►
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).
B
When
you,
when
you
joined
just
now
marching,
I
I
thought
oh
good
marchand
was
able
to
make
it
and
then
I
I
couldn't
remember
if
I
had
just
recently
invited
you
or
if
you'd
always
been
on
the
invite
and
I
apologize,
you
were
not
always
on
the
invite,
but.
B
Because
right,
a
technical
rights
are
part
of
the
ux
team
and
we
also
want
to
get
better
about,
including
you
in
ui
copy
feedback
early
and
often
and
yeah.
I
kind
of
felt
I
was
remiss
to
not
have
invited
you
in
the
first
place.
So
I'm
sorry
it
was
late,
but
I'm
glad
you
made
it.
We
share
designs
here
we
share
work
in
progress.
B
We
share
stuff
around
process
yeah,
it's
basically
what
that
what
the
handbook
outlines
and
then
occasionally
we'll
go
off
topic
and
talk
about
green
rivers
and
stuff
so
yeah,
but
I'm
really
glad
he
tried
cool.
A
B
B
Funk
also
joins
from
the
ecosystem
team,
because
there's
a
lot
of
crossover
between
what
ecosystem
does
and
what
the
plan
group
plan
stage
in
particular
do,
but
I
think
we'll
go
ahead
without
him
and
oh
thank
you.
B
Not
attending
meeting
conflict.
Okay,
so
let's
make
sure
that
we
read
what
he
put
in
the
agenda
before
we're
done
all.
E
Okay,
can
y'all
see
my
screen
awesome.
Thank
you.
I'm
just
gonna
kind
of
walk
through
the
whole
process.
I'll
just
try
to
keep
it
kind
of
succinct,
because
I
know
it's.
I
know
we've
got
other
things
to
touch
on,
but
this
started
out.
Obviously
we
have
a
kpi
for
it,
but
it
started
out
with
mike
setting
up
the
call
with
myself
and
gabe
to
kind
of
start
the
conversation
and
we
started
off
by
having
just
a
sync
meeting.
E
I
think
it
was
maybe
an
hour-long
discussion
where
we
kind
of
evaluated
all
of
the
existing
issues
or
all
of
the
existing
jobs,
rather
that
we
have
defined
for
plan
a
little
bit
of
quick
history
on
that
we
created
those
jobs
and
alexis.
Keep
me
honest
here
if
you
think
of
anything
that
I'm
saying
incorrectly,
but
we
created
those
kind
of
on
the
fly
for
the
cms
issue,
tracking
that
I
did
several
months
ago.
So
it
was
myself
alexis,
gabe,
keenan
mark
that
might
have
been
it
initially.
E
So
it
was
several
months
ago.
We
kind
of
just
all
got
together
on
a
call
and
just
wrote
through
what
we
thought
were
going
to
be
the
primary
jobs.
We
didn't
do
any
validation
at
that
time.
We
knew
we
weren't
doing
any
validation
at
that
time
and
that
we
would
need
to
go
back
and
do
that
at
some
point.
So
this
is
the
start
of
that
process.
E
E
Right,
yeah,
exactly
exactly
so
that
that
was
definitely
the
case
and
again.
This
is
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this,
but
we
are
starting
with
just
two,
so
we
went
through
and
tried
to
identify
the
ones
that
are
most
closely
related
to
issue
tracking
and
that
brought
up
the
conversation
of
what
exactly
is
issue
tracking.
You
know
that
in
itself
is
kind
of
a
big
topic
that
can
encompass
planning.
It
can
mean
collaborating
on
work,
actually
doing
the
work.
E
You
know
reviewing
the
progress
after
the
fact
and
being
able
to
provide
feedback
on
whether
or
not
you
provided
value
with
your
outcome.
So
there's
a
lot
that
went
into
that
discussion,
but
that's
kind
of
where
we
started
here
was
just
looking
at
those
jobs.
We
picked
a
couple
and
then
determined
that
maybe
they
needed
to
be
refined
a
little
bit
and
I
think,
where
we
landed.
All
of
the
discussion
is
in
here
and
I'll
put
this
link.
This
was
the
actual
meeting
agenda,
but
I'll
put
this
link
in
our
agenda
as
well.
E
In
case
anyone
wants
to
look
over,
it
was
we
landed
on
these
two
jobs
here,
plan
and
collaborate
on
value
delivery
and
make
sure
we're
shipping
the
right
things-
and
some
of
this
was
based
off
of
what
gabe
had
put
on
our
handbook
page
regarding
kind
of
the
vision
for
jobs
for
a
plan
in
particular,
but
we
felt
that
those
were
nice
distinct
ways
to
to
start
to
identify
what
these
jobs
could
potentially
be.
So
from
there.
I
created
a
research
issue
and
we've
got
these
two
jobs
outlined
here.
E
What
we
also
realized
is
that
we
need
to
not
only
validate
the
jobs,
but
we
need
to
validate
the
performers
of
those
jobs
as
well.
So
that's
part
of
what
we're
also
striving
to
do
with
this
so
created
a
screener
survey.
Of
course
there
is
a
discussion
guide
as
well
that
kind
of
outlines
what
we're
looking
to
accomplish.
E
This
is
based
on
a
template,
so
the
research
team
had
already
defined
a
series
of
questions
for
us
to
use
for
this,
but
I
think
we
did
go
back
and
tweak
a
little
bit
of
them
recently
as
well,
but
the
next
steps
are
to
conduct
a
series
of
interviews,
so
we
are
looking
to
do.
I
think
10
interviews
total
we're
going
to
start
with
five
get
the
feedback
from
these
users,
we're
using
parker
the
product
manager
as
our
target
user.
E
We're
going
to
conduct
five
interviews.
Take
that
feedback
go
back
and
revise
any
questions
that
we
might
need
to
maybe
revisit
the
jobs
themselves
and
then
do
an
additional
five
interviews
to
to
just
kind
of
validate
where
we
are
in
terms
of
progress.
But
that's
essentially
it
in
a
nutshell.
Is
there
anything
else
here
that
I
might
need
to
touch
on.
E
B
B
Those
are
the
categories
that
affect
this
team
and
in
order
to
do
a
category
maturity,
materials
scorecard,
we
need
jobs
to
be
done
and
those
jobs.
If
you
don't
need
to
be
validated,
so
I
think
the
importance
of
validating
them
is
that
we're
phrasing
them
in
the
language
of
the
of
the
job
performer
of
you
know,
parker
or
what's
your
compliance
management,
persona's
name
again,
austin.
C
B
Cameron,
that's
right
or
cameron,
or
you
know
the
draft
performer
for
boards,
who
is
that
alexis
like
drawing
blank?
Is
it
parker
also.
B
Yeah
so
there's
primary
job
performers
and
then
there's
there
are
people
who
are
they're,
maybe
not
primary
job
performers,
but
they
participate
with
that
primary
job
performer
and
what
what
stood
out
to
me,
that's
kind
of
funny
and
interesting-
was
on
that
page.
That
holly
mentioned
the
the
plan
jobs
to
be
done
in
the
handbook.
B
The
job
statements
are
sort
of
identified
as
the
jobs.
Maybe
we
could
could
we
pull
that
open
holly
that
handbook
page?
I
think
it's
in
our
in
that
google
doc.
You
had
open.
B
E
Am
I
back
okay,
good
sorry
about
that?
Is
this
the
page.
B
Yeah,
so
what
what
kind
of
stood
out
is
sort
of
humorous-
and
I
don't
know
I
find
humor
in
a
lot
of
things
lately
with
the
kind
of
world
we
live
in-
is
that
the
jobs
are
actually
these
headlines
plan
and
collaborate
on
value
delivery.
What
we're
calling
job
statements
down
below
are
actually
pretty
low
level
they're
like
what
you'd
consider
a
maybe
a
task
or
user
story.
B
So
that's
something
to
be
wary
of
and
cautious
of,
and
I
think
austin
you
and
I
have
talked
about
how
to
bring
the
level
of
abstraction
a
bit
higher
and
and
you've
made
some
changes
in
the
the
compliance
handbook
pages
to
propose
a
higher
abstraction
of
jobs,
so
think
of
a
job
as
something
that,
if
you
put
the
phrase,
help
me
in
front
of
it
help
me
plan
and
collaborate
on
valley
delivery.
B
B
C
I
have
a
question
about
that:
kr,
so
there's
a
table
in
there
that
has
the
different
categories
and
it's
looking
for
I'm
assuming
like
a
merge,
request
associating
or
an
issue
to
validate
jobs
to
be
done,
but
we
map
jobs
to
groups
but
not
to
categories.
C
B
It
is
possible
yeah,
and
I
think
those
tops
take
it
case
by
case,
and
I
think
for
you.
You
know,
I
think,
how
we,
how
we
think
about
stages
and
groups,
is
different
from
categories
too,
like
there
are
some
groups
that
are
responsible
for
multiple
categories.
There
are
some
stages
that
those
teams
roll
up
to
a
category.
B
I
can't
think
of
a
one
off
top
of
my
head,
but
I
think
that
happens,
and
so
category
is
different
from
like
a
stage
group
like
alexis,
your
your
group
is
responsible
for
definitely
more
than
one
category
yeah.
D
B
I
think
category
might
be
a
way
to
maybe
instead
of
talking
about
the
product
capabilities
in
terms
of
how
we
structure,
teams
and
talking
about
product
capabilities
more
from
a
user
benefit
lens,
I
think
there's
definitely
some
iteration.
That
could
happen
like
boards.
That's
a
I
don't
know
like
what
do
people
do
with
boards?
Maybe
that's
what
boards
ought
to
be
called,
but
we're
not
going
to
solve
that
problem
here.
Not
today.
I.
C
So
yeah,
I
guess
where
I
was
struggling,
is
I
don't
really
know
how
to
contribute
to
this
table,
because
it's
mapping
to
individual
categories
like
should
it
be
groups
instead
of
categories
and
then
yeah.
B
I'm
not
sure
what
you
mean
by
I
think.
Let's
see,
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
what
the
mr
link
is
supposed
to
go
to.
Could
you
open
das
holly
just
so
that
das,
to
mr
it's
yeah
just
in
that
table
row.
B
So
it
looks
like
this
is
a
change
against
that's
handbook,
page
where
they
list
their
jobs
to
be
done
so
for
for
you
austin,
it
would
be.
You
already
have
an
omar
right
because
you
made
an
mr
to
improve
the
abstraction
level
of
the
jobs.
B
Yeah
use
your
based
on
the
jobs
that
you
are
currently
aware
of,
and
then
what
you
learned
through
validation,
it's
possible
that
only
one
of
those
categories
are
relevant
in
terms
of
having
jobs
defined
for
them,
but
yeah
they're.
I
think
the
way
that
we,
what
we
call
categories
and
how
they're
phrased,
is
also
open
to
iteration.
I
think
the
more
we
learn
about
the
jobs
and
validate
them,
the
more
refinement
we
can
do
on
our
category
names.
B
B
Yeah
so
holly's
ahead
of
the
curve.
You
already
have
a
couple
weeks
head
start
on
this,
and
so
as
austin
and
alexis
as
you
start
this
process
of
validating
the
jobs,
I
think
holly
is
a
really
good
good
resource.
Of
course
you
can
reach
out
to
me
marching
I.
I
would
love
your
input,
because
I
I
just
think
that,
as
someone
who
is
responsible
for
the
the
documentation
and
the
ui
copy
experience
around
these
categories,
that
you're
gonna
have
a
really
good
idea
of.
B
A
B
Creating
a
word
salad
yet
again,
which
you
know
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
But
the
word
solid
has
to
be
advertising.
A
B
Yeah
now
I
hear
you,
I
they're
really
tough
to
do
it.
I
think
the
validation
of
them
helps
us
just
have
more
natural
words
so
that
if
a
parker
or
a
cameron
like
they,
they
see
that
gitlab
can
help
them.
You
know:
do
this
thing
that
they're
they're
not
going
to
have
to
make
assumptions
about
what
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
capabilities
so
and
then
next
quarter
we'll
do
category
maturity,
scorecards,
so
that
it's
important
that
we
do
that
this
quarter,
the
the
validation
so
far.
B
I
think
our
process
is
pretty
streamlined.
The
handbook
page
is
comprehensive.
The
way
we
screen
and
schedule
people
is
streamlined
and,
and
adam
have
been
really
supportive
in
helping
us
navigate
the
the
tooling,
but.
C
One
yeah
I
wanted
to
make
one
point:
I
listed
a
link
to
where
the
jobs
to
be
done.
Yaml
file
is
most
jobs
are
in
there,
but
I
did
want
to
highlight
that,
like
I
don't
see
the
other
groups
from
manage
in
there.
C
B
Do
you
know,
does
the
handbook
page
generator
use
this
yaml
to
what?
How
is
this
used?
I'm
a
little
bit
lost.
C
Yeah,
obviously,.
A
B
E
C
E
Well,
it
was,
it
was
from
my
understanding
at
least
for
plan
was
it
was
a
guess
initially,
but
the
grade,
if
I
recall,
was
a
representation
or
a
reflection
of
the
grade
of
the
category
not
of
the
job
itself.
E
So
I'm
I'm
curious
about
the
specific
grades
for
each
job.
Now,
I'm
trying
to
remember
if
we
ended
up
with
a
grade
for
each
job.
I
think
we
did
have
a
numerical
score,
but
I
don't
recall
us
giving
it
a
grade
like
this
and
maybe
they're
just
correlating
it
to
that
numerical
score.
But
I'm
curious
about
that.
There's.
B
No
there's
no
mention
of
a
job
grade
on
the
jtbd
validation
handbook,
page
side
or
even
an
idea
of
like
scoring
a
jtbd
during
the
validation
method.
So
I
guess
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
it.
Yet
right.
C
Also,
there's
a
confidence
area,
so
I
don't
think
there's
great
documentation
on
what
goes
into
confidence,
but
I
think
what
you'll
find
most
of
the
time
is
people
just
put
in
a
some
sort
of
reflection
of
where
the
maturity
of
that
job
statement
is,
and
it
might
just
be,
we've
just
done
research
around
it
and
that's
it.
We
haven't
done
cms
or
anything
further
to
score.
It.
E
Right
now,
right
now,
I'm
waiting
on
people
to
sign
up.
I
saw
that
we've
got
our
first
response
this
morning
to
our
survey,
but
I
don't
see
anything
out
on
my
calendar
and
unfortunately,
we
had
scheduled
this
to
go
up
through
the
17th
and
we're
still,
we
still
don't
seem
to
have
anybody
lined
up
for
it.
So
my
next
step
is
to
follow
up
with
anne,
who,
I
think
is
out
today.
I
think
caitlyn
maybe
was
the
other
person
that
I've
been
working
with
to
check
with
her
and
see.
E
If
there's
anything
else,
we
can
do
to
try
to
get
some
folks
in
pretty
quickly
and
get
the
the
actual
interviews
conducted
and.
B
Mike
did
you
want
to
know
the
part
that
parkers
that
we
want
to
talk
to?
They
don't
have
to
be
current,
get
lab
users
right,
okay,
so
that
should
be
pretty
big
net.
I
wonder
why
we
haven't,
maybe
if
it
went
out
on
like
a
friday,
maybe
we
rescinded
on
a
weekday.
E
Yeah,
that's
a
good
idea,
I'll
check
with
caitlyn
and
see
if
she
has
any
recommendations
on
how
we
can
improve
it.
Did
you
want
to
touch
on
the
way
that
the
job
sample
statement
was
written
at
all,
or
did
we
want
to
revisit
that?
I
know
that
was
a
big
topic
that
we
had
talked
about.
B
The
way
the
job
statement
was
written.
C
E
B
B
I
think
that's
the
right
word
an
assumption
that,
by
trying
to
follow
the
when
what,
how
does
it
go
when
so
that
I
can
is
that
kind
of
how
it
goes,
I'm
drawing
a
blank
right
now.
So
the
situation,
the.
B
Situation
goal
outcome,
so
that
grammar,
I
think,
is
why,
by
trying
to
fit
things
into
that
grammar,
that's
why
our
jobs,
our
job
to
be
done,
phrases
are
so
low
level.
They're,
not
abstract
enough,
because
we're
we're
trying
to
draft
some
word
soup
that
fits
that
grammar,
but
when
nick
nick
post
gave
me
that
hint
about
putting
help
me
in
front
of
it,
that's
when
we
realized.
B
Oh
now
we
have
the
right
abstraction
for
our
jobs
and
they
sure
they
seem
maybe
high
level,
and
it's
like
how
do
we,
if
we're
doing
a
cms
validation?
How
do
we
take
this
really
high
level
job
and
validate
the
product
against
it?
That's
because
we
have
jobs,
user
stories
and
tasks,
and
so
that
that
grammar,
I
think,
is
pulling
us
down
into
the
user's
story,
level
of
abstraction
and
so
depending
on
how
this
validation
process
goes.
B
If,
if
that
job
statement,
grammar
doesn't
seem
to
really
get
us
anywhere
like
so
far,
it
really
hasn't.
I
want
to
make
proposal
to
maybe
reframe
it
as
something
else
like
a
user
story
or
something
and
I've
seen
other
jtv
validations
done
on
other
categories,
where
the
jobs
are
pretty
low
level.
It's
something
like
you
know,
trigger
a
pipeline
or
watch
a
pipeline,
and
I
think
a
valid
job
statement
would
be
the
level
above
that
like.
Why
am
I
watching
a
pipeline?
Why?
Why
is
the
pipeline
being
triggered
right?
B
So
yeah
thanks
holly
for
reminding
me
about
that?
I
I
forgot
that
that
was
kind
of
one
of
the
working
premises
behind
picking
those
job
statements
on
the
plan
handbook
page
that
we're
not
in
the
job
statement
grammar,
but
just
right
like
delivering
a
product
and
makes
you
making
sure
it's
the
right.
E
D
C
I
think
it
would
be
better,
even
probably
with
more
people
here
just
to
have
collective
thinking
around
my
topic
that
I
brought
up
the
general
pitches
after
having
a
little
synchronous
discussion
around
like
cascading
settings
and
stuff
with
the
few
pms
in
daniel.
C
I
just
can
recognize
the
fact
that
I'm
a
part
of
the
problem
of
doing
too
many
mvcs
and
not
coming
together
and
synthesizing
it
on
a
bigger
picture
so
trying
to
stop
that,
but
also
while
serving
the
needs
of
users.
At
the
same
time,
I
would
love
some
bigger
design
ideas
from
the
other
teammates
how
to
combat
that.
B
Yeah,
that's
a
really,
I
think
when
you
just
said.
If,
when
there's
more
people
on
the
call,
I
think
that's
a
good
topic
for
the
ux
channel
or
the
ux
co-working
channel,
because
I
think
other
other
folks
have
explored
ways
to
do
that.
Like
ci
cd
has
think
big
sessions.
I
know
security.
Secure
has
also
done
some
of
that
to
try
to
think
big
and
then
still
act
small
through
smaller
vcs.