►
From YouTube: Plan stage weekly meeting - 2019-09-04
A
B
I'd
like
to
so
everybody,
please
join
me
in
welcoming
Holly
Reynolds
to
the
plan
team
as
a
senior
product
designer.
She
has
a
background
that
includes
working
at
version.
One
and
I
think
she's
an
outstanding
addition
to
the
team
and
I'm
really
excited
to
have
her
here.
I
hope
you
guys
are
Holly.
Can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
yourself,
yeah.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
it's
kind
of
funny,
because
I'm
hearing
some
of
my
friends
from
version
one
refer
to
get
lab
as
like
get
one,
because
there
have
been
a
few
folks
that
have
come
over
there
from
here.
But
yeah
I
worked
at
version
one
for
about
four
years
and
in
the
past
year,
I
spent
working
as
lead
product
designer
for
an
agency
in
Alabama
called
airship.
I
was
fully
remote
than
as
well
so
got
to
have
my
feet,
wet
with
the
great
experience
of
being
fully
remote
and
absolutely
loved.
C
A
Great
welcome
Holly,
it's
really
exciting
to
have
you
join
showing
I
had
a
quick
question
for
you.
Actually,
so
we've
got
three
product
designers
in
plant
now
and
we
have
three
groups
within
plan.
Although
the
amount
of
work
we
do
in
those
groups
is
not
even
across
all
three,
so
we've
got
project
management,
portfolio
management
and
certify.
A
B
Work
within
that
environment
of
the
subgroups-
and
there
have
been
some
different
approaches
to
that
on
the
UX
team.
We've
documented
those
and
I
can
link
to
that
issue.
Some
some
stages
to
the
Xers
are
just
aligning
to
those
pillars
or
subgroups,
but,
as
you
said
it
in
some
cases
the
work
isn't
even
across
the
three
and
so
that
doesn't
make
sense
right,
because
we
want
to
maximize
UX
value,
delivered
and
output
and
so
on.
D
Okay,
so
yes,
I,
do
have
an
introduction
very
excited
to
introduce
call
to
the
plan
stage
as
a
front-end
engineer,
since
we're
not
doing
the
introductions
in
the
company
call
anymore.
I'm
gonna
ask
the
questions
here
to
kind
of
introduce
yourself
to
the
team
and
anyone
else
watching
the
video.
But
if
you
could
tell
us
where
you
were
before
or
get
lab,
while
you
want
to
join.
E
E
Video
games
and
yeah
and
I
also
volunteer
at
called
your
future,
which
helps
refugees,
learn
how
to
code
and
the
reason
I
wants
to
come
to
get
lamp
was
and
because
I've
had
many
great
things
about
them
and
I
really
resonated
with
their
and
philosophy
of
diversity
and
inclusion
and
I
just
heard
great
things,
but
they're
valleys
and
never
here
so
I'm
really
happy
to
be
on
board
and
looking
forward
to
working
with.
All
of
you
awesome
we're.
A
Thanks
welcome
Krong,
so
if
anybody's
curious,
I'm
here
Kong's
here,
I'm
a
matter
of
Scotland's
Lake,
so
yeah,
this
is
a
sort
of
team
update,
but
it
doesn't
directly
affect
any
of
the
teams
that
work
on
plan,
except
that
we
have
less
work
to
do
now.
So
there
is
an
ecosystem
team,
so
we've
had
an
ecosystem
p.m.
for
a
while,
but
no
engineers,
you
know,
have
an
engineering
manager
and
an
engineer
with
more
engineers
joining
in
the
next
few
weeks
and
months.
A
The
impact
on
us
is
mainly
on
the
project
management
team
because
the
sorry
yeah
the
project
management,
back-end
team,
because
that's
kind
of
the
catch-all
one
and
JIRA
integrations
basically
no
longer
belong
to
the
plan
stage.
They
belong
to
ecosystem,
which
is
in
enablement
now.
So
it's
in
a
completely
different
section,
completely
different
group
adds
Felipe
is
helping
one
of
the
new
engineers
on
board
Heinrich's,
going
to
finish
up
what
he's
got
left
to
do
on
the
new
integration,
which
is
very
little
now.
He
just
needs
some
help
from
Atlassian
supports
and
yeah.
A
A
Yeah
and
I
should
have
said:
John
and
I
had
the
onboarding
buddy
for
the
new
manager
Nick
who's
on
the
ecosystem
team,
as
well,
because
John's
out
this
week
and
I'm
out
next
week
we're
we're
kind
of
pairing
on
that
so
yeah.
Another
section
we
added
to
the
agenda
was
big
picture
updates,
which
is
great
timing,
because
well
Gabe's
got
an
update
which
relates
to
the
next
one
and
three
years.
So
this
is
the
perfect
time
to
try
out
that
new
section
and
tell
us
all
about
that.
Gabe
yeah.
F
I,
there's
a
lot
to
read
more
or
less
I
wrote
that
it's
still
in
emergence,
and
so
you
want
to
have
got
feedback
on
it.
That's
great,
we'll
be
iterating
on
it,
some
more
too,
but
the
basic
gist
is
the
one-year
plan
is
written
in
the
form
of
an
internal
press
release
its
kind
of
its.
How
Amazon
does
some
of
their
product
management,
where
you
know
for
the
maintain
vision
over
a
long
period
of
time.
They
work
really
hard
at
writing.
F
This
press
release
in
iterating
on
it
to
make
it
compelling
and
something
that
is
exciting,
and
that
also
should
help
provide
a
little
bit
of
context
on
the
specific
things
that
we
want
to
work
on,
but
I
think
the
big.
The
big
goal
for
the
next
year
is
to
be
able
to
take
some
market
share
from
JIRA,
but
not
to
recreate
jairs
features
in
like
one
to
one
parity
and
I.
F
We're
factoring
over
to
graph
do
all
of
you
but
yeah
read
through
it.
There's
also
one
for
portfolio
management.
The
qiyan
wrote
so
we're
open
to
feedback.
If
there's
something
on
there
that,
like
you,
don't
agree
with
bring
it
up
if
there's
something
that
you
wish
was
on
there,
that's
not
more
explicitly
called
out
bringing
like
I
want
this
to
be
a
group
effort
and
a
team
effort,
and
everybody
has
a
different
perspective
and
I
would
value
everybody
contributing
for
this,
though,
that's
that.
D
F
F
for
certify,
starts
in
a
couple
weeks,
he'll
work
on
the
one
for
certifying,
but
that
should
then
become
the
stage
level
plan
and
I'm
waiting
to
hear
back
from
Eric
whether
or
not
we
can
leave
it
at
the
group
level
or
if
we
need
to
break
this
into
the
category
level.
There's
a
lot
of
things
that,
like
don't
fit
neatly
within
the
categories
as
they're
defined.
So
we
either
need
to
like
rectify
that
and
move
feet
like
the
features
into
the
right
categories
and
go
that
way
or
kind
of
treat
them
as
separate
things.
F
But
once
we
do
get
it
merged
in
I'm,
gonna
take
that
and
kind
of
break
it
into
like
one
big
epic
to
start
with.
It's
just
a
bunch
of
bullet
points
to
then
start
doing
some
of
the
roadmap
and
planning
and
like
staging
of
what
we're
gonna,
try
to
get
done,
and
each
release
and
kind
of
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
with
the
team
on
the
best
path
to
get
to
the
end
goal.
If
that
makes
sense,.
F
A
F
Yeah,
it
should
be
ambitious,
it
should
be
achievable
and
I
think
it's
achievable
by
limiting
like
there's,
there's
some
gray
area
and
how
far
you
take
some
of
the
features.
So
we
can
either
have
like
take
them
really
far.
If
we
have
time
but
the
way
I
wanna
approach
is
doing
incremental
and
iterative,
you
know
delivery
of
on
that
stuff,
so
we
can
make
those
trade-offs
decisions
as
we
go.
F
I
think
the
general
gist
is
like
if
we
get
8
percent
9
percent
of
the
way
there
we'll
be
in
a
really
good
position
and
there's
also
like
we
need
to
leave
room
for
the
market
changing
and
things
happening,
and
so
it's
like
it's
not
set
in
stone
and
it
will
be
updated
as
we
learn
more
from
working
on
what
we're
working
on
and
listening
to
our
customers
and
our
the
wider
community.
So.
F
F
You,
okay,
the
next
one,
this
kind
of
ties
into
the
big
picture.
You
know
in
the
vision
we're
talking
about
making
things
user
experience
more
real-time
in
12.4.
We
need
to
take
the
first
step
towards
that,
and
so,
like
we've
talked
about
refactoring
issue
boards,
to
kind
of
bring
them
up
to
speed
with
our
using
you
today
and
then,
we've
also
talked
about
some
of
the
real-time
functionality
on
the
issue
boards.
It
makes
sense
to
start
with
the
issue,
whichever
one
we
start
with,
there's
different
approaches
for
how
that
can
be
implemented
and
so
like.
F
And
since
it
is
so
kind
of
like
it's
an
architecture
decision
which
is
not
my
call
but
I
do
see
like
there's
some
differing
opinions
on
how
to
do
it,
that
if
we
don't
talk
about
it
at
this
level,
then
I
feel
like
there'll,
be
a
lot
of
disparate
work
and
then
rework
as
a
result.
So
that's
kind
of
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
A
D
Yeah,
so
for
yes,
I
saw
I,
think
there
it
we
do
want
to
keep
the
whole
retype
real-time
functionality
in
mind
as
we're
refactoring
the
Schubert's.
The
problem
is
the
refactor
issue.
Boards
is
a
major
it's
a
major
task
before
we
so
I
do
agree
that
we
want
to
get
to
graph
QL
everywhere.
I
think
that
has
been
decided.
That's
that's
kind
of
the
safe
assumption,
but
as
far
as
like
the
issue
boards
refactor,
we
don't
want
to
and
cushaw
you
can
call
right
yeah.
D
A
So,
on
back
end,
I
still
have
an
M
R
for
this,
which
I
need
Tim
to
approve,
because
Christopher's
waitin
for
Tim
to
approve
it,
where
basically
I
say
that
the
intent
is
that
building
new
features
happens
in
graph
QL,
where
it
makes
sense.
So
there
might
be
cases
where
it
doesn't
make
sense
right
like
if
you
literally
need
to
add,
like
one
field
to
an
existing
REST.
A
This
way
you
can
see
how
they
can
break
that
down,
but
that
was
just
because,
like
as
the
project
management
team,
we
kind
of
like
own
graphical
in
general,
they'd
be
on
that
we
would
just
be
taking
each
team
would
be
taking
its
own
areas,
so
we
could
certainly
prioritize
boards
for
the
project
management
team
to
make
a
veil
then
graph
QL
like
pretty
easily.
You
know
we
don't
have.
A
A
And
the
board's
right
now
I
think
it's
slightly
easier
because
we
use
an
internal
API
rather
than
the
public
REST
API.
So
there's
a
typically
more
limited
in
scope
from
the
public,
REST
API
as
well
so
like
getting
up
to
parity
with
that
will
hopefully
be
easier
than
getting
up
parity
with
the
public
API
as
well.
F
H
D
So
the
only
the
only
hesitation
I
have
there
is
that
I.
Don't
think
that
has
been
determined
that
that
is
right
now
the
end
solution
and
I'm
scared,
oscar's,
but
I'm,
yeah,
I,
guess
fearful
that
we're
going
to
spend
the
time
to
to
refactor
and
get
everything
ready
in
Forge,
which
again
is
a
fairly
large
thing,
and
then
us
and
determining
that
you
know
WebSockets
is
not
a
real-time
solution.
F
I
think,
even
if
you
don't
use
subscriptions
and
there's
a
different
thing,
we
do
for
real-time
we're
still
using
graph
QL.
We
still
want
to
use
that
instead
of
you
know
what
we've
been
doing
before
you
know
so,
like
you
can
layer
on
the
subscription
stuff
on
top
of
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
still
want
to
use
graphic
you
also,
if
we're
gonna
refactor,
we
should
refactor
into
that.
Like
it
goal,
you
know,
yep.
D
I
agree:
I,
don't
think
we
have
and
I
know,
there's
an
RFC
and
all
I
think
you
actually
created
the
RFC
on
the
front
end
side,
but
I
don't
think
it's
been
determined
that
Apollo
is
what
we're
going
to
use
if
the
end
result
for
state
management
is
going
to
replace
view.
X
I
think
we're
still
trying
to
figure
that
part
out.
Also,
okay,.
F
What
so,
breaking
that
down?
There's
two
things:
we
need
to
determine
what
we're
gonna
do
for
real-time
support,
and
then
we
determine
what
we're
going
to
do
for
a
front-end
state
management
and
like
make
decisions
on
those
things.
Is
there
anything
that
I
can
do
to
help
contribute
to
those
or
remove
blockers
or
make
it
easier
to
make
a
decision
so
that
we
can
like
move
for
with
these
things
or
yeah.
H
H
For
reordering
items,
like
that's
one
interaction,
another
major
interaction
is
updating
the
attributes
of
for
individual
issues
from
the
sidebar.
So,
as
you
say,
like
Henry
mentioned,
we
should
start
with
the
side,
but
I
think
that's
a
great
starting
point.
If
we
want
to
go
with
a
graph
QL
mutation
API
to
update
the
sidebar,
then
back
end
is
where
we
can
start
working
for
the
sidebar
updates,
and
then
we
already
have
another
issue
where
we
want
to
reflect
the
right
sidebar
ends.
B
H
Issue
boards
refactor:
well,
we
already
have
the
sidebar
component
available
to
use
and
then
only
things
that
remain.
There
is
integrating
the
reordering
logic
for
individual
issues
within
minutes,
and
then
we
would
already
have
sidebar
back
and
implementation
in
place
and
we
won't
have
any
further
dependency
to
start
working
on
that
issue.
Booths
recap:
as
far
as
state
management
is
concerned,
the
RFC
that
I
opened
just
to
give
the
epic
epic
trees
is
where
we
realized
a
situation
where
we
were
both.
H
At
the
same
time,
we
were
using
graph
tool
to
fetch
the
data
and
for
other
interactions
like
adding
or
removing
issues
into
the
tree
or
removing
them
from.
The
brief
is
where
we
were
using
original
rail
safety
I
that
we
hide
for
pool
design,
so
we
were
using
both
of
them
and
it
didn't
feel
right
personally
to
me
to
have
networking
logic
be
spread
across
two
areas
like
you
already
do,
networking
in
the
actions
within
view
X,
so
I
wouldn't
keep
graph
to
a
related
network
in
logic
or
schema
rather
within
the
tree
component
itself.
H
But
if
we
have
everything
available
from
the
back
in
perspective
in
traffic
you'll,
then
I
think
it
is
fine
that
we
use
schema
information
into
the
components
and
then
through
the
state
management,
without
using
UX
at
all.
But
as
as
long
as
we
are
going
to
combine
the
two,
it
makes
sense
not
to
spread
networking
logic
between
two
different
places
and
I.
Have
it
in
single
place
until
we
have
everything
either
in
the
real
side
or
in
the
draft.
A
Just
one
thing:
I
wanted
to
note
that
the
one
case
the
graph
QL
doesn't
make
us
good
is,
if
you
want
to
use
HTTP,
caching
and
polling,
because
graph
QL
I'm
gonna
use
is
post
requests.
There's
a
bunch
of
articles
around
this,
but
basically
it's
like
created
get
endpoint
that
does
a
specific
post
request.
This
is
the
upshot
of
that
so
yeah,
like
that's,
that's
a
minor
thing.
We
probably
don't
want
to
use
HTTP
caching
for
most
of
this,
but
it's
just
worth
calling
out
there
and.
H
D
Yeah
so
I
think
keep
you
had
committed
somewhere,
where
maybe
we
should
spike
this
out.
I
don't
know,
I
still
feel
like
sidebar
is
the
best
thing
to
help
to
prototype,
with
the
memory
stage
on
on
real-time
and
on
web
sockets.
As
back
to
your
question
on,
if
there's
anything
you
can
help
with
to
make
sure
we
don't
or
to
make
sure
we
move
forward,
I'll,
let
you
know
if
there
is
there
may
be,
you
know
we
can.
You
do
have
experience
with
with
with
some
of
the
front
end
stuff.
D
D
A
A
The
time
we
start
using
the
total
full
milestone
for
development
is
on
the
18th
of
September.
So
two
weeks
today
now
in
12.3,
because
it
was
kind
of
a
transition
thing,
we
were
using
workflow
ready
for
development
on
some
things,
but
not
on
everything
because,
like
you
know,
we
were
still
sort
of
working
through
this.
So
I
had
a
couple
of
questions
on
like.
Should
we
say
that
everything
in
that
is
in
12.4
that
we've
waited
and
everything
that's
already
in
12.3?
That's
not
blogs
should
have
they're
ready
for
development
label.
F
Yes
and
no
I
think
if
you
feel
confident
that
the
issue,
if
it's
a
big
one
has
been,
is
ready
for
development
right
so
like
one.
That's
not
that
we
know
we
want
to
do
is
the
websocket
stuff,
but
we
haven't
gotten
clarity
on
how
we're
going
to
do
it,
so
it's
actually
not
ready
for
development,
which
so
should
still
be
in
the
planning
breakdown
until
we
make
a
decision
and
have
like
a
clear
path
forward
and
I
think
that's
where
part
of
the
goal.
This
is
to
have
a
more
continuous
flow
of
issues.
F
I
would
like
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
start
with
something
for
a
coming
milestone
in
the
validation
backlog
and
we
can
move
it
through
the
entire
workflow
in
one
like
release,
cycle
and
I.
Think
that's
why
there
are
some
issues
that
I'm
letting
to
go
back
and
update
the
milestones
on
that
are
still
in
the
validation
backlog.
So
we
haven't
gotten
to
them,
which
means,
if
we
don't,
if
they're,
not
ready
for
development,
that
means
they
can't
be
started,
which
means
they
can't
be
like
on.
For
that.
So
I
guess.
That's.
A
A
So
in
general
we
would
have
at
say
a
given
point.
We
would
have
fewer
issues
in
a
future
milestone
a
specific
future
milestone,
but
we
would
be
bringing
more
issues
through
that
process
of,
like
you
know,
going
through
the
the
validation
stages
and
then
the
climbing
breakdown,
so
they
would
be
coming
in
sort
of
like
regularly
rather
than
in
chunks,
essentially
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
so
for
12.4
we
can
take
the
issues
and
just
check
they
should
they
are
in
like
valid
states.
A
Basically,
like
you
know
the
the
issues
that
we
have
in
the
12.4
milestone,
because
also
that's
an
external
communication
to
the
way
the
community
to
customers
to
users
etc,
like
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
like
get
those
broken
down
in
time
and
work
on
them,
and
if
not,
we
can.
We
can
address
that.
So,
if
something's
in,
like
solution,
validation
and
the
current
milestone,
it's
the
example.
I
gave
like
further
down
like
that.
A
F
Theoretically,
for
now,
because
we're
not
moving
fast
enough
like
through
each
of
the
different
steps
to
get
through
the
whole
workflow
in
a
given
release,
but
in
the
future,
that
would
be
an
ideal
thing
where
we
can
say
hey.
We
need
to
validate
this,
let's
put
together
a
day-long
activity
that,
where
you
are
gonna,
use
a
validate
this
the
next
day.
Let's
move
it
into
planning
break
down
the
next
day.
Let's
move
it
into
schedule.
In
the
next
day,
it
gets
moved
in
and
ready
for
dev
so
like
within
a
matter
week.
F
A
A
D
Yeah
I
think
that
similar
question
a
while
ago
on,
like
my
game,
set
ideally
we'd,
be
able
to
you
know
if
it
was
in
the
current
milestone
in
a
head-on
validation,
I
resent
a
validation
face.
That
would
just
mean
that
okay,
we
gotta
get
it.
We
got
to
get
it
moving
or
we
gotta
get
it
into
one
of
the
workflow
stages
within
a
day
or
so
I.
Don't
think
we're
ready.
F
The
designers
I'm
with
them
already
scheduled
for
this
afternoon
and
so
I
will
talk
to
them
about
like
workflows
for
the
top
part
of
the
funnel.
You
know
whatever
work
well,
to
figure
out
what
we
can
do
to
optimize,
that
and
kind
of
set
some
expectations
around.
How
that
should
work,
and
then
we'll
put
that
in
the.