►
From YouTube: Iteration Office Hours with CEO (Public Livestream)
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
You
know
basically
a
scenario
where
we
can't
iterate
and
we
say
you
know
we
need
to
match
the
capabilities
of
you
know
other
products
fully.
You
know
before
we
can
really
start
using
them.
I
also
want
to
try
to
avoid
cases
where
you
know
it's,
not
a
production
use
case.
It's
it's
like
we're
kind
of
using
it
as
a
toy.
More
than
is
something
that
is
really
loud,
be
like
the
validation
and
feedback
will
be
better
if
people
are
really
relying
on
it,
and
so
so
you
know
I,
guess
the
question
is
for
question
B.
A
B
A
B
For
that,
the
thing
I
would
think
about
is
like
monitoring.
What's
the
first
thing
people
think
about
monitoring,
it
tends
to
be
metrics
like
seeing
a
graph
of
something
so
I'd
start
there.
Also
metrics
we've
had
them
for
a
while
now
they're
pretty
good,
so
the
idea
would
be
to
get
one
metric
dashboard
moved
now.
I
spent
two
minutes
on
a
Thai
sporting
site.
B
Thanks
for
putting
the
question
in
before
the
meeting
and
the
prefect
dashboard
seems
to
be
something
that's
in
production
that
people
are
looking
at,
and
that
has
only
two
graphs
and
it
seems
to
be
pretty
simple
graphs.
I
think
the
word
to
focus
on
here
is
moved.
You
want
it
moved.
So,
not
only
do
you
want
a
new
dashboard,
you
also
want
to
deprecate
your
one,
its
own
dashboard,
so
get
lapto
comment
net
gonna
make
sure
those
graphs
are
no
longer
there
and
it's
just
say
hey.
B
B
Any
new
dashboard
being
made
first
has
to
be
made
on
our
new
dashboard
and
if
it's
not
possible,
open
up
an
issue,
make
it
in
the
old
system
and
link
that
issue
and
if
you
don't
link
an
issue
and
you
create
a
new
dashboard,
we'll
just
remove
it
or
prevent
you
from
making
it
or
something
like
that,
but
all
new
stuff
either
comply
or
explain
new
system
or
old
system
Plus
issue.
When
you
get
there,
then
you
got
this
like
steady
inflow
of
new
things
over
time.
A
B
Yeah
and
I
think
you
talked
about
a
periodical
it
you
don't
want
to
do
something
big
and
one
go
ways
to
do.
This
wrong
is
like
now
not
move
a
single
thing
and
then
go
off
to
Tahrir
and
ask
permission
for
something
like
look.
You
haven't
proven
anything
first,
let
me
show
first
show
that
your
new
dashboards
are
any
good.
C
B
And
before
you
can
deprecated
ill
for
it,
you
probably
have
to
get
somebody
in
there,
but
don't
ask
for
all
new
dashboards
in
the
new
system
before
you've.
You've
proven
you
can
move
at
least
ten
of
them
and
don't
first
focus
on
getting
new
dashboards
made
in
your
system,
which
is
like
no
work
and
instead
of
moving
people
sees,
were
used
to
be
this
dashboard
and
they
moved
it
and
I.
B
B
Yes,
people
have
to
make
that
anyway,
so
you
want
to
get
them
used
using
your
new
system,
it's
a
set
of
wasting
effort
by
moving
decided
to
just
focus
on
the
new
street,
but
right
now,
you're,
not
gonna,
get
a
single
s,
re
wanting
to
use
your
new
system.
So
the
first
few
wants
you
off
to
do
yourself
and
then
very
important
like
make
sure
that
it's
in
there
Oakley
RS.
You
asked
about
that
I
think.
That's
smart!
D
Yeah,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
is
build
in
better
support
for
agile
methodologies.
Like
scrum
one
of
the
constructs
that's
kind
of
principle,
there
is
recurring
time
boxes
on
kind
of
a
consistent
games
to
experience.
For
example,
the
current
proposal
that
we're
in
doing
solution,
validation
on
involves
the
notion
of
be
able
to
assign
an
issue
to
more
than
one
time
box.
Concurrently
and
there's
been
a
large
number
of
users.
Who've
requested
this
feature
and
then
doing
discovery
with
them.
D
There's
a
lot
of
different
use
cases
for
why
they
want
to
do
that.
The
most
common
would
be
sprints,
but
there's
also
these
cases
where
you
will
have
be
working
within
a
sprint
and
want
to
track
that
issue
against
a
larger
quarterly
objective
within
your
team
or
something
of
such
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
European
how
we
can
best
move
from
like
the
idea
of
what
we
have
is
mouse
ins
now
to
being
able
to
support
that
kind
of
recurring
cadence
cuz.
D
B
Think
we
should
take
a
bit
of
inspiration
from
a
company
called
ServiceNow
and
they
they
probably
at
its
ten
billion
dollars
in
market
cap.
Just
changing
labels
like
instead
of
calling
stuff
issues.
They
call
it
cases
and
suddenly
their
tool
was
usable
by
a
human
research
department
because
they
don't
deal
with
issue
trackers,
but
they
do
understand
case
trackers.
So
without
without
changing
any
functionality.
Is
there
something
we
can
rename
to
make?
What
we
have
now
more
acceptable
to
scrum
or
XP
aficionados.
D
It
would
be
freeing
Mouse
as
its
Prince.
A
lot
of
competitive
tools
have
both
in
them,
so
I
don't
see
that
doesn't
necessarily
solve
the
problem
of
ultimately
being
able
to
associate
two
milestones
as
the
same
kind,
because
right
now
milestones
are
open-ended
and
that
you
can
have
a
mouse
won't
be
anything
you
know
more
than
one
concurrent
milestone.
D
D
D
B
D
B
B
A
D
D
I
just
say:
the
interesting
thing
is
having
conversation
with
meirin
and
the
really
same.
They,
they
view
milestones
currently
as
versions,
and
so
that's
where
it's
there's
a
different
perception
of
what
they
mean
to
everyone,
which
is
why
it's
also
like.
If
we
were
to
change
it
or
also
have
it
I
feel
like
it
would
have
an
impact
on
how
we
work
as
a
team
as
well.
So.
B
D
B
Well,
the
the
first.
The
first
thing
to
do
is
the
thing
that
requires
the
least
effort,
that's
good
feedback
and
someone
facing
issues
hey.
We
also
have
an
issue
to
have
cost
of
customizable
names
for
items
that
will
be
the
the
first
thing
I'd
reach
for
so
the
first
thing
would
just
be
renaming
like
more
people
use
sprints
or
is
the
people
who
use
Sprint's
are
much
more
opinionated
about
the
name,
let's
just
rename
it.
The
second
thing
would
be
well
if
we're
not
clear,
but
if
people
want
an
option
for
this
name.
B
D
Gerrae
has
the
concepts
of
releases
and
they
have
the
concepts
of
sprints
you're
able
to
toggle
it
on
and
off.
If
you
want
to
use
either
or
it's
sort
of
similar
to
what
we've
proposed
but
and
then
they
also
I
believe
have
milestones
as
well
and
they
are
used
for
a
plethora
of
different
ways.
Spinning
on
how
a
team
likes
to
do
project
measurement,
but
they
have
really.
You
can
set
up
a
recurring
sprint
schedule.
B
B
B
So
it's
not
enough
to
have
a
good
product
here.
We
need
to
be
able
to
get
a
match
every
single
feature
of
that
product,
and
if
you
do
an
import,
it's
all
should
still
work
and
I.
Think
that's
what
that's
a
much
higher
bar
and
saying.
Well,
it
supports
the
same
business
use
case.
That
can
be
the
case,
but
if
it
kind
of
works
different
and
our
importer
can't
automatically
accommodate
for
that,
people
aren't
gonna
switch.
B
Differentiation
by
itself
is
not
helpful
differentiation
if
gira
got
something
really
wrong
and
we
can
do
it
better
sure,
but
I
think
I
think
we.
We
need
high
conviction
before
concluding,
that
they've
been
in
this
game
a
lot
longer
to
get
a
pretty
well
for
our
product.
I
think
it's
a
bit
slow,
sluggish,
but
that's
a
whole
different
thing,
so
I
wouldn't
differentiate
for
the
sake
of
differentiate.
I,
think
everything
you
do
different
than
JIRA
is
just
gonna
cause
us
a
cause.
B
D
D
Think
it
is
it's
the
simplest
that
would
enable
when
importing
the
proposal
is
default
off.
First
for
two
of
the
other
time
boxes
and
then,
if
importing
and
there
are
they
exist,
we
could
toggle
them
on
by
default
as
part
of
that
process
and
map
them
to
those
objects,
which
seems
pretty
simple
to
me.
But.
B
D
Who's
talking
to
John
Jeremiah
earlier
today,
and
he
was
showing
me
how
it
uses
milestones
and
he
creates
a
milestone
for
an
epoch
as
well
as
using
an
epoch,
because
we
don't
have
the
same
level
for
reporting
on
an
epoch
that
is
on
a
milestone.
It
would
be
helpful
and
I
think
that's
where
there
is
a
little
bit
of
an
overlap
there
and
I
would
like
to
figure
out
how
to
better
to
find
what
each
thing
is
used
for
in
which
situation
so
that
we
can
not
have
overlapping
solutions.
D
D
D
I
talked
to
Jackie
earlier
this
week,
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
is
how
that
that's
one
area
where
we
do
have
the
opportunity
to
do
a
value
added
differentiation,
because
we
are
a
single
publication
for
DevOps
and
being
able
to
have
the
custody
chain
from
an
issue
to
emerge
requests.
All
the
way
through
is
a
pretty
big
deal
and
she's
working
on
making
releases
so
that
they
can
be
scheduled
into
the
future
and
also
have
a
time
box
and
bringing
issues
into
there.
D
B
D
It's
the
same
thing
of
equal
complaints
that
automatically
removing
labels
when
issues
close
is
confusing.
I
think
there's
an
issue
also
that
it
messes
up
in
sites
reporting
when
labels
removed
after
the
fact
and
I
need
to
investigate
that
a
little
bit
further
just
came
out
this
week,
but
there
are
some
folks
who
are
in
the
camp
of
you.
D
Shouldn't
automatically
do
things
to
my
issues
without
giving
me
the
ability
to
turn
that
off,
and
then
there
are
others
that
would
prefer
that
from
a
workflow
standpoint,
there's
also
a
discrepancy
in
how
label
removal
works
from
a
issue
board.
Standpoint
versus
updating
issue
manually,
like
within
the
issue
or
closing
from
emerge
requests
the
only
way
that
label
removal
automatically
happens
now
is
this
is
if
you
move
an
issue
from
the
last
issue
list.
D
Before
it's
closed
into
the
closed
state
from
an
issue
board,
then
it
will
remove
a
label
and
I
believe
it's
only
scope
label.
It
might
work
for
non
scope.
Labels
too
I
need
to
verify
that,
but
there's
like
there's
not
standardized
behavior
there
and
so
I
think
that's.
There
is
a
proposal.
It's
got
a
lot
of
like
backing
to
add
the
ability
to
configure
a
label
to
be
removed
when
an
issue
closes,
and
then
we
remove
all
like
the
magic
that
we
do
behind
the
scenes.
B
D
B
Kind
of
why
we
invented
scope
labels
right
it's
if
they
can
have
to
have
only
one.
So
why
don't?
Why
don't
we,
my
please
saying:
hey,
okay,
automatically,
removing
labels
and
dragging
and
dropping?
We
can
only
afford
to
do
that
on
scope
labels,
because
those
are
labels
explicitly
like
how
there
can
be
only
one
label
of
this
kind
on
the
issue.
Why
don't
we
move
towards
that.
D
We
can,
but
you
would
have
to
if
you
want
to
have
them
removed
automatically
like
when
an
issue
is
closed.
You
would
have
to
go
say
the
linear
order,
the
the
progression
that
scope
labels
would
go
through
so
almost
like
a
workflow
and
then
after
that
you
can
say
the
last
scope
label
in
the
workflow.
When
the
issue
is
closed,
then
we
can
remove
it.
But
if
you,
depending
on
the
context
in
which
you
update
the
labels
right
now,
impacts
the
behavior
of
whether
or
not
that
label
is
removed,
which
is
a
tricky
part.
Yeah.
D
D
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
thinking
about
in
terms
of
iteration
is
we
have
custom
cycle
analytics
or
being
able
to
define
custom
stages
within
cycle
analytics
and
pulling
out
that
customizer
to
use
as
a
basis
for
your
defining
your
workflows
and
then
within
that
you
could
set
the
conditions,
and
then
you
could
still
have
your
cycle
analytics
report
on
that.
That
was
one
small
thing.
I
was
thinking
about
doing
the
least
bootstrap
the
custom
workflows
process,
but
when.
A
E
Said
if
you
do
go
down
that
path,
you
could
at
least
simplify
by
not
saying
you
have
to
define
the
entire
workflow
and
sequence
of
everything
you
just
needed
to
find
the
last
one
and
when
I
move
it
to
done
and
it's
closed,
you
would
add
a
new
label
and
then
that
would
take
off
all
the
other
labels,
but
you'd
have
a
stage
:
done
that
would
automatically
trigger
when
you
closed
initiative.
That
would
be
the
simplest
automation,
at
least
on
that
one
problem
that
would.
D
Help
in
also
there's
been
a
lot
of
teams
who
report
they
can't
use
tracking
and
epics
and
things
within
our
product,
because
they're
done
state
is
not
closed.
They're
down
in
the
state
happens
before
then
they
hand
off
the
issue
to
another
team
so
like
if
the
epics
aren't
ever
reflective
of
the
true
status
of
their
involvement
in
that
given
issue.
So
that
could
be
an
interesting
thing
to
do.
We.
E
B
Ooh
interesting
things,
I
think
what
is
something
simple
we
can
do
here,
because,
if
I'm
setting
up
this
board
but
a
fold,
I
still
got
this
question.
No.
First
of
all,
I
don't
like
to
get
a
question
on
this
state.
I'm
just
trying
to
use
a
board
I
should
probably
be
prompted
to
create
an
issue
not
to
add
this.
B
B
Let's,
let's
move
scope,
don't
words
gonna,
no
one
understands
even
once
code
labels.
Are
we
made
that
up
ourselves?
So
we
just
move
that
to
court
and
simplify
this
whole
situation,
because
this
is
getting
way
too
complex.
I
would
love
to
okay.
Well,
wait.
Have
you
tried
and
failed
at
it
or
what
what
is
what's
happened?
I.
D
B
D
B
B
D
I
can
do
that
another
question:
what's
the
best
way
to
handle?
Is
it
going
back
to
saying
like
defining
which
the
last
scope
label
it
is
in
your
workflow
that
you
would
want
to
be
removed,
or
how
do
you
think
it's
best
to
approach
the
discrepancy
between
how
things
are
removed
on
the
issue
board
versus
how
they're
removed
when
you
close
an
issue
manually.
B
And
I
don't
understand
your
question:
I'm,
probably
not
qualified,
to
ask
to
answer
your
question,
but
I
could
see
that
for
any
scoped
label
type
you
have
and
then
I
mean
not
older
and
for
every
scope.
You
have
you
get
issue
an
issue
board
for
that.
So
if
I
have
trick
labels
with
the
same
scope,
they're
gonna
be
trees
swimlanes
on
an
issue
board.
With
that
scope,
make.
A
E
Okay,
but
I
just
throw
out
something.
This
may
not
work
in
the
slightest,
but
what
if
you
X,
went
the
other
direction
and
remove
the
done
call
them
all
together
and
just
said:
you've
got
an
issue
board.
You
want
to
drag
things.
You
gonna
make
your
columns,
however,
they
are,
and
and
just
whatever
you
want
to
make
your
last
column,
as
you
make
your
last
column
of
that
and
give
it
your
own
label.
D
E
Like
even
going
even
more
extreme
yeah-
and
you
would
be
like
issues
potentially
just
didn't
get
closed,
like
there's,
no
difference
between
open
and
closed
anymore.
It's
you
know,
you
just
move
your
kilt.
You
move
the
labels
to
the
light
to
the
right,
like
everything
go
back
in
Trello,
there's
a
difference
between
moving
it
to
the
right
hand,
column
and
then
deleting
it
from
the
board
is
actually
a
completely
separate
action
that
you'd
archive.
Maybe
once
a
week
you
know
archive
all
of
them
or
something
like
that.
But
it's
a
completely
orthogonal
operation
now.
D
C
Yeah
so
I
have
a
specific
issue
in
mind,
but
as
I'm
getting
my
feet
wet
here,
one
of
the
things
I've
noticed
and
I
would
like
to
iterate
on
with
the
team
is
how
we
start
thinking
about
adding
goals
and
metrics
to
our
issues,
so
that
we
can
measure
our
outcomes
more
precisely
so,
once
we've
successfully
broken
down
a
chain
to
its
smallest
parts,
which
is
fantastic
and
we
push
it
through
and
we
built
something.
C
How
are
we
really
thinking
about
what
kind
of
feedback
we
want
to
see
from
the
user
base,
whether
it's
super
ization,
so
on
and
so
forth?
So
I
would
love
to
just
hear
your
thoughts.
A
little
bit
of
history
on
this
mark
was
I
mark
and
I
had
kind
of
a
virtual
chat
about
it.
He
gave
some
helpful
insights
earlier
this
week
as
well.
C
B
B
B
Suppose
we
do
what
we
just
discussed,
so
we
change
issue
boards
by
default.
We
give
them
scope
labels,
we
don't
make
them
press
a
button
and
then
every
time
you
move
something
that
has
a
scope
label
that
gets
changed,
you're
counted
as
an
active
user,
and
then
we
aggregate
that
and
I
know
fully.
Those
improvements
see
two
more
that's
called
the
action.
Scoped
label
drag
and
drop
change,
or
something
like
that.
B
C
B
B
B
Like
JIRA,
import
is
not
as
high
on
the
priority
list
of
plans
as
it
should
be
and
by
showing
the
numbers
like
this
is
how
much
people
use
create.
This
is
how
much
they
use
plan,
and
this
is
what's
what's
and
then
everyone
can
figure
out.
Okay,
this
is
what
what's
in
between.
We
have
great
importers
for
github
and
for
bitbucket.
We
don't
have
them
for
JIRA.
Okay,
that's!
Let's!
F
You
know,
but
if
it's
okay,
if
I
hop
in
here
kind
of
in
response
to
furnish
one
example
of
where
we
you
know
implemented,
something
similar
in
using
iteration
was
in
job
families
was
so.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
all
job
families
have
performance
indicators
and
we
still
do,
but
when
I
was
talking
through
how
to
do
that
with
Sid.
He
suggested
to
me
that
the
the
first
thing
we
could
do
was
make
sure
that
no
new
job.
B
F
Way
things
weren't
getting
worse
and
eventually
job
families
would
get
edited
and
as
they
were
edited,
we
could
make
sure
that
they
were
just
getting
better
and
so
I
would
suggest,
keeping
something
very
similar
in
mind
where
it's
like.
What
you
know
what's
in
place
is
in
place
and
and
it's
dying
but
like
that's.
The
next
thing
we
roll
out
is
a
little
bit
better
in
terms
of
the
standard
it
sets
for
everything
else.
Yeah.