►
From YouTube: Manage:Analytics Weekly 2020-06-16
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
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
A
So
there
was
a
there
was
a
note
earlier
this
morning
that
I
think
whatever
was
in
in
the
master
until
yesterday
or
early
this
morning,
is
guaranteed
to
be
put
in
there
and
then
in
the
next
in
the
next
release
candidate
I'm,
not
100%,
sure
about
what's
coming
after
so
there
might
be
another
release
candidate,
but
that's
not
guaranteed
yet.
But
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
then
or
I.
B
B
A
D
So
it's
actually,
the
functionality
is
merged
and
there's
right
now,
just
a
different
loader
than
the
tickets
supplied
I
missed
that
when
I
started
implementing
it,
but
I
think
it
was
kind
of
fortunate,
because
that
mad
daddy
accidentally
was
broken
up
into
iterative.
States
and
I
was
not
blocked
on
this
decision
on
what
the
loader
would
look
like.
I'm,
currently
working
on
a
follow-up,
PR
or
sorry
follow
mr2
to
specify
the
loader
or
liked
it
to
create
the
loader,
which
is
currently
a
task.
D
A
A
Okay,
that's
good
awesome
cool
so
during
that
there's
one
more,
which
is
ready
for
development,
I'm,
not
sure
we'll
get
to
this
one.
It
doesn't
have
a
priority
label
assigned.
So
it's
a
backstage
technical
depth,
refactoring
task,
not
sure
if
Pavo
had
time
to
look
into
this,
but
we
probably
have
to
carry
it
over,
but
maybe
then
has
more
knowledge
about
this.
One
yeah.
B
A
D
Like
follow
up
on
that
ticket,
it
actually
belongs
to
a
different
group
and
I'm,
just
picking
it
up
from
them.
So
I
don't
know
if
I
should
change
those
labels,
I,
probably
shouldn't,
because
it's
part
of
a
bigger,
not
sure
it's
an
epic
but
a
bigger
task
that
they
were
working
on.
So
I'll
probably
just
keep
the
labels.
That's
on
there
and
just
change
the
milestone
to
32.
A
B
Mike,
your
detailer,
when
you
execute
it
on
the
merge
request,
put
analytics
group
the
group
analytics
label,
because
that
this
stuff
gets
counted
at
the
top
level
to
see
you
know
which
groups
are
doing
how
much
that's
just
like
a
weird
nuance,
but
leaves
the
group
label.
That's
on
the
issue.
Thank.
D
E
E
So
Adam
took
a
look
and
described
that
what
we
want
is
a
separate
page
for
a
chart
with
the
dumb
layout
no
had
ever
menus
and
so
on.
That
would
render
an
empty
page,
div
or
placeholder
in
the
front-end
would
render
the
chart.
So
the
question
is:
is
this:
this
is
something
we
want
to
do
with
the
front-end
team,
or
did
we
want
the
back-end
team
to
do
it
so.
A
E
A
A
D
E
Follow-Up
question,
then,
would
be
what
do
we
need
to
do?
You
know
what
are
the
kind
of
the
outstanding
questions
that
we
would
need
to
put
an
estimate
on
on
either
the
front
end
or
the
back
end
part
looks
like
it's
been
discussed.
Pretty
well.
I
didn't
see
any
open
questions,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
what
else
do
we
have
to
figure
out
in
order
to
be
able
to
estimate.
D
D
The
part
about
handling
permissions,
at
least
for
the
first
stage,
seems
like
that.
We
we
need
to
decide
whether
we're
gonna
always
show
all
the
data
or
we're
always
going
to
show
the
public
data,
and
we
need
to
kind
of
make
a
decision
on
that.
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
was
answered,
maybe
I
missed
it.
I.
E
Think
what
I
had
proposed
was
that
we
leave
it,
as
is,
in
other
words,
today,
insights
differentiates.
We
would
leave
it
in
that
state,
so
so
as
to
minimize
the
amount
of
work
and
then,
as
we
get
feedback
that
says,
hey
it's
confusing
whether
I'm
logged
in
or
not
logged
in
I
see
different
things
on
the
chart.
We
can
then
address
to
make
that
stay
consistent
so
that
we're
always
showing
the
same
set
of
data
gotcha.
D
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned
around
that,
because
that
confusion
on
the
user
side
might
end
up
showing
that
we
need
to
implement
certain
things.
I'm,
just
I
need
to
take
a
little
bit
further
in
order
to
understand
that
completely,
but
I
I
do
see
some
risk
in
just
letting
the
data
decided
might
make
it
more
complex.
On
the
front-end
side.
D
F
Just
a
note
from
from
back-end
point
of
view,
I'm
not
so
generally
to
have
this
feature
ready,
I,
don't
see
too
much
complexity,
but
at
this
point
we
don't
really
have
a
chart
to
put
in
there
and
I
guess
that's
the
critical
part
where
you
have
to
actually
connect
with
the
existing
a
chart
from
the
report,
various
feature
and
actually
present
the
chart.
Remember
it
they
could
be
some
some
issues.
There.
A
We
put
this
page
again
because
it's
it's
like
located
under
separate
route,
but
maybe
maybe
that's,
maybe
have
misunderstood,
but
I
think
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
start,
as
we
said
with
insights,
we
might
end
up
doing
things
at
least
twice,
because
we
would
have
to
create
the
siblings
page
for
insights
and
then
for
the
generic
reports.
Page
again,.
D
D
F
I,
don't
see
too
much
work
for
that
because
you
know
most
of
the
other
stuff
is
built
on
the
on
the
front
hand,
side
right
so
figuring
out
how
to
BN
render
an
empty
page
that
we
can
actually
embed
shouldn't
be
too
too
difficult.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
I
mean
we
don't
need
the
header,
we
don't
need
the
layout.
Basically,
we.
A
F
D
F
F
F
A
A
good
point,
yeah
I,
think
we
always
so
I
think
our
main
chess
is
it's.
It's
included
on
pretty
much
all
pages.
So
even
on
a
blank
page,
we
would
so
we
would
include
the
main
chess,
but
we
we
probably
need
to
do
some
digging
around
this
and
I'm,
not
entirely
sure
but
I
guess
for
a
first
iteration
and
even
if
it's
not
optimized
for
performance
and
then
and
load
time,
I
think
this.
This
can.
This
can
be
part
of
a
follow
up
issue.
A
D
Instead,
then
that
would
be
fine,
because
I
do
think
that
there's
probably
a
few
things
that
we
would
need
to
to
test
out
for
it
to
work
properly.
I
think
the
positive
thing
is
that
we
already
have
an
example
of
a
chart
being
embedded,
so
we
can
pretty
much
lean
on
that.
So
don't
see
too
much
risk,
and
this.
F
Just
one
thing
so
clean
inside
feature,
you
can
actually
put
a
specific
report.
You
can
specify
more
than
one
charts,
so
I,
don't
know
how
the
front
and
we'll
handle
this
really
can
the
both
charts
or
or
just
one
I
mean
from
users
point
of
view.
If
they
do.
Finally,
one
child
should
be
fine,
I
think
they
have
two
charts.
We
present
both
of
them
or
we
have
to
filter
them
out.
Somehow
I
would.
D
D
Gotcha
yeah
I
would
look
need
to
look
in
more
into
that
in
order
to
be
able
to
answer
something
like
that.
I'm
getting
to
the
point
where
my
knowledge
is
we're
very
much
at
the
fringe.
F
A
A
Yeah,
since
since
this
is
just
a
I
guess,
if
we
can,
we
can
start
with
that,
since
this
is
just
the
first
iteration
and
we
eventually,
we
will
move
from
insights
to
the
generic
report
page
anyway.
I
guess
we
can
look
into
filtering
by
chart
title
and
if
that
doesn't
work
we
need
to.
We
need
to
define
a
separate
attribute
that
we
can
filter
on,
or
maybe
just
the
index
of,
the
chart
array
or
whatever.
E
D
D
I
had
the
like
a
similar
experience
here
with
trying
to
embed
somebody
is
something
something
else,
and
it
didn't
turn
out
the
way
that
we
wanted
it,
and
in
this
way
it
might
not
be
the
case
here,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
there
might
be
a
risk
that
we
figure
out
that
the
way
that
the
permissions
work
this
way
around
wouldn't
necessarily
work.
The
way
that
we
think
or
like
happen
provide
the
user
experience.
E
A
D
Am
concerned
about
the
experience
being
different
from
what
you
expect,
so
let's
say
the
user.
That's
creating
this
chart
is,
is
wanting
to
share
the
data
and
shares
it
with
the
user,
doesn't
have
permission
to
to
view
the
same
data
and
sense
a
link,
and
then
the
user
on
the
other
side,
I
I'll
see
something
completely
different
and
that
that
is
a
very
confusing
experience
and
that's
something
that
I
know
that
we
already
noted
down,
but
practically
the
the
situation
that
I
had
with
the
video
stream.
D
What
we
liked,
how
we
thought
this
would
work
out
actually
ended
up,
not
working
out.
It
ended
up
not
being
able
to
be
flexible
enough
to
to
to
work
for
all
the
use
of
experiences
that
we
thought
saw
so
sharing.
It
ended
up
not
being
possible
in
one
way,
I
think
it
remember
and
then
I'm
trying
to
map
it
to
this
other
situation,
that
that
I
had
an
experience
with
where
we
ended
up
needing
to
actually
enforce
that
certain
permissions
were
met
before
we
could
share
it
so
I'm.
D
C
A
D
Just
like
something
that
would
end
up
breaking
the
user,
experience
might
be
a
risk
here,
I
I'm,
not
saying
that
that
would
happen,
and
it's
actually
very
hard
for
me
to
visualize.
What
actually
will
happen,
because
I
have
a
limited
view
of
how
this
works
so
I'm,
just
like
noting
what
I
see
as
a
potential
risk
yeah.
A
That's
a
good
point:
I
guess
we
don't
have
to
be
too
concerned
about
this
in
the
first
iteration
since
we're
the
main
usage
will
be
the
handbook
and
I'm
expecting
that
we
will
only
embed
charts
from
the
public
get
left
project,
so
I'm,
hoping
or
yeah
I'm
expecting
this
not
to
be
too
much
of
an
issue
for
the
first
iteration.
But
if
we
move
forward
and
we're
going
to
allow
users
to
embed
charts
in
narrow
places
and
that's
definitely
something
that
we
need
to
consider
I
think.
D
E
A
B
So
group
level
in
that
project
levels,
so
does
that
mean
that
in
this
first
iteration
we
should
do
something
to
exclude
private
projects
within
the
group
or
should
I
guess
that
that
would
be
our
only
option
for
a
get
lab,
because
I
think
we
have
some
private
projects.
I
could
I
could
go
confirm
that
just
curious?
What
your
thought
is
on
that.
E
To
kind
of
you
know,
kick
the
tires
on
it.
They're
gonna
be
happy
to
start
seeing
how
that
would
work
so
so
like
if
we
leave
some
edge.
Some
rough
edges
I
think
that's
ok,
because
we're
gonna
be
coming
back
to
do
some
other
work
in
this
area
anyway.
Yeah.
If
we're
really
concerned
about
it-
and
we
think
it's
you
know
small
enough
to
fit
in
at
our
MVC
fine
I'm,
not
opposed
to
that
either.
B
Yeah
and
I
feel
like
what
we're
talking
about
now
is
aggregated
data,
it's
kind
of
the
same
thing
with
like
personal
health
data
as
long
as
it's
aggregated,
it's
okay,
to
share
with
people.
You
know
that
kind
of
thing,
so
you
know
it's.
It's
de-identified
data
that
we're
talking
about
here,
so
I
I
think
it's
probably
okay,
even
if
we
do
include
private
projects.
You
know
data
from
private
projects
like
total
issues
across
the
whole
group,
total
Amar's
across
the
whole
group.
F
F
F
B
F
E
But
what
I
don't
think
we
want
to
do
is
mess
with
the
logic
that
insights
is
already
using
and
is
already
in
production
around
what
we
show
and
don't
show
in
an
aggregation
in
this
first
iteration.
That
seems
to
me
to
be
taking
on
more
scope
than
we
need
to
insights
whatever
it's
doing
today
is
already
in
production.
So
if
there
are
any
concerns
about
it,
you
know
that
seems
to
me
to
be
a
separate
question.
B
So
I'm
not
sure
that
it
is
a
separate
question
because
with
insights
you're
logged
in
you're
authenticated
in
the
handbook,
you
know
that's,
that's
a
that's
actually
a
totally
separate
web
application.
You
know
it's
a
it's
a
separate
thing
that
we're
assuming
unauthenticated,
you
know.
People
who
might
not
even
be
part
gitlab
would
be
looking
at
those
charts.
Now.
F
E
B
So
we
need
to
do
this
little
bit
of
work
now
to
to
use
like
guest
user
across
all
use
case.
It's
like
anybody.
Looking
at
the
anybody
looking
at
an
embedded
chart
is
going
to
see
the
guest
perspective
on
it,
so
it'll
be
consistent,
but
it
might
not
be
what
they
see
when
they
look
at
the
same
chart
in
you
know
on
the
generic
report.
D
I
like
that
way
of
going
about
it
because
it's
it's
got
a
D
risk,
a
lot
of
things
for
us.
It
might
be
a
little
bit
of
work
now,
but
we're
gonna
know
that
we're
gonna
have
a
consistent
experience.
You
can
see
if
the
other
way
around
would
be
that
if
we
allowed
it
now,
we
would
have
to
implement
testing
to
make
sure
that
we
test
down
all
these
different
permissions
that
we
could
come
up
with
and
that's
a
complex
matrix,
because
you
have
a
sender
and
a
receiver.
A
E
Totally
agree
that
that
is
a
great
step
to
take
totally
agree.
The
question
I
still
have
is
I'm,
not
sure
I
understand
why
that
is
necessary
in
the
first
step,
because
I'm
still
not
seeing
the
scenario
that
Dan
described
as
different
from
what
insights
or
the
handles
today.
Hadn't
made
some
remark
about
that,
but
I
didn't
understand
it
or
or
or
missed
it.
F
So
the
current
feature
of
insights,
if
you
are
logged
in
all
of
that,
the
same
query
will
be
executed.
The
only
difference
is
that
we
will
check
your
user
when
you
are
logged
in
and
of
course,
if
you
have
access
to
those
particular
projects
that
are
private,
you
will
also
see
the
results
from
those
projects.
But
if
you
have
logged
out,
you
want
so
in
insights,
the
feature
itself
is
already
safe
and
I
think
it
could
be
just
and
that
it
as
well.
You
know
we
can
just
enter
it
as
it
is
without
without
modifying.
F
E
So
that
was
the
same
understanding
that
I
had
about.
It
is
that
insights
already
handled
that
case
safely
and
so
I
just
wondered
why?
Why
do
that
extra
iteration,
I
I,
totally
agree?
We
want
to
land
in
a
place
where
the
result
is
consistent.
It
just
seems
to
be
like
we
could
actually
handle
that
and
a
follow
up
if
you
think
it
doesn't
make
any
difference
to
the
size
that
really
it's
the
same
size
and
there's.
Some
reason
why
you
know.
D
Sorry
about
that,
it
doesn't
make
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
to
the
size
one
way
of
going
about
it
is
to
to
take
the
weakest
link
approach.
The
other
way
of
going
about
it
is
to
only
allow
public
charts
to
be
published
and
embedded.
Those
are
I,
think
kind
of
the
two
options
that
we're
looking
at
I
know
we're
coming
to
a
close
now.