's
my
my
co2.
C
A
C
C
C
B
C
So,
unless
there's
anything
else,
there
I
think
I've
got
the
next
item
here.
Just
around
data
validation
and
review,
so
I
I
know
this
is
in
our
documentation.
This
is
a
thing
that
we
all
maybe
think
about
doing.
It's
not
a
thing.
We're
universally
doing
and
I
I
want
to
stress
that.
That's
a
piece
that
we
absolutely
need
to
be
doing.
C
From
my
perspective,
it's
not
a
failure.
If
we
catch
something
on
the
way
out
the
door,
it's
absolutely
a
failure,
a
customer
catches
it
and
it's
on
us
the
analysts
to
make
sure
that
we
are
reaching
out
for
that
peer
review
and
following
our
own
processes,
we
shouldn't
rely
on
other
people
to
check
us
in
terms
of
adhering
to
the
process.
We
need
their
attention
on
what
we're
actually
putting
out.
C
You
know
I.
Think
I've
worked
in
shops
where
this
is
a
common
practice
and
where
it's
not-
and
we
have
this
as
a
way
we
go
about
doing
things
here
and
it's
not
a
piece
we
should.
We
should
lose
because
the
difference
is
quite
apparent
in
drift
on
numbers,
the
accuracy
of
data
it
turns
out.
Actually,
if
you
don't
talk
to
each
other
about
the
output,
it
will
drift
and
there
it's
just
inevitable,
so
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
still
doing
that
our
processes
rely
on
it.
C
Our
structures
rely
on
it
and
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
manage
compliance
through
data
in
the
way
that
we
need
to.
If
we
can't
adhere
to
those-
and
so
I
just
want
to
stress
the
importance
of
this
and
and
make
sure
we're
doing
it
and
it
you
know,
like
I,
said
it's
not
a
failure.
If
we
catch
it,
it's
a
failure,
fake
engine,
so
little
that
was
so
much
a
discussion
as
like
it
could
be.
A
Great
looks
like
I
have
the
next
couple
things
so
the
first
is
around
the
octave
rollout.
You
may
have
seen
this
on
the
company
call
agenda
today,
but
periscope
will
be
rolling
over
to
octa
only
logins,
effective,
Thursday
evening,
East
Coast
time
Friday
evening,
Friday
morning
it
where
else,
if
you
don't
have
your
octa
login
setup,
you
will
lose
access
to
periscope,
not
be
able
to
login
the
we've
traditionally
logged
in.
So
please
get
your
octo
login
situation
sorted
out
before
them.
If
you
have
questions,
please
ask
in
the
octet
channel
about
octa.
A
You
have
questions
about,
periscope,
ask
them
in
the
data
channel.
I
have
the
next
thing
fYI
this
handbook,
mr
that
was
merged,
changes,
get
labs
policy
on
the
issue
being
updated
in
the
issue.
Description,
not
just
in
the
comments,
so
the
issue
description
should
have
the
current
state
of
any
issue.
A
I
have
the
next
one
I
created
this
issue
today.
I
have
a
maintainer
access
to
the
data
team.
Repo
and
I
would
don't
want
it.
I,
don't
feel
comfortable,
reviewing
code
for
functionality
where
I
don't
have
the
business
context
there
and
have
merged
code.
That
was
technically
functional,
but
I
think
it
was
the
wrong
strategic
or
business
logic
approach
and
I.
A
Without
someone
who
can
provide
the
appropriate
business
input
I,
don't
really
think
that
I
feel
comfortable
as
a
maintainer,
so
I
wanted
to
bring
this
up
there,
because
that
would
create
Taylor
as
the
only
maintainer
for
the
team
and
that's
a
bottleneck.
I,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
comments,
would
feel
totally
comfortable
with
being
the
emergency
or
backup
reviewer
vacation
periods
holidays.
Things
like
that,
but
generally
would
prefer
to
not
have
this
responsibility
on
me.
A
A
A
C
How
like
so,
how
many
are
I'm
curious
when
you
talk
about
the
like?
What's
the
what's,
the
rate
of
these
changes
like
what
how
much
one
what's
the
throughput
we're
talking
about
and
like
what's
generally
like,
are
these
daily
changes
that
we're
just
making
two
things
or
usually
pink
pieces
of
significance
are.
A
C
I
mean
I
think
the
obvious
answer
here
is
data
team
manager,
right
which,
in
lieu
of
that
that
becomes
defective
me
right
now,
I
would
I
would
I
would
argue
the
opposite
of
the
point,
you're
making
and
say,
like
I,
like
any
technical
familiarity
with,
what's
going
on,
to
provide
any
valuable
insight
on
that
front
and
I
could
ask
the
question
of
like
does
this
line
up
with?
Are
the
business
pieces
but
I'm
not
sure
I'm
there?
So
that's
a
long-term
answer
on
the
short-term.
A
Know:
okay,
I,
just
I
one
I
have
examples
of
them
ours
that
I
merged.
That
I
think
had
the
wrong
business
logic,
but
I
didn't
review
that
because
I
reviewed
the
functionality
of
code,
so
I
don't
feel
good
when
the
work
I
do
isn't
good.
That's
part
of
the
problem.
Part
of
the
problem,
too,
is
that
I
feel
like
I
have
a
lot
on
my
plate,
and
this
is
a
complicate.
A
This
is
a
lot
it's
a
lot
of
pressure
because
it
is
the
the
final
merge
and
I
just
don't
feel
like
I
have
the
context
to
okay
things
where
I
don't
have
like.
Yes,
I
can
review
code
functionally
and
I
feel
comfortable
doing
I,
don't
feel
comfortable
doing
that
where
I
don't
also
have
the
bigger
picture.
Yeah.
C
C
Hear
you
know
I
can
hear
Eli
now
sorry,
I,
don't
know
what
I
was
saying.
I
think
I
was
saying
it
would
be
great
if
we
actually
just
required
business
owner
approval
on
these
changes
or
I.
Think
in
cases
like
there's
spots,
where
I
would
expect.
Where
were
you
dealing
with
embedded
analysts
or
fully
aligned.
A
A
C
Able
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
analysts
who
prepared
it
to
say
like
well
here's
what
it
does
is
that
what
you
want
it
or
didn't
and
I
do
I
do
think.
The
analyst
needs
to
know
what
their
code
is
doing
and
if,
if
that
thumbs
up
exists,
then
okay,
if
we
feel
that
comfortable
code
does
what
we
say
it
does,
then
we
get
go.
That
feels
like
a
bit
of
a
fix
as
I'm
saying
it.
I
go
like
well.
C
D
Yep
I
was
gonna
mention
this
actually
got
off
a
call
one-on-one
with
chase,
and
just
this
particular
issue.
I'm
working
on
loss,
Mr,
ARB
chase
he's
familiar
enough
with
the
data
now
to
be
able
to
look
at
it
and
say:
hey,
you
know
something
doesn't
look
right
or
you
know.
Maybe
we
need
to
think
about
this.
He's
he's.
You
know
he's
analysts,
chases,
so
I
think
you
know.
Definitely
me
bouncing
stuff
off
with
him
and
working
through
logic
and
making
sure
it's
doing
doing
what
it's
supposed
to
be
doing.
D
I
think
he
I
feel
really
comfortable
by
that
with
him.
But
then
you
know
kind
of
a
technical
nitty-gritty
of
some
of
the
stuff
he's
kind
of
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
away
from
that
I.
Don't
think
you
know
he's
got
plenty
on
his
plate,
so
I
think
there
I
could
still
leverage
leverage
the
our
analytics
resources.
But
in
terms
of
saying,
is
this
number
right
or
not?
Does
this
pass
the
sniff
test?
Is
it
doing
what
we
wanted
to
be
doing?
D
E
When
we're
reviewing
each
other's
code,
we
can
do
a
pretty
good
job,
knowing
that
context
of
what
the
other
person
is
doing
and
we
can
review
all
the
functionality
stuff,
but
then
the
way
it
is
right
now
we
still
need
to
tailor
or
Emily
to
merge
it
and
they
do
the
final
Passover,
which
is
helpful,
like
they'll
catch
things
that-
and
we
looked
fine
to
me
but
like
Emily,
will
say.
This
is
how
we
actually
do
things
here.
E
So
it
is
useful
to
have
that
final
pass,
but
it's
not
fair
for
Tinley
or
for
Taylor
and
Emily
to
have
to
have
that
responsibility
where
it's
not
really
part
of
their
job
stuff.
To
like
merge
everything.
So
it
I
do
appreciate
the
final
review,
but
it
is
kind
of
like.
Sometimes
you
want
to
merged
quickly
or
you
like
you,
don't
want
to
be
like
bothering
them
so
I
will.
A
A
The
problem
is
just
that,
like
the
asked
of
reviewing
for
the
functionality
of
code
and
the
asked
of
reviewing
for
the
functionality
of
code
and
the
business
problem,
you
triple
the
amount
of
work
involved,
and
so,
if
I
guess
the
first
ask
the
MVC
ask
would
be
for
the
rest
of
the
quarter.
I
would
like
to
not
review
in
Mars,
because
I
have
a
big
project
on
my
plate
and
my
time
is
limited
and
this
the
result
of
that
is
that
Taylor
would
be
the
only
person
reviewing
Demi
tmr's.
A
C
C
In
that
case,
is
at
the
analyst
signing
off
that
they
verified
it
like
it's,
that
a
smoother
way
to
do
it
and
say
like
hey,
we
need
some
indicator
or
just
assurance.
I
mean
I'd
like
to
have
a
data
point
on
something
like
that
personally,
but
I'm
fine,
with
making
the
analyst
accountable
for
having
reviewed
business
context
with
relevant
it
like
related
owner
I,
don't
know
how
we
captured
that
in
the
mr.
A
The
I
mean
I
was
thinking
sorry.
My
answer
would
be
that
you
should
always
have
some
business
metric
that
you
are
matching
to
whether
that's
m
RR
in
the
case
of
the
dashboard
Israel
was
working
on
today
or
now
for
something
you
guys
working
on
like
you
should
always
have
whatever
your
I
call.
These
toll
paying
metrics,
that's
them
they're
the
metrics
that
you
use
to
confirm
that
you're
headed
in
the
right
direction.
C
The
I
think
adding
that
it
removes
the
burden
of
asking
the
question
or
even
being
responsible
for
asking
the
question
or
not
knowing
if
it's
out
there,
if
you're
reviewing
on
the
technical
side,
knowing
that
that
is
taken
like
that,
that
is
a
requirement.
Those
are
table
stakes
for
showing
up.
Basically,
at
this
point,
okay.
A
I
can
make
I'll
take
an
action
item
to
update
our
DVT,
our
M,
our
template,
to
reflect
that
you
need
to
have
a
Northstar
metric.
You
need
to
have
it
where
it
comes
from
in
the
UI,
okay,
the
numbers
you're
trying
to
match
and
then
the
query
from
your
development
model
that
produces
the
same
result.
Okay,.
C
D
Dew
point
for
this
sure
and
that's
I,
think
Emily's
hitting
the
nail
on
the
head
with
that
we'd
always
kind
of
my
prior
life
we'd
always
have
executive
reporting,
that's
been
validated
confirmed,
one
version
of
the
truth
and
anything
else
you
did
you
have
to.
If
you
could
tie
it
back
to
that
number,
and
then
you
know,
if
you
didn't
have
that
option,
then
kind
of
one
that
that
would
use
you
know
you
kind
of
find
your
lowest
level
of
detail
and
try
to
trace
it
through
all
your
logic.
D
A
Moving
up
the
agenda,
the
next
thing
was
Thomas's.
I'll
speak
on
his
behalf,
because
I
have
context
here.
This
is
I,
think
a
little
bit
more
of
an
FYI
than
I
discuss,
but
our
connection
to
the
dot-com
databases
and
the
other
gilt
of
databases
version
which
is
where
ping
comes
from
customers
has
been
down
and
infra
has
been
busy
with
the
Galib
comm
performance
issues.
So
he
hasn't
heard
back
I
think
Dave
Smith
answered
today,
but
this
is
just
letting
you
know,
because
we
can't
currently
load
that
data.
C
A
C
A
C
C
It
so
I
mean
I,
think
Emily
I'm
just
about
as
concerned
about
this
one,
as
you
are
like
I'm,
happy
to
escalate
and
try
and
get
engineering
moving
differently
if
that
made
sense,
but
I'm
actually
not
inclined
to
try
and
do
that.
If
it's
not
blocking
anything,
we
need
considered
particularly
urgent
right
now.
I.