►
From YouTube: Create Group Conversation
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
B
B
It's
a
good
point:
the
early
iteration,
the
first
few
iterations
of
design
management
are
focused
on
the
upload
aspects
of
the
images
and
getting
them
into
a
git
repository
and
then
making
the
versions
available,
making
sure
the
images
are
being
stored
in
LFS.
So
there's
a
few
releases
ahead
before
we
actually
get
to
the
batch
comedy
so
I
would
yes
definitely
agree
that
we
should
make
that
commenting
on
images
work,
but
I
guess
batch.
Commenting
is
is
kind
of
separate
to
the
point
of
interest.
D
D
In
fabricator,
for
example,
you
can
leave
a
comment
about
multiple
lines,
so
you
can
kind
of
select
a
it's
about
this
paragraph.
You
know
instead
of
having
to
select
a
specific
line,
and
sometimes
that's
like
a
I,
want
to
leave
a
comment
about
the
paragraph,
not
about
a
specific
line,
not
sure
if
people
find
it
useful
or
if
it's
on
the
radar
of
people.
B
Then
we
decoupled
the
two
things
so
that
you
could
suggest
changes
to
multiple
lines
without
actually
so
they're,
selecting
and
commenting
on
multiple
lines
because,
as
we
started,
investigating
it
from
the
UX
perspective,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
challenges,
and
so
one
of
the
I
guess
things
that
I,
don't
think
fabricated
does
very
well.
Is
comments
aren't
displayed
by
default?
B
So
that's
a
really
big
downside
of
commenting
on
ranges
where
they'll
overlap
and
the
other
I
guess
and
downside
is
leaving
a
comment
is
really
simple
because
you
just
click
on
at
least
one
on
a
line,
and
you
start
to
decide
which
line
you
leave
the
comment
on,
but
you
don't
have
to
decide
like.
Is
this
a
one-line
comment
or
is
it
a
multi-line
comment?
It's
like
where
do
I
put
it
and
I
think
Lizzie,
there's
a
UX
load
that
comes
in
deciding
like
will
this
be
a
single
line.
B
Comment
will
always
be
a
multi-line
comment.
What's
the
right
way
of
doing
it
that
we
we
need
to
factor
in.
So
it's
something
we're
aware
of
listening
to
feedback
about,
but
I'm,
not
necessarily
convinced
that
it's
something
we
wanted
to
do
in
the
short
term,
and
it's
that
it's
the
most
important
code
review
improvement
that
we
could
be
making
the.
B
Josh
chief
on
you're,
leaving
some
cards
sort
of
following
on.
Do
you
want
to
verbalize
any
questions
or
comments?
Yeah.
E
A
B
So
I
guess
you
can
leave
a
comment
on
a
line
that
your
suggestion.
Could
you
suggest
to
change?
Could
impact
multiple
lines,
I,
guess:
yeah
I,
guess
that's
kind
of
the
point
I
was
making
early
on
in
his
life.
They
they
were
initially
seem
very
tightly
related
and
I.
Think
there
is
a
strong
relationship
between
the
two
and
the
most.
B
B
And
there's
a
discoverability
issue
currently
that
we're
aware
of
with
suggesting
changes
the
buttons
not
very
obvious.
We've
got
a
proposal
to
increase
that
and
hopefully
increase
usage
of
that
feature
and
I.
Think
yeah.
We'll
need
to
address
that
also
for
the
multi-line
suggestions,
but
I
think
you
can.
B
Probably
you
can
sort
of
tackle
them
as
separate
things
like
yes,
dragging
and
selecting
multiple
lines
is
one
way
of
doing
it,
but
perhaps
if
the
button
to
like
suggest
a
change
opens
some
other
selector
or
some
other
way
of
previewing
it
or
you've
got
a
diff
preview
and
you
can
say
like
and
two
more
lines
above
or
below,
like
there's
multiple
ways
to
skin
that
cat.
That
don't
necessarily
require
the
multi-line
comment.
C
F
F
Yes,
so
my
point
is:
when
a
lot
of
us
at
kill,
abused,
Gila,
source
control
beyond
source
control,
we
use
it
for
content,
and
so
most
people
that
I've
see,
for
example,
when
they
do
changes
a
handbook
that
they
don't
break
their
lines
and
paragraphs
and
I
don't
think
they
should,
because
that's
not
how
you
write
in
any
other
text,
editor
outside
of
Gil
Labs,
so
but
I
purposely
break
the
lines,
because
I
wanted
to
look
nice
and
also
it's
easier
to
comment.
So
is
there?
Have
you
had
any
thoughts
on
solving
that
problem?
F
B
F
G
F
F
B
It
I
mean
it's
possible
in
the
the
web
ID
perhaps,
but
then
there's
plenty
of
people
I,
think
that
are
committing
to
the
release
post
directly
from
their
local
editors.
We've
like
seven
hundred
character,
long
lines,
I,
think
providing
tools
and
bit
of
feedback
around
line
length
might
be
one
way
but
I
think
there's,
there's
still
another
line.
Probably
people
write
prose
and
there's
a
school
of
thought
around
writing
prose
and
text
files
that
you
don't
force
their
line
limit
and
you
let
the
the
view
graph
and
so
commenting
on
that
situation.
B
F
D
Yeah
thanks
I
think
it
got
answered
to
the
key
issue
in
the
epic
we're
looking
into
kind
of
showing
code
coverage
in
line,
but
we're
not
there
yet,
and
there
are
some
things
that
are
marked
accepting
my
request.
I
know
of
some
company
at
this
organization,
switching
from
fabricator
who
really
lost
his
CDs,
but
I
think
it's
all
handled
in
the
issue.
So
thanks
for
that.
H
A
G
Be
great,
this
is
a
great
conversation
by
the
way,
as
I
shared
on
the
in
the
G
create
channel
and
I'll
share
a
snippet
here
in
the
doc
for
anybody
that
wants
to
do
it.
I
used
tampermonkey
to
disable
the
old
school
edit
button
and
get
lab
to
force
myself
to
use
the
web
ID.
So
I'm
thinking
by
the
web
ID
a
lot
and
I'm
just
wondering
I
know.
B
Yeah
wow
you
hit
on
one
of
these
great
debates.
That's
raged
about
the
web
ID
and
its
purpose
when
we
were
thinking
about
building
the
file
tree
into
the
ED
requests
that
that
request
actually
came
through
as
implement
commenting
and
essentially
all
the
merge
request
features
into
the
body.
So
it
was,
it
was
all
proposed
in
the
other
direction
to
essentially
replacement
requests
with
the
wave
ID
and
do
it
all
in
web.
So
we
had
to
think
about
that
quite
carefully
and
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
haven't
gotten.
B
That
is
that
there
is
a
really
there
are
some
things
that
mode
requires
to
do
that
are
really
different
to
the
web
idea
in
terms
of
the
discussions
that
are
not
associated
with
the
DIF
seeing
versions
and
history
there's
a
lot
of
information
that
is
shared
like
we
show
to
CI
information
things
like
that,
but
there's
a
lot
of
sort
of
workflows
and
purposes
and
intention
in
the
merge
request.
Interface,
that's
quite
different
grounds.
We've
in
common.
B
There's
ongoing
interest
in
people
who,
like
I'd,
like
to
be
able
to
suggest
comments
from
the
merge
request,
particularly
if
I'm
reviewing
a
really
complicated
change
and
I
want
to
suggest
a
series
of
changes
without
like
that
needs
to
sort
of
be
merged
together.
So
let's
say
someone's
like
needs
needs
a
functionary
factor
but
doesn't
know
how
to
do
it
and
needs
a
few
other
things
changed
and
it's
gonna
touch
like
lots
of
lines
or
twenty
percent
of
the
lines
in
the
merge
requests.
B
You
can't
really
suggest
to
change
as
a
code
comment,
because
it's
gonna
be
impossible
to
review
and
understand,
what's
being
proposed,
and
maybe
it's
actually
composed
of
four
suggestions
across
four
different
files
and
what
they
might
accept,
one
of
them,
but
not
the
other
ones.
So
the
whole
thing
doesn't
work.
B
Think
the
last
month's
create
timki
when
we
were
talking
about
planning
and
other
things
where
we
were
suggesting
well
what
if
there
was
a
really
streamlined
way
to
actually
open
a
merge
request,
I'm
doing
the
odd
request
that
looks
more
like
a
suggestion
and
could
be
like
a
merged
in
with
a
single
click.
So
that's
one
idea
of
like
a
workflow
that
might
accommodate
some
of
that.
It's
not
really
addressing
the
commenting
situation
that
you
brought
up
like
wanting
to
leave
comments
in
the
web
idea.
B
There's
definitely
issue
an
issue
open
for
that
tracking
interest
in
that,
but
I'm
pretty
hesitant
to
duplicate
everything
from
the
merge
request
interface
into
the
web
IDE,
because
if
we
start
leaving
comments,
then
people
want
to
start
viewing
comments
as
well
and
it's
as
existing
trends
and
then
all
sudden,
we
do
protect
the
diff
view
into
them
into
the
world.
Video
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
that
we
want
to
do
that.
But
it's
an
interesting
idea.
G
You
know:
that's
that's
really
up
for
them
and
yeah.
It's
not
I
just
wanted
to
find
a
harder
problem
solved
than
what
Victor
came
up
with.
Okay,
that's
what
I
was
going
for,
but
yeah
I
know.
That's
why
I
wasn't
terribly
suggested.
I
was
interested
in
how
the
team's
thinking
about
it.
So
that's
really
helpful.
Thanks,
James
nice.
E
Josh,
would
you
like
to
vandalize
your
question?
Yeah
I
think
it's
largely
answered,
basically
I
enjoy
using
the
Oh,
buddy
and,
and
one
challenge
I've
had
isn't
never
able
to
find
out
how
they
get
back
to
the
mr
from
like,
when
I
hit
the
button
to
open
in
web
ID
how
to
get
back
over,
and
so
that
was
my
question
and
I.
Believe
me.
Thank
you
for
posting
the
link
I!
That's
not!
E
If
that
wasn't
new
and
alum
that
nine
then
I
finally
have
missed
it
for
a
long
time,
but
that's
great
really
happy
to
see
it
there.
My
only
thought
was
that
I've
also
went
to
look
for
it
in
like
the
right
sidebar,
a
like
thing
where
you
can
get
a
live
preview
like
the
pipeline
and
the
mr
page.
When
you
get
the
whole,
you
gets
a
home
on,
but
you
can't
get
back
to
it
from
there
quite.
E
B
Can
one
good
thing
to
know
is
that
the
link
would
be
there
if
you
clicked
on
the
merge
request
like
open
the
merge
request
in
the
web
IDE.
But
if
you
opened
the
branch
directly
or
you
made
a
commit,
and
you
end
up
on
the
branch
you
wouldn't
even
if
there
was
a
merger
quest
open
against
that
branch,
it
wouldn't
show
you
a
link
back
to
the
merge
request.
B
So
there
were
situations
where
you
would
see
it
and
some
situations
where
you
wouldn't,
and
so
what
we're
working
on
in
all
11.9
or
fully
we've
done
in
all
of
them
dot
9
is
make
it
that
there's
always
that
link
visible
back
to
the
merge
request
and
I
think
that
should
make
a
big
difference
in
unexpected
and
unpredictably
making
that
link
available.
Some
thanks.
D
Thoughts
yeah.
If
we
leave
something
off
by
default
for
self
managed
instances,
should
we
even
make
it
part
of
the
release
post
is
now
we
have
a
release
post
that
says:
well,
we
get
we
this
by
the
way
by
the
folder,
doesn't
work
for
you
by
the
way.
We
also
turn
it
off
and
get
live
calm,
which
is,
makes
us
look
pretty
silly
now,
I'm,
all
for
iteration
I
can
handle
looking
silly,
but
I
think
also.
We
should
kind
of
have
a
back
stuff
I
wish
and
claim.
D
We
shouldn't
claim
anything
unless
we
like
got
it
all
the
way
there
and
otherwise
also
you
lose.
Maybe
a
bit
momentum.
You
and
I
talked
a
bit
about
the
client-side
evaluation
and
how
that's
only
usable
by
like
1%
of
the
population,
we
we
announced
it
we're
done
like
it's
there's
no
pressure
anymore,
but
then
nobody
can
really
use
it.
So
maybe
we
should
say:
hey
look,
something
is
done
when
it's
on
by
default
and
the
worst
thing
is
we
don't
announce
it.
Some
people
find
a
new
feature,
but
it's
not
in
the
release.
B
Yeah,
we
had
quite
a
bit
of
hand,
wringing
about
whether
to
include
it
and
how
to
include
it
in
the
release,
post,
I'm,
not
sure
if
Marc
or
my
pancetta
or
Jeremiah
on
the
call
we
spoke.
We
spoke
about
it
a
quite
a
bit
of
length
before
the
release
post,
because
we
knew
it
was
going
to
be
defaulted
off
because
of
uncertainty
around
not
having
had
quite
as
much
time
as
we
wanted
to
test
it
and
that
planned
out
like
as
soon
as
we
turned
it
on
within
a
couple
of
hours.
B
We
saw
there
were
issues
and
turned
to
back
off
for
another
couple
of
days
until
we
could
fix
it
in
the
next
patch
release,
I
think
the
general
well.
The
outcome
of
that
meeting
was
that
we
did
include
it,
but
I
I
think
I
definitely
see
the
other
perspective
which
is
announcing
based
on
what
is
in
the
like,
the
the
packaged
release
available
to
everyone.
I
guess,
one
of
the
the
items,
this
sort
of
like
key
thing
that
went
backwards
and
forwards
between
everyone
is:
what
is
the
purpose
of
the
release
post?
Is
it
announcing?
B
What's
about
on
get
loud,
calm
who's
in
announcing,
what's
in
the
omnibus
release,
which
sort
of
does
both
at
the
moment
and
so
I
think
maybe
having
clearly
stating
that
one
way
or
the
other
or
having
some
guidelines
about
this
would
help.
So
there
wasn't
wouldn't
be
a
last-minute
discussion
about
whether
we
should
include
something
or
not.
I
D
I
had
another
question,
but
it
was
answered.
We
have
a
feature
request.
Word
can
can't
wait
for
that
fake,
the
ship,
where
I
press,
if
I
curse,
get
blame
I
can
see
like
when
it
was
changed,
but
I
want
to
see
the
previous
change
of
the
liner.
The
previous
change
of
this
line,
and
now
that's
super
convoluted
so
after
seeing
easier
way
to
do
that.
J
The
radio
process,
because
currently
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
and
not
singing
Andrea
singing
the
the
mayor's
request
to
the
author
or
other
you
were
and
having
multiple
as
me
is
very
great
because
at
the
same
time
we
could
ask
need
to
back
in
riverfront
and
where
you
were
up
multiple
people
that
have
to
reuse
that
mesh
request.
But
we
currently
still
need
to
anything
Andrea
seeing
people
I
think
it
would
be
way
better
to
have
this
a
singly
stable,
because
it
helps
to
know
who
is
reviewing
what.
J
B
Was
looking
at
Darren
asked
if
he
had
if
they
wanted
to
tackle
his
first
yeah
I
mean
I
I,
see
what
you're
saying
and
multiple
assignees
sort
of
helped,
but
it
doesn't
really
solve
the
fuel
for
me
and
I'm
assigned
and
reassigned
I.
K
The
years
they've
been
here
already
I
should
be
able
to
come
up
with
something
better
than
just
reassign
thing.
Pull
me
back
and
forth
between
the
author
and
the
merger
best
author,
especially
if
you
need
review
for
multiple
people,
in
which
case
multiple
assignees
will
help,
but
then
you're
still
gonna
have
some
kind
of
ping-pong
there.
I
do
like
the
aspect
of
an
assignee
as
the
ball
is
in
this
person's
Court
now.
So
it's
really
clear
for
if
you're,
when
am
I
supposed
to
look
at,
it,
will
only
contribute
to
me
after
that.
K
I
can
forget
about
it
until
sorry,
if
it's
assigned
to
me
after
that,
I
can
forget
about
it
until
it's
assigned
to
me
again,
but
then
there's
also
something
to
be
said
for
these
reviewers
to
be
stable,
because
the
person
you're
gonna,
be
going
with
back
and
forth
is
probably
going
to
be
the
same
one
for
a
while.
So
it's
useful
for
the
reviewer
to
be
in
the
interface
somewhere
as
a
stable,
I
guess.
I
A
I
just
wanted
to
raise
this
potential
issue.
I
can
see
it
as
expenses.
We're
replacing
si
needs
because
it's
now
doing
that
job,
but
we
can
totally
think
about
a
new
X
improvement
or
iteration
will
have
a
token
passed
around
each
of
the
assignee
so
that
they're
stable,
but
we
do
get
to
see
whose
court
the
ball
is
on
it.
Each
moment.
A
K
Though,
how
that
issue
at
your
link
to
specifically
relates
to
the
problem
of
having
a
stable
reviewer,
although
I'm
guessing
you
would
say
that
review,
would
stay
assigned
I,
think
it
needs
work
versus
being
review
being
addressed
and
then
know
it's
least
work
and
ready
for
another
view,
needs
were
ready
for
you,
so
we
have
multiple
statuses
there,
although
of
course
there's
this
intermediary
state,
where
it's
ready
for
review,
but
also
not
ready
to
be
merged
yet,
but
then
you'd
kind
of
have
another
third
flag
couple.
So
in
progress
which
we
have
today.
K
B
Yeah
I
just
want
to
add
that,
while
the
sort
of
I
think
the
final
slide,
we're
in
the
presentation
with
some
of
the
things
we're
thinking
about
which
is
reira
viewing
and
so
like
after
I
leave
a
review.
What
coming
back
and
seeing
what
has
changed?
What
has
been
addressed
and
what
hasn't
been
addressed,
and
so
I
think
that
kind
of
relates
to
it
as
well
because
like
if
there
is
work
needed
being
able
to
see
that.