►
From YouTube: Monitor:APM Weekly Meeting - 2020-02-19
Description
Weekly meeting for the Monitor:APM group
A
A
Well,
give
him
just
a
minute
here.
C
A
Okay,
this
is
the
workflow
board,
just
filter
to
12-8,
so
maybe
we'll
start
on
the
right
side,
so
we
have
of
eights
that
are
in
verification.
A
A
Just
kind
of
changed
that
yesterday
so
I
think
the
the
backend
work
I
think
is
done
from
what
I
understand
from
talking
to
Ryan,
but
there's
still
front-end
work
to
do
so.
There's
some
kind
of
confusion
about
you
know
what
the
status
was.
So
Ryan
was
a
sign,
so
we
I
understand
him.
I
asked
alright.
This
was
just
yesterday
afternoon
and
a
sign
Clemente.
So
maybe
I
didn't
have
time
to
see
this
yet,
but
so
I
think
this
one
will
probably
will
need
to
move
and
I.
Think
there's
just
front-end
work
left
for
it.
D
E
Yeah
so
I
worked
with
David
the
beginning
of
the
milestone
and
he
he
gave
me
some
suggestions
as
to
work.
The
back
and
changes
should
be
so
I
tried.
The
changes
but
I
had
some
concerns
with
that,
and
this
didn't
go
off.
The
radar
I
apologize
for
that.
So
I
met
with
Adrian
to
discuss
my
concerns
and
I
feel
like
this
should
be
done
after
the
pagination
issue,
because
if
we
constantly
refresh
the
page
to
fetch
the
fetch
the
records,
because
right
now
we
have
a
limit
of
500.
E
There
is
a
high
possibility
that
the
user
might
see
missing
records
because,
right
now
we
have
a
limit
of
500
and
we
do
not
have
agitation
so
I
think
we
should
first
work
on
pagination.
Can
all
the
records
first
and
then
figure
out
how
to
automatically
refresh
the
page
and
fetch
the
latest
updates,
so
that
there
is
no
missing
records,
and
so
that
is
where
this
is
still
in
depth,
but
I
think
I
should
move
this
back
and
talk
about
priority
prioritizing
this.
C
E
F
There's
also
some
new
Express
research
that
needs
to
happen
specifically
figure
out
how
refreshing
interacts
with
pagination
and
the
position
of
the
view,
depending
on
where
the
user
is
called
and
and
all
that
stuff
and
I
think
having
a
better
idea
of
the
user
experience
would
help,
and
so,
since
they
already
have
research
projects,
ask
us
to
add
any
new
research
ideas
and
I.
Think
that
that
should
be
should
be
one
of
them.
A
E
I
I
think
I
can
provide
an
update
for
this
one
as
well
so
I
brought
my
Cola
and
I
broke
this
down
into
a
couple
of
issues
and
the
first
issue
that
we
worked
on
the
backend
this
time,
which
one
the
front
end
is
still
pending.
I
have
an
M
R
for
that,
it's
still
in
good
view.
So
technically,
this
is
in
review
and
broken
down
into
a
couple
of
issues
and
I
think
you
have
to
can
help
prioritize
outstanding
issues
for
upcoming
releases.
E
C
G
C
D
G
D
Very
meta
label
stickers
that
I'll
be
bringing
to
contribute
that
you
know
represent
the
word
monitor
team
monitor
stage,
so
yeah
I'll
be
bringing
a
bunch
to
contribute.
We'll
figure
out
for
those
of
y'all
can't
make
it
how
to
get
it
to
you,
but
just
wanted
to
share
that
cool
surprise.
Not
every
team
has
this
so
so
far
only
the
ops
section
has
dev
ops,
honor
and
DevOps
configure
so
be
excited
that
you're
part
of
the
cool
people,
or
at
least
have
my
eyes
for
the
cool
people.
C
D
A
C
B
A
A
H
Is
this
issue
that
affects
the
self
monitoring
project
link?
So
when
you
create
the
self
monitor
by
clicking
the
toggle
button,
a
link
appears
in
the
help
text
above
it
so
immediately
after
creating
the
project,
the
link
still
works,
but
if
you
saw,
if
you
refresh
the
page
or
if
you
close
this,
this
tab
in
your
browser
and
later
come
back
to
it,
that
link
does
not
take
you
to
the
self-monitoring
project.
It
just
takes
you
to
the
base
domain.
So
like
gitlab
calm,
it
doesn't
take
you
to
the
actual
project.
H
D
D
I
D
Thank
you
yeah,
so
well,
I'm.
Just
looking
at
the
issue,
workflow
document
documentation,
it
looks
like
priority
is
whatever
we
set
based
on
when
we
want
to
release
and
the
severity
is
what
impact.
So
it
I
think
it's.
It's
not
an
s-1,
because
it's
not
users
blocked
as
two
is
broken
feature
workaround
to
complex
and
unacceptable
s2
and
s3
is
broken
feature
with
the
acceptable
workaround.
So
Doug
do
you
want
to
make
the
call
on
whether
this
is
unacceptable
or
acceptable?
Workaround
I.
J
A
A
A
Just
kind
of
maybe
highlight
some
of
the
top
ones
or
read
through
them,
see
if
there's
things
that
we
need
to
talk
about,
if
there's
things
we
can,
if
there's
process
changes
we
can
make
or
for
things
that
we
want
to
improve
or
just
call
out
some
of
the
highlights
and
say
thank
you
for
people.
If
we
need
to
do
that
or
if
we
can
do
that
as
well
and
now
I
think
so,
the
new
I'm
not
sure
the
schedule,
the
new
retro
issue
for
twelve
nine
should
get
created
automatically
right.
A
A
A
A
D
C
D
D
H
About
this
I've
been
also
thinking
about
security
issues.
We
usually
don't
discuss
them
in
the
call,
because
the
call
is
recorded,
so
it
might
be
a
good
idea.
I,
don't
know,
pause
the
recording,
discuss
those
and
then.
C
A
D
I
would
record
it,
and
then
you
know
anything.
We
talked
about
it's
not
under
issue.
We
just
make
sure
we
write
it
down
afterwards,
so
there's
a
way
to
surface
if
you're,
not
on
the
call,
but
also
still
trying
to
keep
it
a
conversation
within
the
team
so
that
people
feel
more
comfortable
or
sharing.
A
Right
yeah
for
the
retrospective
you're,
saying
yeah,
I,
yeah,
I,
agree:
I,
think
we
should
not
record
that
part
but
yeah
for
if
we
need
to
talk
about
and
separate
from
the
retrospective.
If
we
have
to
talk
about
confidential
issues,
security
issues
or
something
then
well,
we
can
just
pause
recording
during
our
meetings.
If
that
comes
up
in
the
future.
A
Because
yeah,
what's
in
the
async
retrospective
issue,
is
private
to
our
team,
so
we
want
to
kind
of
keep
it
that
way.
If
we
can
so
people
continue
to
feel
comfortable,
adding
information
to
that,
maybe
they
don't
want
to
share
across
the
coal
company
or
the
world,
but
then
yeah.
We
can
discuss
at
that
point
too.
If
there's
things
that
we
should
might
be
a
good
time
next
week,
then
to
also
talk
about
if
there's
things
that
we
want
to
surface
to
kind
of
the
wider
organization
in
the
public
retrospective
call.