►
From YouTube: Plan stage weekly - 2020-02-26
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
So
it's
time
for
me
to
introduce
myself
again
this
time
with
with
12.9
I'm,
going
to
become
the
the
primary
tech
writer
for
plan
where's
the
wrath
of
the
concern
becoming
a
coach
kind
of
thing
of
him.
For
this
one
release
like
a
dogs
maintain
their.
So
all
the
elder
dogs
work
assign
it
to
me
and
then
once
I'm
done,
I'm
going
to
assign
to
him
for
like
a
final
approve
and
merge.
I,
don't
know
like
I've
said
some
other
things
about
myself
before.
B
C
Here,
yes,
a
Cormac
product,
marketing
and
I'm
kind
of
the
other
side
of
me
in
the
org.
Is
the
content
group
as
well,
so
they
will
I.
Think
next
quarter
will
have
a
lot
more
content
coming
out
for
say,
like
the
agile
use
case,
will
have
some
white
papers
blog
posts,
a
bunch
of
that
sort
of
thing
and
content
will
normally
contact
me
and
traditionally,
which
is
weird
to
say
since
I've
only
been
here
four
months.
But
traditionally
what
would
happen
is
I
would
find
the
appropriate
p.m.
B
B
D
Everyone
happy
Wednesday
verse
the
smiles
come
on
no,
but
just
as
a
for
your
information,
we're
targeting
add
your
import
NBC
for
12:10.
This
is
kind
of
like
a
plan
stage
wide
initiative
that
we
all
are
going
to
contribute
to.
This
is
something
that
is
strategically
important
to
the
company.
The
thought
process
is,
as
we
work
towards
feature
compatibility
or
at
least
having
solving
the
same
business
or
use
cases
that
JIRA
solves
over
the
coming
12
months.
It's
a
good
idea
to
start
with
an
importer.
D
So
that
way
we
can
get
feedback
on
what
the
most
important
features
are
to
prioritize
we're
going
to
do
that
alongside
our
plan
kind
of
minicab
that
we're
putting
together-
and
there
will
be
more
information
about
that
next
week-
we're
talking
product
marketing
this
afternoon
and
I-
guess
just
the
marketing
department,
specifically
the
customer
relationship
team
reference
team
about
how
we're
going
to
get
cut
off.
But
we
have
a
good
seven
to
ten
candidates
right
now,
who
want
to
bading
that.
D
But
we
do
it's
going
to
be
a
heavy
lift
to
get
the
JIRA
import
NBC
out
until
about
10:00,
so
just
raising
awareness.
So
that
everybody
can
contribute
to
that,
hopefully,
whenever
we
get
some
plans
a
little
bit
more
firmed
up,
that's
going
to
be
hard
in
12:10,
because
we
also
have
contribute
that
release.
So
just
as
a
heads-up,
it's
coming
down
the
pipe
as
there
any
questions
about
that
or
things
that
people
want
to
discuss.
E
D
Yeah,
it's
not,
and,
and
so
much
is
like,
we
can
collaborate
with
them.
They
have
too
much
on
their
plate
right
now,
and
the
import
team
within
the
import
group
within
manage
has
too
much
on
the
plate
right
now
and
they're,
focusing
on
Jenkins
importer,
and
so
the
basic
gist
is
because
those
other
two
teams
won't
be
able
to
get
to
this
for,
like
six
months
or
longer
said
in
the
product,
leaders
said
that
we
should
take
it
on
and
do
it,
how
we
work
with
them
is
up
to
us.
D
E
D
So
there's
two
of
them
I
think
the
most
recent
one
was
the
JIRA
panel
integration
and
that
will
let
you
attach
merge,
request
branches
and
commits
to
a
JIRA
ticket
and
I
sort
of
semi
automated
fashion.
So
this
is
kind
of
the
inverse
where
we
want
people
to
be
able
to
import
all
their
issues
to
JIRA
I
mean
to
get
lab
from
JIRA,
as
well
as
like
users,
and
things
like
that.
So
the
the
technical
account
management
team
customer
success
of
written
and
importer
and
Python.
D
So
we
have
some
working
template
to
go
off
of,
but
it's
it's
all
based
on
like
importing
an
XML
backup
which
I
think
we
might
be
trying
to
go
more
of
like
an
API
driven
way.
So
it
just
depends.
But
the
goal
in
the
MVC
I
think
is
to
build
an
importer
that
are
our
teams,
can
use.
Look
like
the
Tam's
and
solutions,
architects
for
migrating
folks
over
to
get
lab
still
in
like
a
sort
of
hands-on
approach
and
then
over
time
that
will
evolve
into
more
of
a
self-service
migration
tool
for
them.
F
G
H
G
Comments
and
get
lab
issues
which
makes
me
think
that
we
can
probably
reuse
some
of
that
authentication
logic,
because
that
would,
although
that's
the
other
direction,
it
shows
that
we're
establishing
a
connection
with
both
with
the
API
deteriorate,
API
and
with
their
regular,
oh
yeah,
forgotten,
but
anyway,
yeah
I
think
like
we
should
be
able
to
reuse
some
components
from
that
point
of
view
at
least
some
of
the
authentication
stuff.
That's
already
in
good
luck,.
D
Yeah
from
what
I've
been
reading
I
spent
most
of
day
and
reading
to
your
API
documentation.
Yesterday,
the
authentication
I
purchased
with
a
email
address
and
a
API
token,
which
is
the
easier
password,
basically
so
I
guess
in
some
flavor
of
basic
auth,
but
with
an
API
token,
instead
of
traditional
password
but
yeah
as
much
as
we
can,
you
reuse,
please,
let's
do
it,
and
that
also
means
that
we'll
probably
overlap
with
ecosystem
to
a
certain
degree.
D
D
But
I
also
know
that
there
are
lots
of
challenges
to
overcome
within
Bob
and
how
we
work
asynchronously
and
like
just
the
general
flow
of
issues
to
em
ours
over
time,
and
so
I
was
just
curious
if,
like
first
to
work,
everybody
has
to
buy
in
and
for
everybody
has
to
buy
in,
like
we
need
to
have
a
conversation
about
it.
So
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
have
that
conversation
with
everyone
here,
get
some
input
feedback.
G
A
I
A
We
haven't
moved
that
down
to
those
boards,
so
maybe
we
should
so
I
think.
Maybe
that
should
be
a
question.
Should
we
all
be
working
off
the
same
like
not
just
the
build
board
but
the
same
full
board,
and
if
not,
should
we
have
whip
limits
for
some
of
the
other
boards
that
are
taken
from
that
main
board?
I.
D
Think
the
the
way
that
I
look
at
is
like.
We
need
to
follow
some
sort
of
a
process
at
this
point
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
heavy-handed
but
like
we
could
either
move
towards
doing
and
the
reason
why
I
process
is
important
is
it
helps
us
set
expectations
externally
and
to
the
point.
The
process
doesn't
help
us
do
that.
Then
it's
not
super
meaningful,
but
we
could
either
go
the
approach
of
a
Kanban
where
we
work
continuously
or
we
can
look
at
like
doing
time.
D
Boxes
like
scrum
and
I
think
work
in
progress
limits
are
helpful
to
both,
but
more
so.
First
for
Kanban
and
they'll
whole
like
one
of
the
tenets
of
of
Kanban,
is
like
you
visualize
your
work,
like
all
the
work
in
progress,
basically
on
an
issue
board
and
I.
Think
it's
helpful
if
you'd
all
look
at
the
same
the
same
thing
but
I
looked
at
some
of
our
billboards
and
I
think
they're,
just
like
it's
more
or
less
a
subset
of
the
bigger
board,
it's
just
some
specific
for
clothes
ages.
D
So,
in
that
case
like
it,
it
that's
not
a
big
deal,
because
it's
essentially
the
same
view
just
in
this
part
of
it,
and
in
that
case
I
would
say.
Yes,
we
would
want
to
have
work
on
progress
limits
on
that,
but
in
order
to
do
that,
I
think
everyone
needs
to
understand
like
the
goal
of
the
work-in-progress
limit
and
then
what
to
do
whenever
you
can't
start
a
new
issue,
because
there's
not
there's
already
too
much
work
in
progress
across
like
the
team.
You
know.
A
G
D
A
And
I
mean
the
whip
limits
that
we've
defined
for
the
most
part,
at
least
until
we
kind
of
experiment
with
it
is
like
one
one
issue
per
engineer
on
the
team.
So
even
if
we
split
like,
if
even
if
they
have
separate
boards
for
fun
in
the
backend,
which
you
probably
want
to
get
away
from,
it
probably
makes
more
sense
just
to
have
one
board.
And
then
we
can
filter
by
front
end
and
back
and
if
we
need
to.
D
We
look
at
everything
that
is
like
ready
to
be
scheduled
or
ready
to
be
worked
on
and
we
talked
about
the
priorities
and
we
decide
on
them.
I
know
you
like
move
those
into
ready
for
development
when
there's
room
and
so
like
it's
kind
of
just
like
a
flow
of
continuous
flow
of
issues.
I
think
the
challenge
is
when
you
get
in
here
of
like
let's
say
you
know
right
now,
there's
24
issues.
You
only
have
one
in
this
list,
you
finish
it
and
then
what
do
you
work
on
and
I?
Think
the
like?
D
Gonna
all
like
collaborate
together
to
figure
out
how
to
get
you
unblocked.
It's
it's
the
same
way
that
Toyota
Production
system
was
developed
by
taiichi
ohno
back
in
the
day,
and
they
call
it
pulling
the
end
on
corny.
Stop
because
if
there's
like
a
block
or
a
quality
issue,
and
then
everybody
like
works
to
fix
that
and
improve
the
process,
and
then
they
go
back
to
working
on
things.
D
So
that
would
be
a
cool
concept
to
try,
but
I
think
it's
also
like
particularly
challenging
being
acing
first
and
like
it's
hard
to
figure
out
how
to
communicate
that
in
a
way
that
people
can
like
understand
and
contribute
to
a
timely
manner.
So
there's
challenges
but
I
think
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
how
we
can
improve
the
processes
that
we
use.
D
So,
anyway,
have
any
thoughts
about
working
progress.
It's
the
idea
of
them
push
back.
I
mean
this
is
a
team
thing
so,
like
ice
all
to
talk
about
it,
I.
H
I
mean
maybe
I'm
a
little
biased
because
I
spent
time
building
it,
but
I
actually
really
liked
the
idea
of
it
I
think
it's
just
kind
of
a
combination
of
what
you
said.
Gaben
Donald
is
like
having
an
accessible
in
the
different
boards
and
then
hat
like
getting
used
to
the
process
and
then
doing
the
process,
but
I
think
we're
all
at
this
point
where
it's
like
yeah,
we
know
they're
there,
but
we're
not
utilizing
it
so
I,
don't
know
how
we
could
move
forward
on
like
like
what
you
just
walked
through
Gabe
like
okay.
H
This
is
what
we're
gonna
do.
This
is
how
we're
gonna
do
it
and
then,
let's
have
like
a
mindset
around
okay
cool.
So
if
we're
blocked
we're
over
limit,
we
can't
pull
something
in
and
talk
about
that
and
then
keep
iterating
and
then
I
think.
Maybe
people
will
start
using
it
more
because
right
now,
I
just
kind
of
feel
like
yeah
I
know
it's
there,
but
I'm
not
actively
thinking
about
it.
Like
oh
we're
over
on
this,
like
I
shouldn't,
go
pull
this
in
you.
E
E
So
I'm
thinking
right
now
about,
for
instance,
the
issue
that
charlie
is
working
on
where
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
back
and
forth
and
deciding
the
one
with
the
calculation
of
the
sounds
and
counts.
So
it's
kind
of
a
complicated
issue.
So
maybe
that's
one.
Is
there
ten
more
that
can
be
solved
and
pulled
off
of
the
India
column
and
then
it's
kind
of
open
to
you
to
work
on?
But
if
there
are
several
such
issues?
Well,
all
like
pretty
much.
All
you
can
do
is
give
some
suggestions
with
them.
E
D
So
that
way
we
can
move
them
out
of
the
planning
thing
and
into
scheduling
and
getting
them
ready
for
development.
The
other
thing
that
I
was
curious
about
is
that
in
my
previous
company,
we
were
pretty
big
on
pair
programming
and
it
worked
because
we
were
in
relatively
at
least
plus
or
minus
three
hour
time.
D
Difference
always
I,
don't
think
it's
the
same,
like
it's
not
feet
as
feasible,
get
lab,
which
is
fine,
but
what
would
it
look
like
if
to
collaborate
for
two
engineers
to
collaborate
on
a
single
issue
like
the
one
you
were
talking
about
with
charlie,
like
let's
say
that
she's
working
on
something
and
she
pushes
up
her
codeine
of
the
day?
And
it's
clear
like
what
the
next
steps
are
and
another
engineer
can
contribute
you
that
you
know
like
in
and
work
on
it
in
tandem.
D
E
E
E
When
I
think
we're
currently
not
moving
the
issue
back
and
forth,
and
some
of
my
should
like
to
stay
in
review,
while
I'm
still
doing,
which
I'm
not
sure
how
bad
like
works
out
with
a
work
in
progress
limits
and
and
so
on,
so
just
to
kind
of
drink
awareness.
That's
one
other
aspect
where
I'm
like
not
like
I,
didn't
have
too
much
of
a
liability
so
to
say
to
to
collaborate
on
the
on
the
in
depth.
Issues
sort
of.
E
D
Yep
I
think
that's
I
would
like
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
have
work
in
progress
limits
in
in
review
as
well.
So,
let's
say
you're
working
on
something
in
Devon
like
you're,
at
your
work
and
progress
limit
for
M
review
issues,
then
like
you,
the
next
thing
is:
how
can
we
get
one
of
those
reviews
done
so,
instead
of
like
waiting,
you
know
48
hours
to
get
a
reviewer
to
respond
then,
like
you
can
go
and
review
one
of
like
another
engineers
with
them
plans.
D
Let
that
mr
and
try
to
collaborate
with
them
to
get
it
through
more
quickly.
I
think
that's
where,
like
you
kind
of
have
work
in
progress
limits
for
each
process
in
the
workflow
and
review,
is
one
of
those
and
I
think
that's
where
that's
totally
fine.
If
you
can't
pick
something
up
in
dev
like
you,
ideally
want
to
prioritize
the
things
that
are
the
furthest
right
on
the
board.
So,
like
verification
review,
are
the
most
important
things
to
get
done
first
and
then
you
work
on
the
things
in
our
dev.
D
That's
the
most
important
thing,
and
then
you
can.
I
slowly
work
from
right
to
left
because,
if
you
think
about
like
a
pull
system,
you
you're
like
trying
to
pull
value
down
the
down
the
workflow
process.
Basically
so
I
think
that's
a
valid
concern.
That's
also
something
that
could
be
addressed:
sort
of
by
working
progress
limits
to.
I
We
should
be
talking
about
things
we
can
improve
weekly
if
possible.
Right,
so
you
know
you
brought
up
like
we've
got
a
couple
larger
issues
like
you
know
the
one
Charlie's
working
on,
and
you
know
the
question
I
want
to
ask,
isn't
like
well:
what
are
we?
What
are
we
doing
now
that
helped
those
get
across
the
line?
We
can
then
learn
from
and
stay.
Those
were
effective
tactics.
I
A
H
A
I
D
All
right,
cool
I
think
we're
go
to
that.
I
want
to
be
a
dead
horse.
I
have
the
next
item.
I
ran
just
like
a
quick
analysis.
Some
like
type
of
work,
we're
delivering
over
the
last
I
guess
since
12.5,
and
it's
like
75%
of
all
the
em
ours
were
bugs
tech,
tech,
tech,
backstage
I,
think
50,
ish
percent
on
average
was
about
the
backstage
and
then
25
percent
bugs
25%
tech
back
give
or
take
a
few
percentage
points
question
I
had
it
was
this
is.
D
Is
this
the
ideal
ratio
like
it
was
hard
for
me
to
understand?
What's
there
between
backstage
and
tech
debt
and
what
are
like,
the
things
that,
like
I,
see
some
of
the
comments
down
there
like?
If,
if
an
mr
is
against
like
a
feature
issue,
should
it
also
have
the
feature
label
on
it
every
time
or
not,
I,
just
kind
of
like
wanted
to
have
talked
about
that
cuz.
It's
part
of
helping
me
understand
like
are.
We?
D
Are
we
spending
a
bunch
of
time
fixing
stuff
that,
like
is
truly
technical,
debt
or
things
that
are
like
kind
of
just
chores,
or
are
we
really
spending
our
time
doing
feature
development
or
like
contributing
to
end-user
value?
Even
if
it's
not
something
immediately
visible,
I
guess
if
that
makes
sense.
So
I
wanted
to
have
a
quick
conversation
on
that
and
see
like
what
the
ideal
ratio
was
and
all
that
good
stuff.
J
Just
a
little
know
that
at
least
currently
I
America
also
a
Mars
which
are
part
of
beacon
feature,
but
an
example
of
they
just
back-end
or
model,
or
something
like
this,
which
is
not
exposed.
Loser
I,
might
mark
this
as
backstage,
but
asking
on
pointed
out
is
probably
not
ideal
and
we
could
use
feature
for
Lisa
Mars
too.
So
probably
it's
just
something
to
change
on
engineering
site
or
at
least
on
my
side.
At
this
point,
I
think
this
metric
is
influenced
by
this
that
some,
mrs,
are
labeled
in
a
wrong
way
by
backstage.
A
Yeah
I'd
also
be
interested
in
looking
at
it
from
the
weight
distribution
side
of
things
like
an
eye
in
a
milestone.
How
much
weight
have
we
out
of
all
the
weight
that
we
completed?
How
much
of
that
is
dedicated
to
features
versus
backstage
versus
bugs
I
feel
like
that'll,
give
us
a
little
bit
more
of
a
a
real
number
than
what
we're
currently
doing,
because
I
think
we
are
using
backstage
for
a
lot
of
things
that
should
be
beat
or
so
two
points,
I
think.
A
Yes,
we
should
update
our
Mr
throughput
labels
to
be
features
if
they're,
even
if
they're
backstage
but
tied
into
a
feature,
but
I
think
we
should
evaluate
this
on
the
on
the
weight
side
on
the
velocity
side.
Also,
I'm
wondering
and
Gabe,
you
actually
ask
the
question.
You
said
50,
60
%
features
kind
of
agree
with
you,
where
it
can
probably
be
a
little
bit
higher
than
that,
but
we
should
discuss
what
we
think
are
ideal.
H
D
D
But
if
I'm
gonna
like
break
down
I,
don't
know
like
seven
features
and
think
about
like
you
know
what
the
point,
what
the
way
it
is
on
that
or
get
engineers
away
and
on
like
this,
and
we
we
get
some
total
weight
value
then
like
we
can
use
that
to
see
like
what
percentage
of
feature
features.
Are
we
delivering
each
release
and
then
we
can
use
that
to
calculate
some
rough,
like
delivery
windows
out
into
the
future.
That
you
know
are
only
gonna
be
as
accurate
as
like.
Our
labels
are
on
our
issues.
D
You
know
our
actual
velocity
on
the
different
kinds
of
work
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
wanna
dislike
I
didn't
bring
this
up
because
I
think
we
should
just
be
shipping
more
features,
I
think
performance
and
like
quality
code
and
all
this
things
are
incredibly
important.
But
it's
more
like
we
have
to.
We
do
have
to
set
expectations,
and
it
helps
do
that
if
we
have
good
data
on
the
ratio
of
things
we're
shipping,
you
know.
G
Just
on
that,
as
well
like
the
guidance
in
the
handbook
is
obviously
is
copied
into
the
agenda
there,
that
anything
that
contributes
to
features
should
be
considered.
A
feature
should
be
marked
with
a
feature
label
and
also
it's
higher
priority
in
the
list.
If
you
read
in
that
handbook,
you
know
you
should
go
down
through
the
list
in
the
order
that
they're
presented,
starting
with
community
contribution,
bug
and
then
feature.
G
However,
in
my
opinion,
if
something
is
basically
a
regression
introduced
in
a
feature
that
hasn't
been
shipped
yet,
in
other
words,
it's
behind
a
feature
flag
and
that
feature
flag
has
defaulted
to
off,
then
I.
Don't
really
think
that
should
be
considered
a
bug
until
it
shipped
so
like.
If
you
quickly
fix
a
bug,
that's
introduced
and
nobody
has
experienced
it.
G
Yet
it's
probably
fine
to
label
that,
in
addition
to
the
feature,
in
my
opinion,
and
on
the
other
hand,
there's
a
chance
like
I
guess
like
if
you're
going
to
if
you're
building
a
feature-
and
you
come
across
a
piece
of
sort
of
ugly
codes.
I
personally
think
it's
okay
to
press
on
with
the
feature
and
get
it
into
review
and
then
come
back
and
and
refactor
that
piece
of
code
and
even
might
encourage
people
to
do
that.
Because
typically
velocity
of
getting
the
feature
into
the
review
process
is
that's
it.
That's
a
worthwhile
trade-off.
G
D
Writing
that,
like
in
that
specific
part
of
the
code
and
so
I,
think
that's
where
like.
If
you
can
align
some
of
the
refactoring
with
the
features
that
you're
doing,
then
it
will
like
that's
typically
how
I've
always
worked
just
like
you,
deliver
user-facing
features,
and
then
you
do
whatever
we're
factoring.
D
E
D
D
How
are
we
tracking
that
and
going
back
to
make
sure
that
we're
like
continually
optimizing
things
as
we
go?
I
say
that
cuz
I
would
like
to
get
to
the
point
where
any
of
the
views
within
our
product
flowed
within
a
second
China.
I
was
like
nuts
and
shot,
but
it's
also
there's
a
pretty
direct
correlation
and
I
can
dig
up
all
the
research
between
perceived
performance
of
an
application
and
lovability
of
it
and
I.
D
G
Whether
you're
in
luck,
because
we
have
Ruby
on
Rails
performance
training,
going
on
at
the
minute,
with
Nate
backpack,
so
like
awareness
of
our
Griffin
at
dashboards,
she
become
ever
more
present
so
absolutely
and
yeah.
We
use
co-founder
dashboards,
also
use
the
performance
bar
day-to-day
just
to
check
number
of
sequel
queries
on
given
pages
number
of
Gately
calls,
but
that's
not
like
monitoring.
That's
just
sort
of
instant
feedback.
If
you
the
co-founder
dashboards
and
and
to
some
extent
Cabana
as
well,
you
can
use
Cabana
to
like
it's.
G
You
can
use
it
to
get
much
smaller
windows,
basically
on,
because
after
that
you
know
it
becomes
quite
not
performant
and
difficult
to
get
any
stats
out
of
it.
Nevertheless,
it
is:
we've
done
a
couple
of
times
actually
I'm
blanking
on
the
last
time.
We
did
it,
but
we
measured
performance
of
some
stuff
after
we
shipped
it
to
make
sure
that
our
assumptions
about
about
the
thing
were
correct.
G
A
D
H
I
think,
like
the
there's
plenty
of
that's
really
good
point,
Gabe
and
I
think
in
terms
of
our
group
like
we're
monitoring
at
a
larger
company
level,
but
I
think
if
there
are
views
that
are
either
visited
by
users
more
than
not,
or
maybe
we've
noticed
that
there's
a
huge
performance
lag
on
a
certain
page
that
we
could
identify
that
and
then
start
investigating,
because
if
we
just
say
like,
let's
just
improve
performance,
there's
plenty
of
things.
We
can
do.
H
There's
lots
of
things
in
view
that,
like
I
know,
Simon
was
investigating
this
like
because
of
the
amount
of
view
wrappers
we
had,
it
was
destroying
our
performance
on
one
of
the
pages
to
inspect
like
web
ID
like
some
web
ID.
So
there's
there's
like
engineering
initiatives
and
then
there's
like
plans,
specific
things
that
we
can
identify
and,
like
start
looking
at
something
that.
H
The
top
of
my
head
looking
at
an
issue
I,
don't
think
we're
observing
this,
the
viewport
of
the
user
and
we're
just
learning
all
the
suggestions.
So
that's
like
a
low-hanging
fruit.
That's
something
that
I
noticed,
but
the
implementation
details
I'm
not
sure
so,
maybe
there's
somewhere.
We
can
like
keep
track
of
that
for
a
plan,
identify
it
schedule
it
and
then
go
after
it.
I
don't
know
it's
just
an
idea.
Yeah.
D
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
of
that
is
when
you
have
a
deep
link
into
a
specific
comment.
How
do
you
load?
How
do
you
know
to
load
things
in
a
asynchronous
pageant
like
almost
paginate
away
the
discussions,
but
I
agree
with
that?
That's
something
that
is
worth
optimizing.
I'm
also
noticed
that
the
issue
board
loads
twice,
yeah.
D
I
would
I
think
that's
where
I'm
playing
around
okay
hours
for
our
stage
and
like
one
of
them
has
to
do
with
just
like
the
quality
of
our
product.
I'm,
both
like
in
you
know
how
many
defects
we
create,
but
also
the
performance
of
it
and
I,
think
it's
important
for
everyone
to
care
a
lot
about
that
I
care
a
lot
about
it
and
I'm
willing
to
go
slower
on
features
to
get
a
higher,
a
better
quality
higher
performance
product.
If
that
makes
sense,.
A
D
Why
don't
you
guys
think
about
drafting,
and
then
we
can
I
have
a
me
find
it
right.
Quick
I
have
an
issue
and
the
planned
project
talking
about
ok
hours
and
I
would
love
for
you
guys.
Just
a
description
adds
there.
So
we
can
take
it
and
champion
it
for
like
the
stage
level
thing,
because
I'll
tell
you
what
will
end
up
happening
inevitably
is.
As
we
continue
scale,
we
get
more
folks,
on.com
the.
D
What
will
happen
from
from
financial
standpoint
is
the
cost
of
operating
calm
increased
steadily,
and
then
the
gross
margins
on
across
the
company
will
start
to
like
shrink,
because
it
will
cost
more
to
run
that
infrastructure
and
then
at
some
point,
maybe
like
in
12
to
24
months.
The
comfort
would
be
like.
Oh
my
gosh,
we're
spending
way
too
much
money
on
this
and
then
like
they'll,
go
across
the
board
and
do
like
a
ton
of
optimizations
to
reduce
the
costs.
So
this
is
like
if
we
can
start
thinking
about
now.