►
From YouTube: Plan stage weekly meeting - 2019-10-16
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).
A
B
B
B
C
B
A
D
My
plan
team
I
mean
strike
from
the
ab
SEC
team
I'm
here
to
announce
that
we're
looking
to
start
integrating
stable
counterparts
into
the
development
teams,
so
that
we
can
work
with
you
more
closely.
I
mean
do
a
number
of
things,
but
you
know
hopefully
help
identify
security
issues
earlier
instead
of
and
reduce
with.
The
goal
over
time,
of
course,
is
to
reduce
the
number
of
vulnerabilities
that
get
released
to
production,
but
I've
included
a
link
in
the
document
with
some
of
our
goals.
D
E
E
So
whenever
you
guys
working
on
the
stuff
that
you
think
that
I
mean
security
could
help
just
ping
me
and
I'll
try
to
look
and
also
it
will
help
to
have
an
idea
about
me
for
me
to
have
to
have
an
idea
about
what
you
guys
are
planning
to
release
soon
and
what
could
be
tested.
I
mean
close
to
100
or
something
like
that.
But
I
can
try
it
and
test
it
before
it's
released.
So.
C
E
D
Recommend
continuing
to
pack
ping
at
SEC
team,
just
because
we
do
have
an
engineer
on
rotation
for
that
as
well.
The
Castel
will
actually
be
you
know,
hopefully
he'll
be
like
helping.
You
do
some
like
thread,
modeling
and
stuff
like
that.
So
as
new
model,
our
new
features
are
being
developed.
He
can
identify
things
that
we
should
be
working
on
during
the
development
process.
If
that
makes
sense,
but
for
now
I
would
continue
to
ping
app
SEC
and
then
you
know
it
might
be
redirected
to
him
or
you,
oh
yeah,
yeah.
C
C
C
Okay,
that's
good.
I
was
gonna
share
the
the
board,
but
while
I
was
locked
out
so
I,
don't
accidentally
show
a
security
issue.
The
problem
I
have
right
now
is
that
zoom
is
not
telling
me
what
any
of
my
windows
are.
So
it's
making
it
quite
challenging
to
find
the
right
chrome
window
so
just
bear
with
me.
A
second
I've
just
closed
everything.
That's
not
the
one.
I
want
to
share.
Oh
right
now
there
we
go
I've
got
a
pop-up
from
Catalina.
That's
why
sorry
Donald?
A
Sure
so
mine
was
somewhat
related,
just
as
we
were
planning
out.
12/5
noticed
that
there's
a
few
issues
that
are
still
in
either
workflow
solution,
validation
or
workflow
problem
validation,
I
think,
there's
only
like
two
in
problem,
validation
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
are
feeling
pretty
good
about
getting
those
into
I'm
one
of
the
build
phases
by
the
start
of
twelve
five,
which
is
ideal
like
as
we're
going
through
and
kind
of
weighing
stuff,
because
I
think
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
Sean
and
John,
but
we're
not
weighing
stuff
that
is
unweight.
A
Yeah
bugs
aren't
so
much
of
a
problem,
it's
mainly
the
larger
like
the
deliverables
or
the
features
that
are
they're
not
completely
set,
which
makes
it
somewhat
tough
to
add
a
weight.
I
mean
we
can
it'll,
be
kind
of
a
larger
swag
or
a
larger
guess,
but
I
don't
think.
So.
Are
you
all
on
features
and
deliverables
Shawn,
or
are
you
adding
weights
to
stuff
that
are
in.
C
I
didn't
specify
any
of
that
to
the
people
asked
to
do
weight,
so
probably
they
will
be
going
through
those,
but
I
noticed
that
like,
for
instance,
the
multiple
milestones
issue.
So
we
plan
to
be
able
to
that.
Merge
requests
and
issues
have
multiple
milestones
and
that's
still
in
solution,
validation,
so
I
guess
technically
we
shouldn't
be
waiting
it,
but
we
can
probably
know
that
it's
going
to
be
big.
A
B
F
Which
I'm
sorry
go
back,
not
attack
I'm,
gonna
portfolio,
site
I?
Think
most
of
them
are
on
the
roadmap
you're
in
the
roadmap
side,
and
we
have
a
I,
have
a
big
session
with
Pauline
Alexis
today
to
kind
of
come
to
final
decisions
on
some
of
that,
so
I
feel
pretty
confident
we'll
get
those
ready
for
you
guys,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
you
know
update
them
in
little
Pina
as
soon
as
we
get
there.
C
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
step
through
this,
so
we've
got
I,
just
filtered
it
by
the
12.4
milestone.
We've
got
29
things
that
don't
have
a
workflow
label
at
all.
So
some
of
these
are
fine.
Like
you
know,
this
is
something
that
Brett's
just
taken
because,
like
you
know,
you
know
we're
not
the
kind
of
company
that
requires
people
to
only
work
on
things
that
were
previously
scheduled.
People
do
have
the
ability
to
manage
their
own
time
same
I'm,
guessing
with
this
one
from
Yan.
C
We
also
have
a
couple
of
community
contribution
issues
in
here,
which
I
think
were
further
up
yeah.
So
there's
some
community
contribution
stuff
in
there
as
well,
but
there
is
quite
a
lot
in
open
and
and
some
of
its
in
the
design
project.
So
maybe
that
that
has
a
separate
thing,
but
we
should
probably
look
at
those.
C
Then
we've
got
more
than
I
realized
in
the
early
workflow
stages,
so
we've
got
like
you
know.
This
in
workflow
starts
from
a
problem:
validation,
some
in
solution,
validation,
these
incoming
breakdown.
These
two
we
added
during
the
milestone.
So
that's
why
they
got
missed
so
I
just
need
to
move
those
to
12.5,
so
they
actually
do
get
broken
down.
C
C
Refactor
burned
down,
chat
back
in
logic,
support
burn
down
charts
in
boards,
I
just
noticed,
doesn't
actually
have
a
group
label,
so
it
won't
show
up
on
my
board
and
it
won't
show
up
on
Jon's
board.
So
that's
probably
why
it's
it's
not
been
picked
up
by
anybody,
so
I
think
we've
just
completely
missed
that.
Basically,
what
else
have
we
got?
Scheduling
I'm,
not
really
sure
what
12.4
and
scheduling
still
means
like
semantically,
but
this
is
assigned
to
way.
C
C
Well,
that's
so
then
yeah!
So
the
main,
the
main
the
main
sets
we've
got
a
pretty
equal
split
between
ready
for
development
in
dev
and
in
reviews
we've
got
20
in
review,
27
in
dev
and
22
in
ready
for
development.
That
means
that
we
won't
be
done
with
the
stuff,
so
ideally
I
think
at
the
end
of
a
milestone.
C
We
would
have
nothing
left
of
this
line
because,
if
something's
in
dev,
we
know
that
we
weren't
necessary,
you
know
guaranteed
that
the
development
will
be
done,
but
we
should
have
started
development
on
pretty
much
everything
by
the
time
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
milestone.
So
we
probably
want
to
have
a
review
through
those
because
there's
22
items
there
I
think
John,
Donald's
and
I
can
do
that
sort
of
a
think
and
talk
about
that.
But
I
think
it's
worth
doing.
We've
got
a
few
blocked
things
that
I
think
we
should
maybe
I.
C
Don't
know
Gabe
if
you're,
using
an
issue
templates
to
create
the
planning
issues
at
the
moment,
but
maybe
it's
worthwhile
adding
a
sort
of
grooming
step
to
that
where
we
look
at
blocked
items
in
the
current
milestone
and
just
see
if
we
can
unblock
those
or
move
them
forward.
Somehow,
because
we
don't
want
them
to,
we
all
block
to
be
the
place
things
get
lost
in
essentially
so
like,
for
instance,
we
know
that
this
one
is
blocked
because
we
are
working
on
the
view.
C
Real-Time
updates
of
issue
a
mojo
quest
sidebar,
is
blocked
on
some
of
these
graphical
items
to
add
further
attributes
to
the
graphical
API.
So
those
are
in
the
reviews,
that's
fine,
but
because
we
can't
visualize
that
on
the
board,
we
probably
should
just
walk
through
them,
one
by
one,
just
double
check,
but
yeah,
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff
done
a
bunch
of
stuff
and
verification
and,
like
I,
said
a
bunch
of
stuff
in
review,
so
I'm
pretty
happy
with
them.
C
This
inherits
children,
ethics
start
and
due
dates.
Alexander
has
been
working
diligently
over
quite
a
long
database
review
process,
because
this
is
a
surprisingly
complicated
database
query
to
fix
that,
and
we've
got
a
bunch
of
other
cool
stuff
in
there
as
well,
so
I'm
gonna
stop
sharing.
Did
anybody
have
any
questions
about
that?
C
Basically,
my
point
is
I
think
we
should
make
some
explicit
steps
to
you
know
see
what's
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
in
dev,
when
we
do
planning
for
the
next
release
and
certainly
the
end
of
the
milestone
and
also
anything
left
of
ready
for
development,
probably
halfway
through
the
milestone,
I
guess
we
need
to
go
in
and
check
and,
like
say
like,
is
this
actually
on
the
right
milestone?
What
are
we
doing
with
this
issue?
Because-
and
my
understanding
of
it
like
being
in
workflow,
scheduling
and
being
on
a
milestone,
doesn't
really
make
sense.
C
Yes,
possibly
so
this
one
like
I
said,
is
kind
of
a
special
case,
because
it's
being
worked
on
by
somebody
who
well
actually
both
of
these
are
being
worked
on
by
people
who
aren't
directly
in
the
development
team
so
way.
Mine
works
and
support,
Russell's,
obviously
a
technical
writer,
so
yeah,
that's
possibly
just
that.
We
just
need
to
tidy
up
the
labels
on
those
and
we
don't
need
to
make
the
process
change,
but
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
talk
through
some
of
this
stuff.
C
I'm
not
gonna,
go
through
it
all,
because
I
feel
like
it
taking
quite
a
bit
of
time
already,
but
I
think
these
are
useful
things.
We
should
try
and
work
out
now
that
we're
using
this
process,
we
should
try
and
might
keep
because,
like
a
billboard
for,
like
you
know,
the
back-end
team
won't
include
solution.
Validation,
program,
validation
starts
they'll,
all
just
show
in
the
open
list.
C
G
Wanted
to
mention
that
there
are
some
open
issues.
I
mean
issues
in
the
open
column
that
are
tests
that
have
failed
at
some
point,
and
the
process
when
we
are
managing
these
failures
is
to
create
an
issue
to
not
lose
track
of
it.
But
I
think
we
have
to
change
the
process
in
the
quality
Department
side,
because
it's
not
aligned
with
the
process
in
here,
and
it's
also,
we
have
other
priorities
as
well,
sometimes
that
we
can't
achieve
the
milestone
that
is
defined.
So
I
will
discuss
that
with
the
rest
of
the
Equality
Department.
Thanks.
C
Mommy
I
said
just
to
be
clear
like
if
you
want
the
development
team
to
work
on
it
in
quality.
It's
fine
to
just
add
the
workflow
ready
for
development
label.
It's
just
that
if
it
doesn't
have
a
workflow
label
at
all,
it
won't
show
up,
and
similarly,
in
the
case
of
some
of
those
I,
see
that
they're
missing
a
group
label.
So
for
my
team
I,
look
at
a
board
that
scoped
by
group
project
management
of
a
John's
team,
I
assume
he
looks
at
board
scoped
by
group
portfolio
management
and
groups
certify.
G
I've
been
adding
the
the
group
labels
in
the
issues
that
I
know,
but
still
there
are
some
that
we
like
in
the
quality
department
who
have
a
process
that
if
it's
an
issue
that
it's
related
to
a
feature
that
is
not
integration
related,
it's
part
of
the
product,
it
should
be
one
and
if
it's
p1
it
should
have
the
current
milestone
and
it
happened.
It
should
have
a
due
date
of
two
weeks
from
the
moment
that
the
issue
was
found,
but
this
is
not
usually
achievable.
We
say
yeah.
C
Well,
the
other
thing
is
like
we
certainly
can't
achieve
the
due
date.
If
we
don't
see
it
basically
so
like
it
needs
a
typically
a
back
end
label,
but
you
know
for
most
spec
phyleus
I'd
say
it's
probably
a
back-end
issue,
but,
like
you
know,
sometimes
it
will
be
a
front-end
issue,
but
if
it
doesn't
have
either
of
those
labels
again,
Donald's
team
will
be
looking
at
a
board
filtered
by
front-end.
My
name
John
seems
to
be
looking
at
boards
filtered
by
by
yeah.
G
C
C
Maybe
that's
another
thing,
and
maybe
this
whole
thing
should
have
been
in
process
workflow,
section,
I'm,
sorry,
previously,
Donald
and
I
did
do
a
check
like
using
a
board
to
check,
like
you
know,
column
for
back-end
column
for
front-end,
and
then
the
open
column
means
something
that
has
neither.
We
could
do
the
same
for
the
groups
and
for
front-end
and
back-end
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
these
like
orphaned
issues.
C
I,
guess
that's,
because
if
it's
in
the
open
list
on
those
boards,
it
won't
be
seen
by
the
front-end
or
back-end
development
teams,
which
is
fine.
If,
like
a
technical
writers
working
on
it
or
a
test,
automation,
engineer
like
you
or
a
product
designer
like
Holly
or
Alexis.
But
if
we
do
want
front-end
or
back-end
engineer
to
work
on
it,
we
do
need
to
add
those
labels
so
that
they
actually
see
on
that
board.
So
poof
that
was
a
long
sentence.
C
I
make
I
make
a
note
about
that
in
the
work
flow
section
and
try
and
like
collate
these
thoughts.
Gabe
I
also
see
that
you
said
that
you've
been
deliberately
not
because
the
list
is
full
because
you're
waiting
for
more
available
capacity
downstream,
which
is
a
very
good
point,
so
I
take
it.
That
means
that's
what
you're
saying
about
the
scheduling
versus
ready
for
death,
section
yeah.
H
C
No,
no
I
think
it's
just
if
we
get
to
this
point
in
the
milestone
and
then
like
you
know,
because
the
milestone
also
communicates
something
externally,
like
you
know,
to
the
wider
community
that,
like
you
know,
this
is
something
that
we're
working
on
in
1204
we're
probably
not
working
on
these
issues
in
12.4,
so
we
should
probably
also
make
the
milestone,
but
that's
kind
of
a
tension
with
the
way
we
use
milestones
and
the
way
we
use
these
workflow
levels
right
now,
as
well.
Yeah.
H
C
You
have
to
scroll
sooner,
a
bunch
like
I.
Just
did
sorry
the
other
thing
there
that
I
just
remembered
that,
hopefully
we're
getting
soon
is
the
work
in
progress
limits
where
they
will
highlight
a
list
if
there's
too
much
stuff
in
that
list,
which
is
also
going
to
be
really
helpful
for
us
and
everybody
else,
I
think
yep,
cool
right,
I
need
to
go
and
write
a
bunch
of
stuff
down
from
what
I
said
just
there,
and
where
do
you
want
to
take
your
item?
Please?
Oh.
G
Yeah
sure
so
just
to
bring
some
awareness
that
last
week,
one
of
the
tests
that
we
wrote
as
part
of
the
the
enterprise's
test
gaps,
we
was
failing
due
to
feature
that
had
changed.
The
behavior
of
the
feature
had
changed
and
the
task
was
fail
was
failing
and
I.
Imagine
that
this
was
failing
in
the
merge
requests
as
well.
G
So
if
you
notice
that
keyway
tests
are
failing
there,
please
notify
someone
from
the
quality
department
before
merging,
so
that
we
can
address
something
and
not
have
like
these
false
positives,
and
it
can
also
be
the
case
of
real
bugs
that
were
letting
pass
we
of
not
having
that
much
attention
in
this
case.
So
we
had
just
to
bring
awareness
and
thanks
Donald
for
fighting
pointing
out
there.
They
related
anymore.
C
I
I
mean
we
have
an
issue
to
actually
switch
it
off
to
remove
the
future
flag
in
the
codes
and
so
far
I
haven't
had
any
negative
feedback
about
it.
But
yeah.
There
were
a
few
issues
on
the
front
end
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
and
we
kind
of
deferred
them,
but
I
haven't
checked
up
in
a
while.
So
I
couldn't
tell
you
if
there
are
still
bugs
and
all
I've
heard
is
positive
things.
So.
J
First
time
there
were
two
obvious
issues
that
came
up:
one
was
not
preserving
the
older
order
of
items
in
the
tree
view
like
in
the
older
design.
We
had
two
separate
lists
for
issues
and
epics
and
whatever
order
was
of
items
in
those
two
lists
was
not
carried
over
onto
the
new
design,
so
that
was
first
month.
J
Second
bug
was
that
group
milestones
were
not
automatically
showing
up
or
the
issues
are
which
they
did
in
the
older
UI,
but
they
didn't
in
case
of
three,
so
both
of
those
mugs
got
fixed
and
that's
when
we
really
build
it
on
production.
So
right
now,
both
those
bugs
are
no
longer
present
in
the
tree.
Ui.
J
Another
thing
to
note
here
is
that
currently
on
production,
a
case
for
github
or
group,
where
we
have
enabled
this
flag,
you
cannot
reorder
the
items
across
each
other
that
you
cannot
move
and
epic
on
to
the
issues
list
and
issues
cannot
be
moved
over
to
the
epics
section.
Although
they
appear
in
the
same
tree,
you
cannot
do
the
interspersed
ordering
so
to
speak,
but
we
have
an
open,
mr,
which
is
currently
under
review.
It
has
content,
changes,
have
food
and
it
is
currently
under
database
review
because
it
involves
of
migrations.
J
But
Yaka
has
worked
on
that,
mr,
which
fine
allows
us
to
do
interspersed
ordering.
So
what
that
would
mean
is
that
once
that,
mr
is
most,
we
would
have
a
full
feature:
parity
with
the
older
UI,
where
user
can
reorder
items,
however
they
want,
but
instead
of
two
separate
lists,
we
would
have
a
single
tree.
So
when
we
say
that
we
want
to
remove
each
a
flag
and
make
this
feature
available
to
general
audience,
we
would
do
that
only
once.
J
F
J
Yes,
so
it
is
currently
interview.
There
are
some
comments
that
Yanis
left
for
your
car
to
do.
Obviously,
it
involves
some
critical
baton
changes
because
it
involves
some
migrations
if
you
want
to
make
sure
that
it
is
thoroughly
reviewed
from
database
perspective
before
it
gets
most.
So
that
is
the
last
status
of
it,
although
we
are
hoping
that
all
the
feedback
that
we
have
received
or
the
shoes
will
be
addressed
by
hopefully
end
of
this
week
or
at
max
end
of
next
week.
J
F
F
J
K
That
helps
thank
you.
I
did
offer
conscientious
today
and
if,
if
this
will
make
it
into
12.4,
it
would
be
really
last-minute
last-minute
merge,
because
there
are
some
Asian
changes
which
needs
to
be
done
and
also
it's,
as
mentioned,
it's
still
pending
database
program.
So
but
this
is
not
I,
don't
expect.
This
would
be
matched
today,
for
example,
or
tomorrow.
A
A
So
this
isn't
really
a
question
then,
because
we've
decided
that
we
don't
want
to
turn
it
in
on
for
everyone
until
we
get
interspersed
ordering
in
there
is
that
right.
Are
we
all
in
the
same
page?
Yes,
okay!
All
right
so
then
disregard
my
question:
we're
not
going
to
turn
it
on
for
everyone
until
some
point
in
twelve
five.
So
then,
yes,
Kenan
I,
think
you
want
to
remove
that
from
the
from
the
release
post
until
next
release
until
twelve.
F
H
Can
reorder
it?
You
can
reorder
those
issues
within
an
epoch
in
epics
within
each
other
right
yeah.
So
to
me,
that's
not
just
my
personal
opinion.
That's
parity,
because
before
there
was
no
tree
and
you
could
reorder,
you
could
reorder
things
on
the
same
level
relative
to
one
another
which
you
can
still
do
so
like
being
able
to
add
or
remove
one.
An
issue
from
one
epoch
to
a
new
parent
epoch
is
an
enhancement.
H
J
J
So
Gabe
when
you
say
that
the
intersperse
ordering
would
allow
users
to
change
parent
epoch,
that's
not
the
case.
That
is
still
something
that
we
need
to
work
on.
So
technically,
it's
not
an
enhancement
that
we
are
doing
right
now.
We
are
just
allowing
to
reorder,
even
if
that
third,
mr,
that
we
spoke
about,
gets
merged,
it
won't
allow
users
to
change
parent
and
epic
just
by
doing
drag-and-drop,
so
just
to
clarify
that,
obviously,
in
order
to
allow
changing
parents,
that
is
obviously
an
enhancement,
but
it
is
still
another,
mr
that
we
haven't
worked
on.
J
Okay,
the
third
item
is
mine,
which
is
around
sidebar
refactor,
although
the
alexis
has
already
responded.
So
this
is
just
a
question
around
UX
all
right
now
we
have
this
contextual
navigation
on
the
left
side
of
the
page,
and
it
has
that
exponent
collapse
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
sidebar,
which
is
fixed,
but
that's
not
the
case
for
right
sidebar,
although
even
right
sidebar
allows
us
to
expand
or
collapse
the
older
UX.
There
is
because
that
right,
sidebar
is
really
old
implementation
and
get
labs
even
before
we
had
the
contextual
sidebar
on
the
left.
J
So
it
is
around
design
discussion
like
whether
we
want
the
expand
collapse,
UI
to
be
exact
same
for
both
the
sidebars
for
consistency
and
I
open
the
design
issue
to
discuss
this
further,
because
if
it
involves
a
wider
impact
change
that
involves
multiple
product
areas
and
not
just
than
in
general.
So
in
case
you
have
any
feedback,
feel
free
to
navigation.