►
From YouTube: Cells: demo and office hours 2023-09-28
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
B
C
So
this
meeting
is
now
I
think
one
hour
early
because
New
Zealand
Swift
the
time
Z
and
this
meeting
is
with
the
New
Zealand
time
Z,
because
probably
Tong
created
the
meeting.
You
know
sinos
far,
but
maybe
for
the
next
six
months.
It's
going
to
be
like
one
hour
early
for
people
in.
C
A
Items
yeah
sure,
so
the
IFCO
is
not
complete,
so
I'm
I'm
free
now
to
go
back
to
sales
and
I
intend
to
start
work
on
sales,
sitation
tree
I.
Think
Omar
is
working
on
sales
as
well.
If
I'm
not
wrong,
yeah
yeah,
let
me
know
if
you
are
as
well.
B
I've
seen
that
the
there
was
one
issue
that
was
blocking
the
other
three
or
four,
that
we
had
for
iteration
three
to
create
a
project
on
a
cell,
but
that
one
has
already
been
solved.
So
should
we
move
one
of
the
ones
forward
from
16.6.
A
I
guess
it
would
identifying
yeah.
A
Room
cool
awesome
thanks
Christina,
so,
secondly,
infra
quality
have
had
an
offsite
and
it
also
had
many
sessions,
and
one
of
the
sessions
was
on
sales.
If
you're
interested
feel
free
to
review
it
there
a
1
hour,
long
recording
as
well
thanks
coming
I
thought
it
was
two
hours.
Oh
yeah,
that's.
E
D
E
D
D
D
No,
it's
completely
cced
what
we
going
to
do
we're
going
to
have
a
set
of
meetings
with
the
infra
after
that
one
they
going
to
be
more
focused
on
on
the
different
topics.
D
So
you
may
start
to
see
some
epic
some
issues
about
some
different
areas
of
like
that
going
to
affect
different
te
from
the
infra
like
a
scalability
distribution
where
we're
going
to
be
discussing
specific
topics
and
then
we're
going
to
also
go
back,
go
through,
like
all
of
the
things
that
led
us
like
to
the
current
architecture
with
the
infra
team,
we
go
more
into
de
like
more
into
detail,
but
basically
it's
going
to
be
mostly
online.
Some
of
them
going
to
be.
E
Asking
one
of
the
things
that
I
saw
in
that
conversation
that
camil
had
was
that
a
lot
of
the
infrastructure
teams?
Probably
it's
not
reasonable
at
this
point
for
us
to
just
point
them
to
our
sells
architecture,
Blueprints
and
say,
learn
how
it
works.
They
have
lots
of
questions
and
there's
just
way
too
much
written
about
everything
for
people
to
kind
of
really
on
board
efficiently.
So
the
different
teams
that
might
be
affected
are
going
to
put
together
a
list
of
questions.
E
They
have
things
that
they're
concerned
about
impacting
them
specifically
in
infrastructure,
that's
delivery
or
other
teams,
and
then
they
can
get
more
targeted
answers
without
having
to
potentially
read
and
absorb
every
discussion.
We've
written
had
written
conversation
about
or
written
in,
blueprints.
B
B
Okay,
all
right,
let's
2.3,
then
Alex
told
me
that
we
might
or
might
not
have
a
plan
for
personal
name
spaces.
So
I've
been
working
a
bit
more
on
the
update
to
the
Mr,
put
all
the
options
we
discussed
in
there
with
pros
and
cons,
but
he
will
help
with
that,
because
I
think
you
had
a
discussion
as
well
with
him
Dylan.
So
maybe
maybe
it's
going
to
be
one
in
every
organization.
B
E
B
E
That
they
will
get
a
they
will
get
a
it's
the
same
way
contribution
spaces
will
work.
If,
if
you
have
access
permission
to
interact
with
an
organization,
then
you'll
get
a
personal
name
space
in
that
organization.
When
you
need
it
and
you
can
Fork
into
that
personal
name
space,
so
it's
pretty
much
exactly
the
same
as
contribution
spaces
except
broader.
It's
like
you,
don't
get
a
contribution
space.
Now
you
get
a
personal
name
space
and
therefore
you
could
use
it
for
other
things
other
than
forking.
E
You
could
use
it
for
putting
your
own
projects
that
are
work
rated
in
there.
One
thing
that
specifically
made
sense
to
me
from
a
user
perspective.
Is
you
don't
need
to
like
create
groups,
and
things
like
that?
E
If
you
just
need
you
want
to
project
that
you're
doing
for
work,
and
you
don't
want
to
create
a
group
for
it,
yet
you
could
just
put
it
in
your
personal
name,
space
that
belongs
to
the
organization,
whereas
today
many
of
us
just
create
projects
in
our
personal
name
space
and
that's
kind
of
like
disconnected
from
the
organization.
So
there
sort
of
some
organizational
Advantage
there
that
if
you're
creating
work
rated
stuff
it
it
would
go
in
your
personal
name
space.
Even
if
it's
not
a.
B
Fork,
okay,
so
the
advice
then,
would
be
if
you
really
want
to
own
your
content,
because
that
personal
namespace
content
belongs
to
the
organization
in
that
case,
because
we
don't
want
to
build
a
transfer
mechanism
in
any
way
if
they
want
to
own
their
content,
they
would
just
create
their
own.
E
Organization
who
are
the
purposes
of
what
I
mean
forking,
you
like,
they
won't
be
able
to
Fork
outside
of
an
organization
so
that
that
limits
where
they
can,
where
they
can
create
the
project,
but
you
wouldn't
yeah,
create
personal
stuff,
I
guess
in
another
organization's
personal
name,
space
that
that
wasn't
related
to
that
organization.
E
If
you
wanted
to
it
to
be
your
own
stuff,
that
you
owned,
I
guess
owned
is
confusing
because
I
feel
like
we,
we
maybe
do
have
to
at
some
point
address
specifically
like
what
permissions
the
organization
admins
actually
have
over
that
personal
namespace.
Can
they
delete
stuff
without
you're
having
any
say
in
it,
but
maybe
they
they
can
and
that's
okay,
but.
B
No,
it's
more
for
the
case
in
case
you
get
banned,
blocked
the
organization
gets
deleted,
and
so
on.
You
don't
have
any
claims
to
your
content
created
in
that
organization.
In
your
personal
name,
space
that
belongs
to
that
ency
we
don't
give
otherwise
we
would
have
to
think
about
how
how
to
be
able
to
move
that
elsewhere
or
what
would
happen
with
that.
B
But
if
we
just
have
this
clear
restriction
and
say
no
like
this
is
this
is
what
your
space
in
this
organization,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
get
to
keep
this
and
move
it
out,
which
is
what
organizations
want
or
Enterprises
want
to
stay
safe,
and
you
know
to
avoid
that
people
go
beyond
organizational
boundaries
to
begin
with,.
C
B
I
think
they
would
be
very
much
in
favor
with
that
I
guess
it's
just
a
more
a
communication
issue
to
ensure
they
understand
that
this
is
the
consequence
of
creating
a
personal
project
in
the
organization.
So
if
it's
really
something
you
know,
I
think
some
people
have
their
company,
they
work
for
a
company,
they
do
their
stuff
there
for
glip
there,
but
they
also
have
their
private
projects.
They
could
not
do
that
in
the
organization
they
would
have
to
go
elsewhere
in
the
default.
B
A
I
think
I
think
ownership
is,
is
a
legal
thing
and
I,
don't
think
can
be
expressed
really
well,
unless
we
start
like
having
policies
that
users
agree
to
before
they
can
even
view
the
organization
I
think
it's
more,
that
we
make
it
clear
to
all
users
that
hey
hey
like
organization
admins
can
do
XYZ
in
like,
for
example
like
if
you
create
a
personal
name
space
in
that
organization,
there's
really
nothing
stopping
the
organization
owner
from
deleting
that
personal
name
space,
if
they
one
two
or
something
like
that,
I
think
because
yeah
like.
A
If
we
want
to
get
the
policy,
it
gets
really
muddy.
When,
when
we
have
the
gitlab
all
organization,
and
then
we
invite
Community
contributors
to
contribute
and
who
owns
what
it
gets
really
muddy
in
that.
A
E
B
Distractions,
yeah,
and
it's
not
a
new
use
case
I
mean
anything
you
do
in
a
business,
figma
business
Salesforce
once
you're
offboard,
it's
gone
like
that's
standard
practice,
so
I,
don't
think
we're
in
weird
territory
here,
but
I
just
want
to
double
check
if
we
need
to
since
I
just
had
an
issue
where
we
had
a
very
vocal
customer
around
privacy
of
user
profiles
who,
who
claimed
we
are
breaking
the
law,
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
we're.
Not
the
outcome
of
that
investigation
is
we're
not,
but
to
avoid
this
happening.
B
Moving
forward,
I
I
want
to
check
this.
Okay,
that's
good
happy
to
put
an
end
to
the
personal
names
space
discussion.
B
There
was
one
more
Alex
brought
up,
which
is
Cross
organization
interactions
and
I
think
he
tried
to
have
a
conversation
with
you
about
this
Camille
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
have
any
requirements
for
this
or
if
we're
just
saying
we're
just
not
doing
this
at
all,
I
don't
know
in
what
context
he
was
looking
for
it
if
he
was
already
thinking
about
group
transfer
here,
because
that's
something
we
will
have
to
make
happen
at
some
point.
But
do
do
you
remember
what
that.
D
D
E
E
I
think
we
have
we
have
in
in
ourselves
goals.
We
have
like
well
I.
Remember
it
exactly,
but
basically
resiliency
that
if
one
cell
goes
down,
then
the
application
continues
to
function.
Any
feature
that
could
span
multiple
cells
violates
that
goal
of
being
resilient
redundant
to
single
cell
failure.
E
So
that's
probably
one
other
way
to
think
about
it.
If
every
feature
ends
up
being
cross
cell,
then
the
whole
or
then
our
full
set
of
goals
is
is,
is
not
achieved
with
the
sales
architecture,
but
resilience
is
not
achieved
for
every
feature
that
is
cross
cell.
B
Yeah,
no
that's
clear
to
me:
I'm
just
wondering
if
we're
also
excluding
the
top
level
group
transfer
that
we
need
to
move
content
into
separate,
separate
organizations
from
the
default
organization
by
doing
that,
because
otherwise,
how
will
people
get
into?
How
will
people
get
their
content
into
organizations
or
should
we
think
like?
Oh,
this
happens
on
cell
one
for
the
original
roll
out,
but
then,
once
we
have
multiple
organizations,
there
will
never
be
any
transfer
between
them
because
then
they
will
start
moving
into
different
celles.
You
know
what
I
mean.
E
It
does
seem
like
that
is
more
important
than
figuring
out
how
to
take
one
top
level
group
out
of
one
organization
and
put
it
into
another
one,
so
default
organization
being
special,
but
if
somebody's
put
their
stuff
into
their
own
organization,
we
maybe
don't
need
to
build
functionality
for
them
straight
away
that
helps
them
get
it
out
of
that
organization
into
their
second
organization.
But
that
being
said,
I
think
we'll
have
to
build
that
eventually
and
and
yeah.
E
B
Question
yeah:
it
sounds
like
okay.
Well,
it
sounds
like
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
how
many
cells
we
have
when
we
do
that
and
that
we
say
initially,
we
let
them
build
their
own
organizations
and
they
will
all
be
located
on
the
same
cell,
but
once
they
move
away
from
there,
group
transfer
won't
be
possible
anymore,
so
that
group
transfer
would
only
work
out
of
the
default
organization
into
another,
but
not
between
organizations
that
both
are
not
the
default
of
innovation.
E
Yeah,
we
definitely
want
to
be
very
careful
and
I
know
that
you
didn't
specifically
say
this,
but
we
definitely
want
to
be
very
careful
that
we're
we're
never
exposing
the
sales
Concepts
to
users
so
like
they
shouldn't
ever
have
to
have
a
mental
model
of
CES
in
in
order
to
understand
the
limits
of
the
application.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
think
we
probably
will
have
to
implement
functionality
that
allows
people
to
move
groups
from
one
organization
to
another
that
live
on
different
cells.
D
D
You
are
moving
some
of
your
groups
into
new
organization
that
you
are
creating
so
I
guess
it's
less
of
the
transfer,
it's
more
like
the
migration,
because
I
think
the
transfer
that
you're
kind
of
thinking
right
now,
like
the
way
how
we
have
transfer
for
group
is
like
it
allows
you
to
move
anywhere
but
technically
operation
that
we
going
to
be
doing
pretty
much
is
not
transfer
between
organization
is
basically
creation
of
the
new
organization.
D
With
move
of
some
groups
that
you
have
access
to
and
and
this
operation
we
can
do
always,
regardless
how
many
sales
we
have,
because
we
would
create
this
organization,
then,
on
the
cell
that
contains
those
groups
that
we
would
be
transferring
from
like
the
groups
that
we
be
transferring.
B
If
it
is
the
case
that
you
want
to
move
content
out
from
there,
but
then,
once
that's
established,
that
organization
could
move
on
any
cell,
and
then
we
don't
offer
that
anymore,
because
then
you
yeah
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
because
that
came
up
in
the
ARR
call
yesterday
that
the
sales
folks
already
want
guidelines
already
now,
even
though
we
don't
have
the
organization
yet
for
Best
Practices
on
what
customers
can
expect
and
how
they
should
set
this
up.
So
if
that's
a
hard,
you
know
like
make
the
decision
as
you
create
the
organization.
B
If
that
is
the
requirement
to
be
mindful
about
this,
because
you
will
never
be
able
to
transfer
between
content
between
organizations,
then
that's
something
we
need
to
call
out
before
they
on
board
so
that
they
can
also
keep
their
own
migration
strategies
in
mind.
All
right.
E
E
C
So
right
now
we
have
a
similar
problems,
because
sometimes
you
know
someone
is
asking
on
a
like:
hey
I
have
this
organization,
and
this
one
and
I
want
to
like
current
customers
and
I
want
to
join,
like
both
things
under
the
same
subscription
or
like
they
asking
for
things
like
that
and
I.
Think
that
at
the
moment,
what
we
can
offer
is
just
work
around.
So
maybe,
like
you
know,
like
a
import
like
a
sport
and
import
groups
and
subgroups,
and
things
like
that,
so
maybe
for
a
long
time.
C
Maybe
this
have
to
work
in
the
same
way
like
with
kind
of
a
workarounds
rather
than
a
very
builtin
solution.
You
know,
but
but
I
don't
know
like
it's
a
similar
problem
about.
You
know
two
organizations
or
two
customers
joining
one
one
place.
One.
B
Subscription
that
will
not
be
unless
billing
moves
to
the
organization
level.
There's
not
going
to
be
many
changes,
so
I
think
right
now
they
can
either
move
one
top
level
group
underneath
another.
But
then
all
their
paths
are
changing
or
they
leave
everything
as
is,
but
then
they
pay
twice
on
the
seed.
So
unless
billing
moves
that's
a
fulfillment
problem
once
they
move
up
there,
then
they
can
D
duplicate
users
across
different
top
level
groups.
B
Level:
okay,
I'll
take
this
and
start
from
from
there
for
the
sales
information
anything
else.
Anyone.
B
B
No
all
right,
some
of
you
see
you
later
in
the
team
meeting.
Otherwise,
yeah
see
you
Monday
morning
have
a
good
one
good.