►
From YouTube: Geo POC's
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
A
And
I
need
to
go
to
the
market
ya
know.
So
my
observation
was
and
I
I
kind
of
wanted
to
hear
your
opinion
on
it
when
we
start
new
things
right,
actually,
new
functionalities
or
bits
of
work
that
are
relatively
complex,
I
think
usually,
this
starts
with
a
discussion
about
the
problem
and
why
we
want
to
fix
it.
A
The
product
meeting
on
life
using
epics
and
splitting
those
into
smaller
pieces
and
I
fully
agree
that,
but
something
that
also
has
happened
I
think
recently,
is
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
I,
don't
know
if
it's,
if
it's
hard
enough
or
abstract
enough,
that
there
were
suggestions
of
like
okay
before
we
actually
are
able
to
I
think
break
this
down.
You
need
to
make
some
decisions,
unlike
what
we
want
to
do
and
in
order
to
get
a
feeling
for
how
this
can
even
look
like.
Let's
do
a
small,
POC,
proof-of-concept
and
so
Mike.
A
B
That
is
a
good
question,
so
I
think
that
I
really
like
the
way
that
we
work
with
it
with
epics
and
issues
and
the
way
that
we
start
from
understanding
what
the
actual
use
cases
are
and
having
that
discussion
at
the
beginning
is
really
good
to
provide
the
context
for
everyone,
because
it
makes
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
we're
not
going
to
go
off
and
build
the
wrong
thing.
Well,
the
thing
that
doesn't
actually
need
the
need.
B
I
think
that
there
are
some
times
where
the
technical
solution
is
easily
understood
enough,
that
we
can
just
jump
in.
We
can
start
creating
the
issues
because
we
know
from
a
technical
perspective
how
to
solve
this
either.
We've
done
it
before
we've
seen
something
similar
or
we're
just
so
confident
that
we
know
what
we're
going
to
do
that
I.
Think.
In
some
cases
the
technical
root
forward
isn't
as
clear
and
I.
B
Think
the
example
that
you
posted
about
the
maintenance
mode
and
how
to
get
into
reader
into
a
read-only
state
is
one
of
those
things,
because
there
probably
a
couple
of
different
ways
that
we
could
achieve
this
and
we
could
get
all
in
the
theory
about
it
and
say
from
a
theoretical
perspective.
We
need
to
choose
this
route
because
that's
going
to
get
us
in
these
directions
and
then
making
a
choice
based
on
theory.
B
But
what
I
really
like
is
having
small
group
of
concepts
that
are
built,
because
then
the
discussion
becomes
much
more
concrete
and
sometimes
a
proof-of-concept
you.
Sometimes
you
only
have
to
spend
a
day
on
the
proof-of-concept
to
realize
that
this
is
absolutely
not
feasible
and
then
at
least
it's
saved
all
that
work
of
breaking
down
the
issues
along
this
technical
path.
B
When
it
turns
out
the
technical
path
is
false,
but
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
risks
that
comes
with
the
proof
of
concepts
is
that
proof
of
concepts
can
just
expand
and
expand
and
get
more
complicated
and
take
up
more
and
more
time
when,
in
actual
fact,
the
proof
of
concept
doesn't
have
to
extend.
Like
that,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
we
need
to
introduce,
if
we're
going
to
be
doing
more
proof
of
concepts,
is
that
the
proof
of
concept
needs
to
have
a
goal.
B
C
A
C
A
B
B
We
create
an
issue
that
says,
create
a
proof
of
concepts
to
investigate
the
solution
and
the
route
and
the
output
of
the
proof
of
concepts
needs
to
address
these
states
or
the
goal
is
the
goal:
is
this
and
at
least
and
that's
trackable
through
the
boards,
and
once
it's
completed
from
a
technical
perspective,
we
have
a
greater
understanding
of
what
we
need
to
do
and
then
it's
much
easier
to
work
together
to
break
that
down
into
pieces.
Exactly.
A
Because
I
I
think
I
think
maybe
the
way
forward
here
is,
you
know
like
if
somebody
like
Mike,
who
is
technically
very
knowledgeable
right
suggests
like
okay,
let's
take
a
step
back
like
I
kind
of
need
to
like
get
my
like
heads
up
like
my
hands
in
here
and
do
something
or
like
another
engineer
and
if
they're
sort
of
a
notion
of
doing
it,
because
this
is
for
me
as
a
p.m.
sometimes
something
sounds
very
similar,
like
some
examples,
someone's
very
simple
right.
A
A
B
What
we
do
with
proof
of
concepts,
then
is
I
mean
there
is
the
concept
of
a
due
date
on
the
issues,
and
maybe
what
we
do
is
when
the
proof
of
concept
get
scheduled
author
before
the
proof
of
concept
is
even
scheduled.
We
determine
what
like
how
much
time
we
think
should
be
allocated
into
it,
and
we
put
two
dates
on
the
proof
of
concept
and
the
day
following
your
due
date.
All
the
day
or
due
date
is
when
there's
a
discussion
that
happens
in
the
channel
or
on
the
issue
about
what
has
been
found.
B
So
the
expectation
is,
if
you
have
a
proof
of
concept
on
the
date
on
the
issue.
You'll
provide
your
feedback
and
a
summary
so
that
the
discussion
can
continue,
and
that
way
it's
it's
time
boxed.
But
people
still
have
the
flexibility
to
fit
the
PRC
in
around
the
other
work
that
they
may
have,
or
the
reviews
that
they
may
be
doing
and
things
like
that.
But
then
also
you
have
your
expectations.
I
managed,
in
terms
of
when
you
will
get
feedback
about
this
issue,
because
that's
something
that
I
mean
that's
it's.
A
I
think
the
other
the
other
I
see
is,
if
folks
think
that
oh,
we
need
a
pure
C
and
the
pure
C
will
take
a
month
right
or
like
it's
very
complex.
That's
also
maybe
an
indication
that
the
thing
is
too
large
right,
I
think
the
the
other
thing
that
I
would
like
to
avoid
is
we
should
do
the
minimal,
viable
thing
to
move
forward
and
break
it
down
as
such,
so
also
for
from
a
POC
perfect.
A
If
it
doesn't
need
to
attack
everything
right,
it
just
needs
to
techno
just
enough
right
to
validate
that
we
can.
We
can
do
sort
of
a
minimal
iteration
forward
and
what
that
would
be
right,
and
sometimes
the
minimal
iteration
is
still
5
m
RS
in
five
different
issues
and
it's
a
sizable
chunk
of
work.
Sometimes
maybe
it's
it's
less
I
think
that
sort
of
the
other
risk
I
see
is
that
you
know
this
lends
itself
there's
no
blowing
up
in
scope.
Well,.
B
A
And
if
we,
if
we
do
a
concrete
example
in
the
maintenance
mode,
for
example,
I
think
the
the
main
thing
that
people
see
here
needs
to
to
validate
is,
for
example,
and
what
level
we
should
block
right
operations
right.
So
you
could
say
the
PUC
should
validate
that.
We
can
do
achieve
this
by
like,
and
there
is
a
suggestion,
refactoring
sort
of
the
the
middleware
right,
and
if
that
is
a
valid
path
forward,
we
can
say
that,
yes,
that
worked
and
worked
well
right
here
here
is
a
functional
thing.
A
B
A
B
I
think
it's
I.
B
Don't
I
don't
want
to
introduce
POCs
for
every
small
piece
of
what
it
accomplished
it
needs
to
be
for
the
stuff
where
we're
just
completely
not
sure
about
how
this
is
gonna
work
or
what
this
is
going
to
look
like
and
I
think
yeah
I
think
for
this
one.
Specifically
it's
about
what
level
doesn't
lock
go
in
yeah,
so
I
think
I
mean
this
I.
Think.
To
summarize
what
we've
been
talking
about
when
some
when
an
epoch
is
in
the
solution,
validation
phase
we
create
and
we
determined
that
a
proof
of
concept
is
necessary.
B
B
And
so
we
we
create
the
issue
and
put
it
in
positioning
and
when
it
goes
into
development,
we
set
that
we
set
the
time
period
of
five
working
days
or
whatever
that
is,
and
then
the
expectation
is
at
the
due
dates.
People
will
fall
in
some
kind
of
comments
that
shows
what
they've
been
able
to
determine
and
then
you're
able
to
or
to
move
forward
from
that
yeah
so
shall
I
write
a
handbook
entry.
That
is
because.
B
A
I
think
it
should
be
like
it
shouldn't
be
necessary
in
all
instances,
but
it
may
be
necessary
in
some
and
I
think
it
should
also
I
think
for
me,
the
important
thing
is
and
I
think
that
was
a
little
bit
discussion
on
the
POC
for
the
framework
idea.
That
is
like
I,
don't
mind
if
the
POC
gets
thrown
out.
It's
like
nothing
needs
to
be
mirja
ball
at
some
point.
It
is
for
validation
purposes,
and
after
that
you
know,
you
can
say
like
okay.
B
I
completely
agree
with
that,
like
the
proof
of
concept
needs
to
be
the
smallest
thing
that
can
be
done
to
prove
what
like
to
prove
the
goals
of
the
proof
of
the
proof
of
concept.
You
know
that
might
even
mean
creating
into
an
entirely
different
tiny
little
project.
That
proves
something
that
is
technically
possible
like
and,
though,
with
a
form
that
it
takes
is
yeah.
A
And
I
I,
like
so
remember,
there
was
an
example
in
her
in
a
product
book
that
I
read
a
little
while
ago
on
the
notion
that
proofs
of
concept
or
things
need
to
be
complicated
and
that
it
was
the
example
of
like
VR
and
abled
glasses,
and
essentially
they
wanted
to
know.
Okay,
can
people
actually
wear
that,
and
it
was
just
made
out
of
like
cardboard
with
some
weight
on
it,
and
just
by
that
it
learns
like.
A
A
Think
this
is
what
I'm
looking
for
here
when,
when
we're
doing
proof
of
concepts
right,
it
isn't
like
this
is
like
we
have
a
technical,
a
technically
feasible
solution
to
this,
that
we
can
mean
that
we
can
do,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
all
the
details,
but
I
think
the
this
is
also.
Maybe
the
last
thing
I'm
going
to
say
is:
if
we
can't
actually
succeed
with
the
proof-of-concept,
and
we
have
no
viable
technical
solution,
we
can
abort
our
know
to
say
like
this
is
a
problem
that
we
need
to
solve.
A
Eventually,
there
is
a
need
for
this
problem
to
be
solved,
but
at
the
moment
we
have
no
like
acceptable
like
technical
path.
That
allows
us
to
do
that
in
some
in
some
way
that
we
feel
is
appropriate
to
address
this
problem.
But
if,
if
the
only
solution
is
to
walk
away
for
six
months
and
and
solve
it,
you
know
the
priority
order.
Fifth
and.
B
A
And
I
think
that's
also
something
in
communicating
the
issue
and
say
we
looked
at
this.
We
did
this
POC
and
at
the
moment,
like
we
determined
that
that
is
not
the
thing
we
can.
We
can
do
at
this
moment
in
time,
so
it
goes
back
to
the
backlog
and
we'll
revisit
that
at
some
point.
So
super
I
think
that
was
so
that's
a
great
addition.
I
will
raise
the
puce
issue
on
the
maintenance
mode.
I
will.