►
From YouTube: Quality: Engineering Productivity Weekly 2020-04-28
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
C
D
C
B
E
E
E
We
are
using
whatsapp
quite
a
lot
with
my
family.
Otherwise,
and
this
evening
will
we
have
a
video
chat
with
my
mother
and
two
processors,
because
my
mother
is
retired
since
yesterday,
so
that's
I'm
super
happy
for
her
and
and
yeah.
So
we'll
celebrate
that
it's
evening
and
yeah
regarding
the
games,
we
played
some
games
with
my
college
friends
and
we
mostly
played
like
the
like
the
pictionary.
You
know
when
you
have
to
draw
something
and
the
people
have
to
guess.
E
D
Yeah,
mostly
fun
we
use
Viper
as
well
in
my
family,
but
the
other
thing
we've
been
doing
is
games
on
the
Xbox,
so
there's
voice
chat
on
the
Xbox,
but
there's
also
this
thing
called
jack
box
party
games,
which
is
pretty
cool,
so
one
person
hosts
the
game
and
then
everyone
else
like
has
a
quiz
kind
of
well.
It's
like
a
buzzer
on
your
phone.
D
So
then
you
paste
in
the
answers
and
you
can
do
that
privately
on
your
phone
and
then
people
get
eliminated
from
the
game,
but
you
can
do
it
with
up
to
eight
players
and
one
personal
host,
the
the
actual
game,
and
then
everyone
else
will
interact
with
it
on
their
their
phone,
which
is
pretty
cool.
So
we've
done
that
a
few
times
there's
several
games
on
there.
D
That's
bought
four
or
five
different
games
and
just
other
general
games
on
the
Xbox
have
been
good
ones
that
you
can
work
together
cooperative
games,
but
we
haven't
really
done
any
zoom
meetings.
Yet
my
girlfriend's
been
doing
a
lot
of
like
quiz
nights
with
colleagues
and
and
friends,
but
not
really.
My
my
family
I
haven't
been
introduced
to
zoom,
yet
so.
C
Ya
know
jobox
duties,
so
they
really
used
to
play
games
it's
good
fun
and
really
like
to
use
experience
of
that
Oh.
What
was
it
hosting
and
you
can
see
you
can
clean
it?
Like
you,
cooking
pot,
big
part,
try
to
put
me
on
the
unfolds.
I
mean
the
whole
is
consider
the
games
created
and
sort
of
game
master
is
played
three
hosts,
pretty
cool
I,
don't
know
it's
mostly.
Let
me
try
having
Skype
calls
with
extended
family,
my
wife's,
both
my
wife
and
my
my
extended
family.
C
B
Awesome
thanks.
Everybody
for
sharing,
as
I
said,
I
kind
of
thought
of
this
related
to
friends
and
family
day.
So
friends
and
family
day
is
Friday.
Please
take
time
to
charge
and
relax,
connect
with
loved
ones.
I
think
it's
really
cool
that
can
get
labs
doing
this,
so
please
take
advantage
of
it.
I
know
for
some
of
you
that
day
is
already
holiday.
Let
me
know
what
replacement
day
that
you
have
and
I'll
make
sure
and
get
everything
set
up
cool.
B
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
call
attention
to
which
was
a
change.
It
just
kind
of
like
rapidly
happen
yesterday
in
Mecca,
and
my
one
on
one
is
average
cost
for
pipelines
now
a
department,
KPI
and
the
target
was
suggested
to
125.
So
in
discussion
with
Mac.
We
feel
that
this
accurately
represents
our
team's
focus
on
efficiency,
where
we've
kind
of
shifted
focus
away
in
some
aspects
from
pipeline
duration,
improvements
towards
general
efficiency
improvements
in
reducing
that,
like
optimizing,
that
number
and
we
adjusted
the
target
to
be
ambitious
like
the
other
KPIs
as
well.
B
Cool
the
other
thing
I
want
to
call
attention
to
is
I,
didn't
I,
guess
last
week's
meeting
didn't
record.
I
was
unable
to
find
it
in
my
zoom
recordings,
so
my
apologies
for
that
I
think
that
was
due
to
me
updating
the
meeting
and
the
settings
not
carrying
over
so
I
updated
this
week's
meeting
or
sorry
the
repeating
meeting
the
new
repeating
meeting
to
set
everyone
as
hosts,
so
that
you
should
be
able
to
record
and
do
anything
do
everything
that
a
host
can
do.
B
Retrospective
is
is
next
week,
although
the
release
is
already
over.
Please
update
our
1210
retrospective
issue
with
anything
that
you
thought
went
well
didn't
go
as
well
could
have
been
improved.
I
know
that
those
are
we
always
we
always
feed
a
lot
into
the
overall
company
retrospective,
so
I'd
be
really
interested
to
see
what
everyone
thinks
this
week
or
this
release,
and
lastly,
I
changed
this
one
around.
So,
if
you
read
ahead
of
time,
I
took
out
all
the
updates.
B
The
engineering
key
review
is
today,
so
this
is
a
meeting
that
MEC
does
with
all
the
exec
team
at
get
lab
where
they
review
the
KPIs
and
provide
an
update
from
the
last
discussion
and
as
Mac
and
I
were
kind
of
going
through
the
KPIs
for
the
department.
We
saw
improvement
across
the
board,
so
I
want
to
call
attention
to
the
great
work
that
everyone's
been
doing
on
that
you
can
see
the
details
in
the
agenda
which
I've
linked
to
which
should
be
public
and
then
there's
also
MEC
also
recorded
an
update.
B
Okay,
all
right
I'm,
actually
gonna
share
my
screen
for
this
next
item.
Real
quick
to
talk
through
this,
so
Albert
was
talking
talking
with
me
about
just
how
okay
ours
are
little.
They
change
in
the
okay
are
in
just
okay,
ours
in
general
that
we're
responsible
for
it's
still
a
little
unclear.
So
I
thought
it'd
be
good
to
talk
through
it.
I
linked
to
I'll,
say
I,
linked
to
the
top
issue.
That's
used
and
get
lab
comm
for
all
of
the
okay
ours.
B
So
this
is
an
issue
show,
so
it
shows
up
in
the
engineering
management
board
and
then
from
here.
This
links
to
the
department,
okay,
ours,
which
are
epics
and
the
key
result
issues
under
those
epics
at
the
department
level.
So
there's
three
department,
okay,
ours
and
then
each
team
has
their
own
OPR
for
from
an
efficiency
sake
from
a
tracking
and
updating
perspective.
This
okay
are
at
the
department.
B
Level,
is
really
owned
by
engineering
productivity
team
and
instead
of
duplicating
it
and
having
a
team
one
that
we
would
update
and
then
feed
into
a
department,
one
we're
just
gonna
track
it
at
the
department
level.
Within
this
epic
and
the
K
are
our
team-
okay
are
down.
Here
is
also
the
other
one
that
will
be
worse
there,
we'll
be
focusing
on.
So
these
are
the
two
okay
ours
that
will
focus
in
on
and
then
the
K
ours
are
all
issues
within
those.
So.
B
Does
that
help
kind
of
like
provide
some
provide
some
structure
to
this
change?
I
know.
In
the
past
we
were
using
issue
like
we're
doing
things
a
little
bit
differently.
This
this
quarter
had
a
we
switch
to
this
I'll
say
we
switch
to
this
structure
just
to
try
and
be
consistent
across
the
engineering
department.
B
B
A
B
Did
link
to
the
issue
if
you
down
below,
let
me
know
if
there's
any
questions
feel
free
to
ask
my
issues
as
well.
There's
any
questions,
because
it's
likely,
if
you
have
one
everyone
else,
does
so
cool.
Okay.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item:
Jin
Qin,
do
you
want
to
talk
about
the
namespace
discussion,
yeah.
A
Think
the
major
major
one
might
be
the
CI
one
which
had
like
pipeline
and
jobs
build
under
CI,
but
there
are
also
a
lot
of
module
classes
which
doesn't
have
dead
space
and
what
Drago
is
proposing
that
all
modules
to
or
which
you
use
more
than
spaces
and
sure
that's
a
good
idea
and
he's
asking
if
we
ascertain
want
to
take
over,
take
the
ownership
of
this
and
and
I'm
just
curious.
What
else
is
thinking
about
this
because
it
feels
like
some
other
people
are
asking
was
thinking
that
we
should
be.
C
C
Whether
our
team
should
be
the
one
etcetera
takes
responsibility:
okay,
I'm,
not
sure,
because
I
think
for
one
miracles,
very
in-depth
knowledge
of
the
Commish
and
to
know
how.
Where
are
their?
What
are
the
names
basis?
That
should
be
what
makes
sense
what
I
think
I
personally
I
don't
know
enough
to
make
the
right
judgment.
Maybe
the
team
as
a
whole
has
enough
knowledge
Telltale's,
possibly
the
other
possibility.
C
A
C
A
Think
I
also
have
a
more
general
question
about
this,
like
we
also
see
some
other
requests
like
this
from
the
past.
My
the
code
base
should
be
organized
in
some
other
ways
and
yeah.
Oh,
it's
like,
of
course,
that's
a
good
idea,
but
that's
a
lot
of
work
and
and
I'm
not
sure
if
the
the
outcome
is
worth
the
before
so
I'm
just
curious
how
we
should
respond
to
this
kind
of
requester.
We
have
some
general
ID
you
about
this
or
just
look
at
the
case
by
case.
E
Yeah
I
think
yeah
I
think
usually
the
ideas
that
are
proposed
are
good
in
general,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
be
responsible
for
any
of
those
at
I.
Think
at
the
max
that
we
can
do
is
to
like
document
these
decisions
and
help
communicate
or
educate
people,
but
we
shouldn't
have
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
all
of
these
ideas
or
even
bottlenecks
and
I
agree
that
each
team
has
the
knowledge
about
yeah.
E
B
Yeah
I
agree
with
that
specific
one.
I
guess
my
concern
areas
were:
do
we
have
the
knowledge
to
do
this
effectively
and
it
feels
like
we
would
be
a
bottleneck
and
distract
like
we
take
away
from
other
objectives
to
to
do
this
and
I
think
in
general.
With
these
type
of
changes,
it
makes
more
sense
to
me
to
have
either
the
team.
B
Like
me,
the
maintainer
based
approach
to
Albert
did,
or
even
just
like
a
team
based
approach
where
the
CI
team
is
like
thinks
that
they
would
benefit
from
it
to
start,
and
maybe
collaborate
with
the
rest
of
the
maintainer
zon
a
pattern
for
how
to
go
through
it,
but
I
yeah
I.
Don't
think
this
is
an
area
that
our
team
is
responsible
for
taking
on
and.
C
C
B
E
So
you
had
just
more
thing
about
danger,
because
I
noticed
that
regularly
people
complain
on
slack
most
of
the
time
but
and
tend
to
see
the
attention
like
something
that
is
I,
don't
know
out
of
the
project
like
it's
just
a
knowing
them,
but
they
won't
create
issue
or
even
like
update
it
yeah.
It's
yes,
I
I
think
it's
almost
like
a
rant.
Now
at
this
point
yeah
now
just
it
was
just
something
that
I
noticed.
E
A
E
E
And
I
think
that's
also
some
confusion,
because
recently
I
think
we
we
made.
We
made
some
rules,
only
warnings,
even
just
like
messages
instead
of
failures
so
and
actually
went
in
the
backlog,
officious
about
Zhengzhou,
and
there
were
a
few
key
issues
that
that
we
actually
solved
all
that
weren't
relevant
anymore.
E
B
A
E
B
B
This
originally
kind
of
rolled
cid,
Eric
Mac
me
the
into
that
issue
very
rapidly
without
a
lot
of
context,
really
just
the
specific
task
of
let's
delete
backstage,
which
led
to
me
trying
to
figure
out.
Why
would
that
make
it?
Why
would
that
make
sense?
I
did
create
the
issue
with
that
and
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
missing
context
and
confusion
in
this
issue
from
the
start.
So
I
do
want
to
apologize
for
that.
B
That's
the
objective
that
we're
trying
to
do
is
help
equipped
that
next
level
questions
that
the
next
level
of
questions
are
being
asked
now,
where
I
was
confused
as
when
I
start
looking
at
backstage,
Mrs
I
see
a
number
of
the
assumptions
that
I
was
making
we're
like
refactor
technical
debt,
I'll
say
like
dependency
updates.
Even
pipeline
changes
do
not
relate
to
backstage
at
all,
so
Remy
detailed.
B
B
So
that's
a
lot
of
I'll
say,
but
that's
a
lot
of
the
background
that
led
into
the
issue
and
where
we're
at
now
I
want
to
try
and
work
on.
How
do
we
move
forward
towards
our
q2?
Okay
are
on
this
I
did
try
to
update
the
plan
last
night
to
really
expand
this
out
to
be
a
subtype
for
more
than
just
backstage,
because
I
think
that
visibility
is
missing
on
all
of
them.
B
It's
just
surfacing
for
backstage,
because
it's
the
largest
proportion
of
the
EM
our
throughput
chart
and
where
I'm
at
right
now
is
migrating.
What
is
in
backstage
some
of
what's
in
backstage
to
a
differently
named
label
and
then
improving
nudges,
tooling
and
guidance
for
all
throughput
types
so
having
that
taxonomy?
There's
the
proposal
in
that
issue
that
again,
I
tried
to
be
as
specific
as
I
could
but
I'm
curious.
What
other
people's
thoughts
on
this
are.
E
Yes,
I
I,
yeah
I
put
a
lot
of
that's
on
this.
So
basically,
my
my
take
on
this
is
that
we
should
basically
split
the
backstage
label
into
more
specific
scoped
labels
or,
if
I,
no
scoped.
But
what
I
mean
is
that
we
should
document
and
make
clear
what
are
the
the
limits
of
backstage
well
like
what
are
the
kind
of
backstage
change,
for
instance,
technical
debt,
GI,
config,
test
architecture,
dependency
of
the
attendee
about
static
analysis.
In
my
in
my
mind,
it's
all
of
that.
E
It's
backstage
and
everything
else
or
medium
I'm
missing
a
few
categories.
But
basically
the
idea
is
to
say
that,
instead
of
putting
everything
on
the
backstage
and
with
without
no
details,
let's
make
a
specific
best,
backstage
type
and
and
I
think
the
good
thing
about
that
is
that
people
will
start
using
backstage
for
groundwork
for
future
change
like
with
actors,
or
you
know,
the
kind
of
change
that
that
are
invisible
to
the
end-user
that
are
actually
building
blocks
for
future.
E
B
That's
the
part
that
I
would
like
people's
thoughts
on
so
my
apologies
for
not
being
clear
on
that
ask
so
where
I'm
at
on
changing
the
term
is
I.
Think
foundation
is
the
more
commonly
encountered
term.
That
kind
of
represents
how
I
see
backstage
is
it's
like
critical
for
the
things
that
the
user
sees
to
be
successful?
B
Backstage
represents
that
but
I
think
it's
just
encountered
less
frequently
in
like
general
terminology,
so
so
that
that's
what
I
think
backstage
is
more
relatable,
especially
my
comment
that
I
had
about
external
parties,
which
was
something
I,
hadn't
really
considered
until
after
the
one-on-one
with
Matt.
Yesterday
that
that's
that's,
why
I
think
that
I
also
think
it'll
help
with
retraining
behaviors
so
like
that
switch?
B
The
hard
switch
will
really
help
enable
us
to
retrain
some
of
the
like
exactly
what
you
just
talked
about,
where
groundwork
for
features
are
really
labeled
as
backstage
right
now,
but
we
need
to
encourage
that
to
be
labeled
as
feature
groundwork
or
something
related
to
feature
so
that
it's
getting
accounted
for.
I.
Think
in
the
right,
throughput
type
is.
D
There
a
need
to
retrofit
this,
the
people
interested
in
what
happened
or
that
people
just
interested
in
what's
going
what's
happening
going
forward,
so
we're
gonna
still
have
this
backstage
section
in
the
throughputs
list.
That
accounts
for,
however,
many
mode
requests
in
a
release,
but
going
forward
we're
going
to
keep
the
umbrella
term
and
break
it
down
so
that
stacks
broken
down
somewhat,
but
the
historical
charts
will
still
just
maintain
backstage
or
whatever
this.
Whatever
this
label,
maybe
changes
into
yeah.
B
So
I
I
would
like
to
see
us
get
everything
consistent
and
retrofitted.
I
think
that's
easier
to
say
than
to
do
it's
much
easier
to
say,
oh,
like
clearly
but
yeah,
but
I
I,
don't
think.
That's
necessarily
a
part
of
the
like
the
initial
implementation.
I'd
be
okay
with
backstage
existing
in
the
same
way
that
it
does
but
I'd
like
to
look
towards.
How
can
we
retrofit.
D
B
D
B
D
There
was
a
lot
of
terms
that
would
maybe
fit
into
our
asset
types,
so
you
know
maybe
like
technical
debt,
that
that
was
one
that
I
saw
a
few
times,
but
there
wasn't
any
kind
of
overarching
or
one
which,
which
we
do
have
I
mean.
It
probably
take
a
bit
more
investigation
to
see
whether
there
is
a
general
type
for
these.
These
types
of
changes,
but
a
quick
glance
I,
couldn't
find
anything
similar
that
we
could
just
use
to
to
mirror
those
of
the
projects
and
take
that
idea
from
there.
E
Yeah
but
the
terminology,
I'm
I'm,
open
to
change
backstage,
don't
get
me
wrong,
but
I
think
foundation
is
is
not
the
right
term
like
foundation
to
me,
is
like
the
building
blocks
the
base
for
building
all
the
rest
on
top
of
it,
but
you
could
build
features
without
the
CI
technically
and
so
I.
Put
that
in
my
last
comment.
Basically
to
me
backstage
is
about
maintenance,
quality
and
consistency
and
really
reliability,
and
so
I
would
like
to
find
like
how
I
see
it
is
that
future.
E
The
future
chains
are
not
are
not
on
the
backstage
shoulders,
but
we
are
holding
hand
like
we
are
making
sure
that
the
the
future
work
is
maintainable.
The
long
term
is
not
breaking.
Everything
is,
is
adding
to
the
architecture,
guidelines
that
we
have
and
all
of
that
and
merge
request,
quality,
etc,
and
so
we
are
I
mean
not
we,
especially,
but
the
backstage
as
I
see.
It
is
really
like
side-by-side
with
feature
work
and
I
would
like
to
attach.
That
is
not.
B
E
E
C
B
So
I
yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
My
my
original
thoughts
are.
There
would
still
be
this
I
love
all
type
that
would
that
would
almost
replace
and
then
it
would
just
be
the
absence
of
a
subtype.
So
we
would
try
okay,
we're
looking
at
existing.
Mrs,
we
would
apply
a
subtype
where
it
was
clear
and
the
absence
of
it
would
indicate
that
it's
not
and
then
go
forward.
That's
where
we
would
encourage
application
of
subtype
and
infer
the
general
type
yeah.
D
D
B
Remy
I
I
definitely
see
your
point
of
foundation,
giving
the
indication
that
it's
beneath
the
other
types
of
changes
versus
like
in
collaboration,
I,
think
that's
something
that
consider
as
you
and
I
talked
about
yesterday,
too
I've
gone
back
and
forth
on
this
terminal.
Do
you
think
and
I
don't
know,
I
can't
think
of
a
bit
of
like
a
term
that
it
kind
of
represents
what
we're
looking
to
do
on
this
yeah
that
satisfies
everything.
Yeah.
B
So
if
we
keep
it,
I
I
would
like
to
be
really
clear
on
how
we're
gonna,
leverage,
tooling
and
automation,
to
help
ensure
better,
oh
I,
more
accurate
application
of
it.
I
would
say
so
that
we're
bringing
those
habits
like
that.
That's
that's
the
that's
the
thing
that
I've
I
think
we
can
make
the
case
a
little
bit
better
than
just
like
we're,
keeping
it
and
trying
to
add
a
new
taxonomy.
If
we
add
a
new
taxonomy
and
do
ABCD
to
help
ensure
compliance,
I
think
that
would
that
would
be
a
good
approach
to
yeah.
E
B
So
I'm
gonna
continue
to
get
that
thought.
I'd
welcome
thoughts
in
the
issues
on
that
line,
because
that's
really
I
think
the
point
that
we're
at
and
the
proposal
is,
if
we
keep
backstage,
how
are
we
gonna
help
ensure
better
consistency
within
the
taxonomy
Theory
tooling,
and
if
we
change
it,
what
is
the
term
that
makes
sense?
I
I
think
the
first
problem
is
easier
to
solve,
keeping
backstage
and
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
do
it.
Then
what
is
a
new
terminology?
Naming
things
is
hard
yeah.
C
So
I'm,
just
late
on
so
I,
think
I
think
the
first
problem
gives
us
more
immediate
value,
because
I
think
the
problem
we
have
right
now
is
that
a
lot
of
backstitch
and
bars
are
not
don't
even
of
additional
context
to
them
that
we
are
able
to
identify
it.
What
type
of
what
kind
of
change
change
it
is!
C
So
are
they
keeping
back
stitch,
meaning
must
not
move
change,
we
need
to
do
and
then
we
can
focus
on
getting
a
little
finer,
more
granular
information
of
these
changes,
rather
than
having
to
figure
out
what
a
new
name
incident
after
that.
That
alone
is
a
difficult
problem
and
then,
beyond
that,
we
still
encounter
the
same
problem
of
I
saw
insufficient
information.
Yeah.
C
B
So
I
think
what
I
will
try
to
do?
What
I
will
is
summarize
this
discussion
see
if
we
can
get
some
thoughts
from
back,
maybe
some
of
the
others
on
that
in
the
issue
to
say
we
kind
of
read
a
fork
here.
We
realized
that
changing
the
term
is
going
to
help
help
with
new
behaviors,
as
well
as
potentially
improve
clarity
to
additional
parties
which
we
weren't
considering,
but
in
the
spirit
of
iteration.
B
We
feel
that
adding
a
new
taxonomy,
adding
tooling
to
help
ensure
that
taxonomy
is
being
followed
and
nudging
M
ARS
into
the
right
category
may
be
a
better
first
step
because
it's
less
work
and
it
will
help
us
be
able
to
better
measure.
Are
we
doing
better
on
our
objective
than
what
we
previously
were?
E
C
B
Appreciate
all
the
feedback
and
discussion
on
this,
like
I,
said
my
intent
was
to
try
and
like
get
it
in
a
better
state
and
then
share
it
with
the
team,
but
I
think
we've
got
to
that
better
state,
much
faster,
so
I'm
I
don't
want
to
really
work
and
I
like
to
work
like
that
anymore.
That
was
a
good
lesson
learned
for
me
in
this.
In
this
situation,
I
know
we're
a
little
over
on
time.
The
Chinchin.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this
next
week,
or
should
we
just?
A
B
Cool
all
right-
that
is
great,
so
thanks
for
the
good
discussion
I
will
I
probably
won't
update
the
issue
because,
like
this
is
the
time
when
I
run
around
with
the
kids
for
like
an
hour
or
two,
so
I'll
get
the
issue
on
backstage
the
general
changes
updated
here
in
a
few
minutes
so
or
a
few
hours.
Sorry
yeah
see
everyone
thanks
for
the
good
good
discussion.
Good
meeting
have
a
good
rest.
You
tanks,
a
good.