►
From YouTube: Plan group weekly meeting
Description
Plan group weekly meeting for 2019-05-22
A
All
right,
okay,
we're
recording.
So
this
is
the
plan
stage
root
weekly
meeting,
which
has
a
stupid
out
a
hitch
for
anybody
watching
the
recording
everything
went,
fine,
Donald
and
I
had
a
question
for
you
well
me,
so
we
have
this
new
process
where
Emma's
the
touch
spec,
slash
features
should
be
reviewed
by
a
corresponding
test.
Automation,
engineer
and
I
think
the
way
a
work
in
danger
is
to
pick
the
test.
Automation
engineer
for
the
stage
is
that
right,
so
I
won't
pick
like
a
random
test.
Automation
engineer.
B
B
B
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense,
I
mean
just
to
be
clear
as
well.
I
think
this
will
be
in
the
documentation
update
when
that
happens,
but
this
is
like
a
documentation
review
where
it
is
a
review
that
we
need
for
a
merge
request,
but
it's
not
a
review
the
blocks
about
requests.
So
if
mal
mer
can't
get
to
a
review
before
we
before
every
other
review
happens
and
we're
ready
to
merge
it,
and
we
think
it's
good,
we
can
still
merge
it
and
ask
him
to
review
it
at
a
later
date.
A
Like
you
know,
especially
if
he's
on
vacation
or
whatever
so
and
the
same
with
the
documentation
reviews
right,
you
can
create
a
follow-up
issue
for
the
documentation
team
and
then
they
can
fix
the
documentation
or
add
their
comments
in
a
separate
Emma,
because
we
can
always
change
stuff.
So
hopefully
this
this
should
be
a
pretty
low
overhead
process,
and
then
we
get
a
lot
more
input
from
the
quality
team
at
an
earlier
stage
on
our
Eva's,
because
I
think
in
general,
what
we
want
is
more
inputs.
A
You
want
people
to
be
able
to
give
their
input
as
early
as
possible,
without
necessarily
blocking
things
on
receiving
that
input
from
them,
and
we've
had
similar
questions
about
UX
reviews
in
the
past,
but
those
are
walking
I
think
Annabelle
like.
If
you
don't
you
exit
emerge
request,
we
can't
merge
it
right.
D
A
Derek's
here
yet
so,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
this
again.
Just
cuz
I
keep
thinking
about
it,
but
we
don't
need
to
actually
do
anything
with
it
now.
So
we
were
talking
before
about
having
Eclipse
that
work
at
the
instance
level
and
the
way
I
think
about
that
is
that
we
want
things
that
work
across
different
top
level
groups,
so
not
necessarily
the
instance
level,
because
on
Caleb
konley
instance,
that
means
like
you,
know
everything.
A
Okay,
like
you,
know
millions
of
projects,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
public
projects-
it's
not
gonna,
be
usable,
so
the
way
I'm
trying
to
think
about
it
is
this
collection
of
top-level
groups,
which
I
think
John
has
mentioned
before
kind
of
maps
to
a
portfolio
in
you
know
we
have
portfolio
management,
program,
management
and
project
management.
I
think
I've
got
that
right
and
portfolio
being
like
this,
this
collection
of
stuff,
so
we
can
already
do
portfolio
management
if
you
put
all
your
stuff
in
one
top-level
group
and
use
subgroups.
A
That
is
a
simplest
way
to
do
it,
which
is
probably
why
I'm
thinking
of
it
in
that
way
like
from
an
API
perspective,
we
can
basically
consider
like
group
labels
to
be
also
portfolio
labels.
If
we
add
these,
but
I'm,
definitely
very
interested
to
hear
what
people
think
on
the
issue,
because
I
think
that's.
If
we
could
implement
this,
it
would
solve
a
bunch
of
our
own
internal
problems,
one
of
them
being
like
I
as
a
manager
want
to
know
what
we
did
in
plan.
A
I
can
look
at
the
github
or
group,
but
we
might
have
done
some
stuff
on
the
website.
Like
you
know,
yak
has
written
a
bunch
of
blog
posts
lightly.
Brett's
written
a
couple
of
blog
posts.
Yammer
a
blog
post
always
won't
show
up
because
they're
in
a
different
top-level
group,
so
having
all
those
be
able
to
have
the
the
shared
hierarchy
would
be
really
nice
even
without
moving
the
projects.
A
E
Shaun,
would
that
mean
that,
in
this
model,
that
new
top-level
group
would
inherit
the
labels
from
below,
rather
than
establishing
a
layer
where
labels
are
stab
at
the
top
of
the
hierarchy,
this
top-level
group
would
basically
absorb
whatever
labels
were
underneath
it
for
a
reporting
perspective.
So.
A
Yes,
so
the
hierarchy
at
the
moment,
just
just
just
to
clarify
I,
know
you
already
know
this
I'm,
just
just
clarifying,
so
top-level
group
subgroup,
some
sort
of
group
projects
a
so
labels
from
here
can
be
used
in
these
three
labels
from
here
can
be
used
in
these
ones,
labels
from
etc.
What
I'm
proposing
is
that,
above
the
top-level
group,
we
had
an
optional
one
layer
of
portfolio,
so
a
group
can
only
be
in
one
portfolio
and
and
a
portfolio
can
have
multiple
groups.
A
So,
if
a
get
lab,
we
were
using
this,
we
would
move
all
our
team
labels
to
the
portfolio
instead
and
we'd
probably
want
features
to
make
that
easier
to
like
shift
the
label
upper
level,
because
you
can
already
promote
from
a
project
to
a
group
label
that
you
can't
promote
from
a
group
label
to
a
higher
group
label.
But
that's
what
I'm
thinking
there
and
then
you
can
have
an
epoch,
the
portfolio
that
contains
epics
from
different
top-level
groups,
but
only
top-level
groups
that
are
part
of
the
portfolio.
E
E
A
E
Make
that
assumption
the
there's
a
there's,
an
open
issue
and
it
came
up
in
the
customer
advisory
board
and
it's
an
open
discussion.
I've
been
having
with
leadership
and
I'll
link
the
issue
here
as
soon
as
I
get
done,
but
there
was
interest
in
their
interest
in
possibly
exploring
a
licensing
model
where
you
could
license
by
a
group
for
ultimate
so
imaginary,
a
organization
that's
using
premium,
but
a
team
is,
is
really
suitable.
They
want
ultimate,
they
want
ultimate
features
and
so
licenses
at
the
group.
That's
on
them.
That's
at
least
being
discussed.
E
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense
and
then
yeah,
I,
guess
the
feedback
I'm
mainly
looking
for
from
people
in
general
omission
again
just
gonna
be
on
the
issue
if
like
in
the
call
it's
just
like,
is
this
too
confusing,
instead
of
just
creating
a
new
concept
of
like
another
type
of
label,
I'm
another
type
of
ethics
that
lives
above
groups?
So,
like
my
my
approach
here
is
basically
say
instead
of
create
something,
that's
not
an
epic
or
a
board
but
looks
like
in
a
different
place.
No
wait!
Let
me
rephrase
that
I'm
saying
that
we
move.
A
We
create
a
new
container
that
can
contain
these
top-level
groups
and
that
could
solve
our
problems.
The
other
way
of
solving
it
will
be
to
say:
well,
we
can
have
a
new
type
of
label,
so
we
can
have
a
project
label.
We
can
have
a
group
label
or
we
can
have
like
this
instance
level
type
label.
We
can
have
a
project
board,
a
group
board
or
this
instance
level
type
board.
We
can
have
an
epic,
or
this
instance
level,
epic,
so
I'm
trying
to
avoid
that
sort
of
proliferation
of
types.
A
D
So
yeah,
let's
talk
about
table
12
that
o
is,
is
going.
Of
course
we
had
the
disruption
from
contribute
now
we're
a
week
away
from
it.
So
hopefully
everyone's
jetlag
is
gone.
I
know
mine
was
the
toughest.
You
know
same
time
zone
all,
but
on
the
on
the
front
end
I
think
we
are
going
alright
we're
on
track.
D
We
accounted
for
less
less
capacity
than
we
than
we
would
have
because
of
contribute
and
I
think
we
are
on
track
for
for
most
everything
in
there
there
were
a
few
things
from
11:11
that
moved
into
twelve
dead.
Oh
because
of
that
I
think
there
were
a
couple
issues
that
weren't
really
that
high
of
a
priority
that
we
moved
into
twelve
one.
D
So
all
that
being
said,
I
think
we're
good.
There's
the
big
one
on
the
front
end
is
the
backlog
or
during
manual
ordering
of
the
backlog
list,
morale
bliss
that
hasn't
been
started
on
the
front
end
Rajotte
is
starting
it
when
he
gets
back
tomorrow,
but
I'm
pretty
confident
that
he
can
get
that
done
in
twelve,
oh
cool.
A
E
A
C
A
A
That
we
had
in
11.11
is
left
open
in
12
dot,
which
is
about
right
because
we're
about
halfway
through
the
development
month
and
obviously
there's
in
progress
stuff.
That
means
that
that's
not
necessarily
accurate.
For
instance,
you
know
Brett's
got
a
couple
of
things
on
his
plate.
That
probably
gonna
take
a
lot
a
lot
longer,
but
hopefully
we're
not
too
far
off
there,
so
Eric.
If
you're
watching
this
later,
we
don't
have
any
major
concerns
about
the
overall
volume
of
work.
Control,
oh
and
yeah
I
think
we're
good.