►
From YouTube: Plan Boards Inception Part One
A
A
That's
that's
that's
a
blast
and
thank
you
for
coming
to
you
outside
of
your
usual
working
hours.
It's
very
much
appreciated
well,
I'm.
Next
in
the
squares,
so
I'll
just
go
really
quick.
I'm
gonna
facilitate
this
today.
The
role
of
facilitator
is
to
facilitate
and
not
interject
with
my
own
opinions
or
ideas.
The
whole
reason
I'm
facilitating
this,
so
that
all
of
you
can
contribute
your
opinions
and
ideas.
C
Yeah
sure
engineer
manager
for
the
portfolio
management
and
certify
teams
and
until
recently
acting
up
for
the
project
management
team
as
well.
So
that's
where
I
get
most
of
what
I
know
about
boards
from
having
done
that
for
a
few
months
and
that's
not
Jake's
purview
but
will
still
have
some
interest
in
this,
not
least
given
that
we're
going
to
be
building
epics
when
millions
onto
the
boards
pretty
soon
that's
what
it
yeah.
That's
my
main
area
of
interest,
though.
D
D
Respective
isn't
that,
as
we've
been
talking
about
the
different
customer
needs
and
beat
your
ideas
and
ideations,
it's
very
clear
that,
like
we
need
a
board
solution
that
meets
a
lot
of
different
needs,
and
we
don't
want
to
have
a
lot
of
different
board
solutions.
So
I'm
excited
to
help
figure
out
how
we
can
get
there.
A
E
Yeah
Mick
Brandt
the
product
designer
for
the
certified
group
within
plan
yeah
I
mean
I'll.
Just
reiterate
what
a
lot
of
others
are
saying.
I've
just
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
us
to
all
get
connected
on
making
sure
we're
we're
solving
boards
the
best
way
possible
and
not
trying
to
tackle
these
kind
of
separately
and
and
coming
together
and
making
sure
we're
looking
at
but
like
the
bigger
picture
first
and
then
breaking
things
down
so
yeah.
F
Holly
Reynolds
senior
product
designer
on
the
plan
team
focus
specifically
on
project
management,
just
echoing
what
Nick
was
saying
that
I'm
really
glad
that
we're
all
here
together,
I
think
that
sometimes
there's
opportunities
for
us
to
work
in
silos,
and
we
don't
want
to
do
that.
So
I'm
really
glad
that
everyone's
here
and
we
can
all
get
a
chance
to
have
to
say
at
the
same
time
about
what
opportunities
we
have
with
boards.
So
looking
forward
to
it.
G
Cool
thanks
for
coming
Alexis,
hello,
I'm,
Alexis,
Ginsburg
senior
product
designer
I'm
plan
in
portfolio
management
and
yeah
I
mean
everyone's
already
said.
It
excited
to
think
more
about
boards.
Get
all
these
smart
brands
in
the
room
and
every
one
idea
at
a
higher
lab
would
put
some
love
into
something
that
I
don't
know.
If
we've
really
touched
in
a
long
time,
I
don't
know
if
you
know,
as
a
team,
we're
all
kind
of
newer
I,
don't
know
what
we've
really
worked
together
on
this
before
so
I'm
excited
for
it
something
fun
about
me.
G
H
All
right,
I
am
Donald
cook
from
the
engineering
manager
on
the
plan
stage
responsible,
as
part
of
the
team
were
responsible
for
what
kind
of
porch
has
been
up
to
today.
I'm
super
excited
for
this,
because
not
only
do
we
work
on
occasion
of
boards
me
especially
personally
use
boards
very
extensively
in
my
day
to
day
so
definitely
excited
to
see
in.
A
I
Hi
yeah
I'm
Jake,
as
John
mentioned
I,
took
over
the
kind
of
project
management,
side
of
Beck
and
engineering
management
for
the
plan.
Team
I've
met
most
of
you
I'm
in
I
think
week
for
now
so
I'm,
hopefully
I
get
to
clean
being
actually
new,
so
yeah
I'm
super
excited
I,
don't
have
a
ton
of
I.
You
know
worked
in
a
bunch
of
different
project
management
solutions,
but
I
don't
have
a
ton
of
pre-existing
knowledge
about
the
way
the
boards
work
here.
So
this
will
be
a
good.
K
Yeah
I'm
the
PM
for
the
planned
circle,
I
section
I'm
pretty
excited
about
this-
is
hopefully
in
the
future.
We
may
have
something
like
requirements
boards,
so
I'm
kind
of
curious
to
see
what
this
goes
also
as
an
avid
user
of
boards
and
I
tend
to
fight
with
them
as
much
as
I
appreciate
them.
So
I
look
forward
to
the
opportunity
to
see
where
we
can
take
this
to
make
this
more
beneficial
to
all
users.
M
M
A
O
Yes,
the
park
manager
over
the
project
management
which
Shepherds
boards
at
the
moment,
fun
fact
about
me-
is
I'm.
A
private
pilot
and
I
like
to
fly.
Planes
I
think
one
of
the
interesting
things
about
flying
planes
when
you
do
like
to
get
it
up
in
the
air
and
back
down.
I
never
have
to
have
my
hands
move
that
far
from
me
and
I
barely
have
to
make
any
changes
to
my
controls
once
I'm
in
the
air,
and
it's
really
easy
to
land
all
the
feedback.
O
Fumble
around
spend
too
much
time
digging
and
searching
for
answers
like
just
a
really
quick,
easy
way
to
measure
and
get
feedback
on.
So
you
can
like
always
improve
your
early
time
and
deliver
units
of
value
more
consistently.
I
think
that's!
That's
sort
of
the
vision
for
this
and
teeing
up
I
guess
just
a
little
bit
of
kind
of
the
problem
and
why
I
think
it's
time
for
us
to
solve
this
together
like
boards
as
they
say
in
today,
don't
provide
a
ton
of
value
for
teams.
O
They
work
really
well
for
individuals,
but
as
soon
as
our
current
board
set
up
a
team
starts
using
it.
You
often
have
team
members
create
their
own
boards
with
your
own
views,
so
they're
no
longer
looking
at
the
same
things,
because
of
the
way
that
we
have
relative
ordering
of
all
of
our
issues.
It's
really
easy
to
mess
up
the
order
of
issues
and
that
impact
all
the
board's
I
don't
have
any
feedback
about
what
is
actually
happening.
Other
than
I
know
something's
in
development,
but
is
it
do
I
need
to
do
something
on
it?
O
Is
there
a
comment?
Is
there
to
do?
How
long
is
something
been
in
this
list
like
there's,
are
so
many
things
that
I
don't
know
that
in
order
to
get
that
answer,
I
have
to
open
each
of
these
in
a
new
tab
more
or
less,
and
go
through
and
start
D
being
and
or
at
the
end
and
work
backwards
to
try
to
understand
where
something's
at
what's
happening.
O
That
needs
to
happen
when
it's
gonna
get
done,
isn't
on
track
and
I.
Think
like
we
have
the
opportunity
to
create
some
common
interaction
models,
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
sometimes
I'm
exhausted,
but
just
because
of
using
it
lab
and
how
much
context
what
you
have
to
do
to
get
my
job
done.
So
I
think
we
really
want
to
be
aware
of,
like
psychological
fatigue
and
difficulties
that
people
have
using
our
product
and
I'm
one
of
ways
to
solve.
O
That
is
having
a
common
interaction
model
around
certain
things
like
if
you're
gonna
have
a
list,
and
we
need
have
a
list
for
a
Mars,
we
need
to
have
a
list
for
epics.
What
are
the
things
that
we
could
share
across
those
two
may
be
easier
for
you.
People
did
it
jump
between
those
different
contexts,
especially
if
you
had
different
kinds
of
objects
that
are
all
like
related
to
each
other
to
get
a
single
unit
of
value
shipped?
How
can
we
make
it
easier
to
navigate
between
those
objects?
O
The
merge
request
is
connected
to
an
issue
that's
connected
to
an
epoch.
It
might
be
connected
to
a
parent
at,
but
can
you
have
to
go
up
and
down
the
stream?
So
it's
kind
of
get
context,
sort
of
grew
there
to
refine
things
so
I
think
one
of
the
goals
is
to
deploy
like
how
can
we
make
that
a
better
experience
and
also
make
it
more
extensible
to
other
object
types
like
requirements,
we're
also
working
with
Health
Group
to
talk
about
incidents?
That's
another
place
that
it
could
be
valuable.
O
We
just
don't
know
I,
think
figuring
out
what
we
can
reuse
we're
and
we're
not
trees.
Things
is
a
good
exercise
so
and
I
think
one
of
the
other
goals
is
to
make
boards
more
actionable
depending
on
what
questions
you're
trying
to
answer.
So,
if
you're
practicing
combine,
you
might
want
to
know
how
long
is
a
and
H
you've
been
in
a
given
list
like
right?
What's
the
cycle
time
for
this
particular
issue,
and
so
I
can
scan
to
it,
I
could
pick
out
the
thing.
O
O
O
So
you
know
you
would
basically
need
to
figure
out
how
to
show
the
right
information
to
the
right
user
based
on
what
questions
are
trying
to
answer
or
what
jobs
are
trying
to
get
done
all
within,
like
a
have
shared
experience,
which
is
a
non-trivial
challenge,
so
I
think
that's
that's
basic
goal
and
vision.
Any
questions
or
feedback
about
that.
A
I
think
one
thing
we
could
do
late
thanks
for
that
by
the
way
Gabe
that
was
really
helpful,
and
so
we
have
some
goals
written
down
on
the
mural
and
I
was
wondering
if
we
could
take
maybe
a
couple
minutes
to
do
a
silent
reading
of
those
and-
and
so
let's
take
two
minutes
to
do
that-
actually
set
a
timer
for
two
minutes.
Let's
do
three
minutes
and
at
the
end
of
three
minutes,
we'll
come
back
and
check
in
and
see.
If
anyone
has
any
feedback
about
these
schools,
yeah
we'll
just
go
from
there.
A
O
Basically,
that
makes
sense
so
right
now
some
of
the
problems
that,
like
I,
see
I,
have
to
go
to
an
epics
list
to
find
my
epics
I
have
to
enter
my
my
group
play
people
to
filter
things.
Why
did
you
see
the
things
that
are
there?
Mine
they're
not
prioritized
right
now
you
can't
prioritize
epics,
then,
if
I
go
into
an
epic
I
can
see
a
list
of
all
sub
epics
and
maybe
be
some
issues
in
there.
O
G
O
Epics
will
probably
go
through
different
series
of
workflow
steps,
but
they're
still
gonna
go
through
one,
where,
like
you
draft
it,
and
then
you
have
to
get
business
approval
and
then
you
like,
after
you
break
down
of
some
kind
and
then
it's
ready
to
be
worked
on
issues
like
you
saw
our
issue
board.
We
have
a
bunch
of
different
steps
that
an
issue
goes
through
during
its
lifecycle
emerge
request,
has
a
difference
of
steps
that
goes
through
its
life
cycle.
So
it's
almost
like
all.
O
These
objects
have
life
cycles
and
usually
go
through
some
sort
of
phase,
different
phases
or
workflows,
and
so
there's
a
variety
of
like
step
back
and
say
given
like
the
basic
behavior.
These
things
generally
follow
some
sort
of
path,
but
how
can
we
use
the
board
view?
Which
is
the
lists
and
make
that
experience
work
well
to
tie
everything
together.
G
O
D
Yeah
yeah
I,
don't
know
if
I
put
this
in
the
right
place,
but
as
I
was
thinking
about
this
and
especially
hearing
Gabe
just
voice
over
that
question
Alexis
had
like,
should
we
have
some
goal
or
clarity
around
supporting
workflows,
because
I
think
we
can
get
into
a
trap
of
like
solving
for
the
various
complicated
workflows
on
an
individual
level.
I
think
the
root
the
root
of
it
is
we
want
to
support
the
diverse
workflows
of
different
teams?
This
is
my
proposal
without
the
need
to
maintain
complicated,
workarounds
or
configuration.
D
O
So
whenever
we
do
figure
out
how
to
do
work
close,
you
should
be
able
to
have
that
that
workflow
would
more
or
less
map
to
issue
list
on
my
board
or
whatever
object
list
on
a
board
that
that's,
maybe
what
I
would
suggest
like.
We
stopped
at
Oh
God
just
so
that
way,
we
don't
get
into
the
weeds
of
saying
like
how
our
workflows
actually
gonna
work.
O
D
D
D
Think
part
of
the
reason
why
you
see
individuals
create
their
own
boards
is
because
there's
not
a
sort
of
consistent
way
to
represent
the
workflow
in
the
board
today,
and
so
they
will
go
and
like
create
their
own
view
right
so
I
agree,
Gabe
I,
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
solve
for
workflows
here
we
need
another
several
hours,
probably
but
yeah.
Let's
keep
that
in
the
back
of
our
minds.
Okay,
one.
O
Last
thought
about
that.
On
the
flip
side,
there
is
a
competitor
that
the
way
you
configure
your
workflows
is
by
creating
your
board
lists
and
so,
like
you,
create
your
board
list
and
that
determines
the
workflow
for
everything
yeah
but
get
given,
and
this
is
part
of
the
problem,
how
flexible
boards
are
right.
Now
you
can't
a
board
is
like
agnostic
of
a
project.
Basically,
you
could
delete
it
and
recreate
it
and
it
wouldn't
impact
anything
so
like
all
the
anything
on
a
board
is
pretty
much
mutable
and
non-destructive
mmm-hmm.
O
O
You
can
change
the
order
of
issues,
but
I
guess
we're
saying
is
that
you
can
delete
a
list.
I
need
to
lead
a
board
and
I'm
not
gonna,
lose
any
day
to
any
data
anywhere
right
and
then
I
can
recreate
the
board
and
with
the
same
lanes,
sort
of
seamless
and
it'll
look
exactly
the
same
as
before.
I
delete
this
I
think.
K
The
other
way
to
think
about
this
was
currently
forged
a
different
way
of
viewing
information
that
already
exists,
and
it
offers
you
a
way
to
sometimes
modify
that
information
by
dragging
something
between
lists,
you're,
changing
the
labels
or
textual
labels.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
simply
a
done
interview
for
the
same
data
that
already
exists.
A
Sounds
like
we
have
agreement
on
that
I'd
like
to
move
to
the
next
area,
which
is
the
non
goals
mainly
for
the
sake
of
time,
but
if
anyone
has
any
other
question
about
the
goals,
go
ahead
and
go
ahead
and
ask
what
we're
going
to
move
on
in
a
little
bit?
Does
anybody
else
have
any
questions
about
the
goals.
D
A
A
H
A
A
great
question
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
out
the
comment:
there's
a
little
dot
under
non
goals,
so
the
goals
are
important.
It
is
also
important
to
explicitly
state
what
are
not
immediate
goals.
This
constrains
scope
for
current
work
and
gives
us
permission
to
deliver
value
faster
by
excluding
certain
things
that
may
be
unlocked
may
be
wanted
eventually,
but
not
essential
to
have
now
provided
enough
time.
A
A
group
discussion
in
non
goals,
so
these
are
things
that,
while
important
they're
not
important
right
now
and
that's
when
we,
you
know
reflect
on
what
were
the
goals
that
that
Gabe
talked
us
through
also
keep
in
mind
like
let's
keep
a
constraint
of
three
releases
right
three
months.
If
something
feels
like
kind
of
untenable
within
a
three
month,
release
cadence
or
three
months
from
now,
you
could
put
that
in
the
non
goals
and
we'll
discuss
it.
G
G
P
P
A
M
A
J
J
J
J
A
A
H
H
O
Would
I
would
not
force
yourself
into
that
assumption
ahead
of
time,
I
think
in
in
within
any
given
view,
you
should
only
more
or
less
see
probably
one
card
type
of
object
card
right,
but
with
swimlanes,
for
example,
where
we
want
to
have
the
things
fruit
buy
epics,
that's
still
showing
epics.
If
you
want
to
have
an
EMR
board
and
you
wanna
have
that
group
by
issue.
O
M
H
Well
and
I
wonder
if
group
by
then
will
do
the
sitting
regardless,
so
the
way
we're
handling
swim
things
where
you
can
group
by
ethics
say
you
wanted
to
have
mor
s,
effort
by
issues.
It
was
essentially
look
similarly
and
that
issues
would
be
just
the
top
level
and
then
the
cars
would
be
a
most
like.
D
O
I
think
that
that
is
specifically
one
of
the
goals
is:
how
can
we
do
that
in
a
way
that
makes
the
most
sense,
but
also
works?
They
create
the
underlying
system
that
works
the
same
across
all
those
different
object
types
right
so
that
way
like
we
don't
have
to
recreate
this
unique
experience
just
for
mrs,
like
maybe
we
do
have
to
do
that,
but
if
we
keep,
if
we
can
reuse
the
same
like
interaction
model,
then
it
makes
it
easy
for
anybody.
A
H
O
I
think
that
falls
within
the
goal:
sort
of
of
having
make
ports
more
actionable,
enable
better
decision-making,
technically
I,
think
what
you'd
call
a
workflow
analytics.
We
can
it's
up
for
debate,
but
if
we
want
a
surface
data,
that's
meaningful
to
help
people
make
better
decisions.
If
that's
like
showing
time
in
the
list
on
the
board
itself,
then
I
wouldn't
want
us
to
shy
away
from
that.
O
I
think
the
constraint
that
I
would
put
on
to
solve
this
is
that
we
don't
want
to
create
a
new
like
separate
thing
to
do.
All
the
measurements,
for
whatever
analytics
we
do
or
would
want
to
show
would
mirror
how
the
boards
can
figure
and
work
with
existing
other
existing
contracts
in
the
product
like
iterations
and
milestones
that
make
sense.
O
F
M
I
think
the
clarification
I'd
say
there
is
like
well,
we
no
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
develop
a
scrum
board
or
a
Kanban
board
or
etc,
but
what
we
would
want
to
support
in
the
future
would
be
like
templates
for
new
users
to
say,
like
click
here,
to
create
a
scrum
board
mom
right,
we
should
really
just
be
template.
It
stick
workflow
steps
and
things
like
that,
but
no
I
don't
think
we
need
to
build.
M
You
know
like
when
we
build
an
epic
or
technically
you
know
it's
a
some
folks
call
it
athletic
boards,
some
call
it
a
product,
increment
planning
board,
some
call
it.
Epic
planning
boards,
like
they're
all
essentially
the
same
thing
with
a
couple.
Different
variations
and
really
specific
boards
I
think,
would
just
be
blow.
F
I
Have
a
quick
question
regarding
that,
so
those
that
does
like
the
board
as
an
artifact
that
we're
talking
about
encompass
kind
of
the
automation
or
whatever
word
you
want
to
use,
that's
tied
to
it
with
regards
to
the
flow
of
items
between
board
lanes
or
whatever
compartments.
Or
is
that
like
a
separate
like
as
part
of
this,
would
we
talk
about
that
I
see
the
board
type,
as
possibly
being
you
know,
encompassing
automation
or
like
behavior
of
it
and
I'm
just
curious?
O
Think
I
would
make
the
assumption
that
board
should
reflect
the
current
state
of
whatever
object.
It
is
that
they're
representing,
and
so,
if
something
changes
on
that
object,
the
that
representation
on
the
board
should
also
change
similar
to
work
clothes
as
I've
been
exploring
workflows,
I've
been
leaning
more
towards
like
how
can
we
create
we're
close
to
enable
like
built
on
top
of
automated
steps?
So,
instead
of
doing
like
complex
and
forced
work
clothes
like
JIRA?
How
can
we
basically
say
when
event
XY
and
Z
happen
automatically
transitioning
issued
to
the
next
step?
O
O
Go
ahead
and
I
was
just
gonna
respond
to
the
board
types
I
I.
We
can
rule
that
out
and
say
that
I'm
fine
with
it,
but
I
would
also
say
that
the
board
should
facilitate
a
first
class
experience
of
different
methodologies.
That
teams
used
to
plan
like
whether
that's
common
bomb,
which
is
continuous
scrum,
which
is
time
boxed.
It
should
be
usable
and
lovable
for
both
of
those
jobs
to
be
done
more
or
less
or
ways
that
people
playing
work.
O
D
Yeah,
the
the
thing
I
keep
thinking
about,
there's
a
two
most
common
for
lack
of
a
better
term
board
types
right.
If
you
have
a
Kanban
board-
and
you
have
a
you
know
typical
scrum
board,
the
scrum
board
needs
to
be
timebox
bound.
It
needs
to
show
the
users
like
when
the
sprint
ends
when
it
began
etc.
D
O
O
I
think
I've
played
around
with
some
sketches
of
like
what,
if
you
had
a
just
a
toggle
that
would
suit
you
between
a
time
box
and
a
continuous
right,
and
that
would
that
one
like
little
switch
would
make,
would
basically
take
the
board
and
make
it
look
like
the
planning
model
that
you
use,
we're
using
all
the
same
components,
just
like
organizing
it
differently
to
CSS.
Basically,
so,
like
I,
don't
know,
I'll
leave
that
up
to
the
team
to
decide.
O
Maybe
I
don't
know
if
it's
worth
calling
right
now.
Maybe
it
is
maybe
it's
not
that's
right,
I
think
we
should
like
look
at
also.
We
have
to
look
at
epics
and
merge
requests
and
we
want
to.
We
want
to
create
something.
That's
generalizable
to
that
it
like.
Is
it
a
base
and
then
maybe
start
talking
about
the
French
cases
of
where,
like
that
generalization,
doesn't
work
right,
tease
that
out
yeah.
D
I
O
O
M
L
A
D
The
road
will
have
the
ability
to
go
iterate
and
like
support
a
very
narrow,
specific
use
case,
but
we're
not
trying
to
solve
for
that
in
the
next
90
minutes
and
I
cheated
and
I
added
a
comment
instead
of
another
card
to
hide
my
cheating
and
just
this,
the
specificity
I
added
was
like
and
I
gave,
put
a
comment
here.
I
like
like
solve
for
the
80%
like
solve
for
the
specific
needs
of
our
core
personas
and
I
people
talk
about
personas
in
a
minute,
not
the
the
fewer
needs
of
you
know:
nonspecific
non-target
personas.
D
A
All
right
moving
on
unless
there's
burning
questions
and
he
gonna
move
on
try
to
solve
for
jobs
to
be
done
that
are
better
handled
with
other
parts
of
our
product
offering
so
that's
a
non
goal
is
trying
to
solve
jobs
to
be
done
that
are
better
handled
with
other
parts
of
our
product.
Offering
I
think
I
read
that
right
who
wrote
that
yeah
that
one's
mine
so.
E
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
with
that
is:
you
know:
I
worry
about
trying
to
cram
too
much
information
and
to
boards
and
potentially
the
cards
themselves.
When
we
have
you
know
other
aids
or
product
that
can
handle
certain
jobs
to
be
done,
better
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
provide
clear
links
to
those
areas.
You
know
this
can
reduce
the
need
that
gave
us
talking
about
having
to
go,
find
that
information
yourself
and
having
to
do
that.
Filtering
and
whatnot
I
mean
I
do
think.
There
are
ways
that
we
can
provide.
E
E
You
know
bring
up
a
modal
that
has,
you
know
a
lot
more
of
that
detail
of
an
issue
without
having
to
navigate
away
from
the
board,
but
I
would
hope
to
keep
like
the
information
on
on
the
boards
or
the
the
cards
and
self
as
simple
as
possible,
while
working
to
solve,
like
the
most
common
needs
or
jobs
to
be
done
and
then
provide
the
ability
to
easily
to
obtain
additional
information
or
more
complex,
workflows
or
jobs.
Through
like
links
to
other
areas,
I
handle
that
better
within
our
product.
F
I
No
I
was
just
gonna
agree.
I
think
that
the
the
scope
of
boards
can
be
extremely
large,
especially
when
we're
considering
like
what
Gabe
said
at
the
beginning
of
you
know,
trying
to
sort
of
limit
the
context,
switching
necessary
to
get
aware
of
you
know,
ongoing
work
and
but
I
think
this
is
this.
You
know
stated:
non-goal
is
the
best
kind
of
defense
and
and
scoping
mechanism
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
reaching
too
far
so
yeah
I'm
just
agreeing
with
it.
O
Agree
with
it
as
long
as
we
can
clearly
defend
where
the
time
comes,
what
better
handled
means
and
if
the
context
switching
is
worth
it
I.
Think
since
because
I
think
there
are
some
things
where
there
are
other
parts
of
the
product
which
do
a
better
job
of
certain
things,
but
they're
also
to
use
them.
You
have
to
input
lots
of
information
before
it
is
meaningful.
O
G
Yeah-
and
this
is
just
around
not
getting
too
focused
on
components
yet,
and
maybe
this
is
more
tactical
related
to
as
we
work
versus
as
we
ID
eight,
but
as
we're
working
I'm,
assuming
we'll
run
into
some
UI
polish
current
pattern,
issues
or
pajamas
components
that
we
might
want
to
redesign
a
bit.
You
know
even
working
on
some
lens
through
thread
into
something
so
really
I'm.
A
C
C
The
boards
are
very
busy
at
the
minute,
there's
also
core
information
that
would
be
useful
in
those
cases
that
aren't
on
the
cards,
for
example
a
milestone
or
if
a
particular
label
is
in
the
filter,
let's
say
in
our
case
back-end:
it's
not
necessarily
obvious
that
that
is
selected
or
an
or
not
right,
and
the
list
of
labels
on
a
card
I
suppose
don't
get
now
with
this.
Is
that
like
I'm,
not
sure
loading
more
stuff
on
to
the
cards?
Is
the
right
way
to
deal
with
this?
C
But
maybe
that
you
know
a
board
being
scope
by
milestone
is
actually
a
pretty
big
deal.
It's
time
box
tonight,
so
there
it
should
look
and
function
differently
from
a
board
that
isn't
and
I
can
be
looking
at
a
board
scope
by
milestone
and
working
with
a
team
member
who's
looking
at
the
same
board,
not
scope
by
milestone,
and
we
see
different
whip
limits
and
we
see
different
prioritization
and
it's
just
not
a
great
experience.
O
C
What
I
meant
by
simultaneous
yeah
I
mean
I'm?
Okay,
with
having
more
visible
information.
It's
just
like
trying
to
load
more
stuff
onto
those
cards.
It's
gonna
be
painful.
We've
already
accepted
that
it
is
because
we
built
a
button.
The
heights,
the
labels,
so
yes,
that
icons
more
buttons
more
customization
for
the
cards
themselves,
I'm
not
sure,
are,
in
other
words
like
more
more
ability
to
switch
stuff
off,
because
they're
too
busy
I'm,
not
sure
it's
the
right
way,
but
more
customization
generally
for
an
overall
board
might
be.
M
Well,
I
think
there's
some
intelligence.
We
can
pack
in
there
too,
because
this
is
like
a
is
a
tough
edge
to
walk
right,
like,
as
we
add,
more
features
and
data
into
the
tool
to
help
users
understand
more
about
the
work
that's
in
flight
or
in
progress
like
we
have
to
display
it
somewhere
like
so
we're
all
we're
gonna
have
more
data
display,
but
you
know,
for
example,
if
I
scope
aboard
to
the
milestone,
I
don't
need
to
see
the
milestone
on
the
cards
on
that
board.
M
Maybe
right
so
like
it's
just
intelligent
displaying
and
hiding
information
based
on
board
configuration,
I
think,
could
go
a
long
way
or
you
know
like
if
I
you
know,
if
I
have
a
shiny
swimlanes.
Well,
if
I
have
a
shiny,
swimlanes,
do
I
need
to
see
the
assignees
on
the
card.
I
think
that's!
Those
are
the
good
questions
we
can
ask
so
I
think
it's
a
great
point
and
also
a
very
hard
prophet
saww.
D
D
I
like
to
think
of
it
in
the
context
Keenan
of
like
a
signal-to-noise
ratio,
we
can
use
different
words
I'm
totally.
Ok
with
that,
but
I
think
what
John
is
getting
at
is
that,
like
yeah,
certain
certain
pieces
of
information
are
noise
to
some
people
and
certain
pieces
of
information
are
signal
to
some
people
right
yeah,
and
so
how
do
we
detect
that
right
ratio?
And
it's
contextual,
like
you,
said
it's
non-trivial,
but
yeah
I'm,
open
to
different
words.
If
we
want
to
be
more
clear,
but
this.
O
Is
exactly
why
I
why
I
made
the
goal
and
it
falls
within
just
slightly?
We
did
make
boards
more
actual,
enable
better
decision
making
like.
Ultimately
that's
what
what
you're
trying
to
do
by
having
a
clear
signal
and
less
noises
so
that
you
can
make
a
better
decision
faster
and
you
can
take
action
on
what
you
need
to
and
so
I
think
like
it.
It
kind
of
falls
in
line
with
that
quite
a
bit
and
I
completely
agree
that
tough
problem
saw
for
incredibly
important
that
we
do
solve
for
it.
Well,.
A
A
You,
by
the
way,
if
anyone
stressed
out
that
these
are
taking
more
than
five
minutes,
don't
worry
about
it.
I'm
not
stressed
out
highly
aggressive
and
highly
vicious
time
constraints
that
you
can
ignore.
Now
we
have
officially
blasted
our
original
time
constraints,
which
is
totally
fine,
the
conversations
more
important
than
how
long
it
takes
risks
so
wait.
H
O
That
would
fall
in
time
in
under
the
bucket
of
can
you
have
a
single
source
of
truth
if
it's
not
displaying
the
most
accurate
information
or
outdated
information,
I,
don't
think
you
can
like
if
I'm
looking
at
a
board
and
you're
looking
at
a
board
and
I
changed
something,
and
you
don't
refresh
the
page,
we
no
longer
have
alignment
on
what
this
the
state
of
something
right,
so
I
would
follow
that.
It
is
like
a
table
stakes
thing
that
has
to
happen
as
soon
as
we
can
make
it
happen.
O
O
A
A
Okay,
and
move
on
to
risks.
Now
I
I
did
write
a
description
for
what
this
means
in
a
comment:
a
little
yellow
dot,
let's
yell
on
my
screen.
So
these
we
won't
identify
main
risks.
Each
of
us
will
write
down
one
risk
per
card,
and
you
can
it
says
you
can
use
as
many
cards
as
you
wish,
but
actually
I'd
like
to
constrain
this
to,
like
maybe
two
risks
per
person
maximum
and
we'll
categorize.
A
A
A
So
let's
go
ahead
and
read
them
if
you
feel
like
the
there's,
a
grouping
or
affinity
go
ahead
and
make
that
move,
so
we're
gonna,
actually
group
them
now
so
I
guess
part
of
that
would
be
reading
through
them.
So
let's
do
some
grouping
for
about
two
minutes.
If,
if
anyone
feels
uneasy
about
their
move,
go
ahead
and
speak
up
and
we
can
talk
about
it.
M
If
anybody
else
on
the
call
didn't
see
anything
except
your
own
cards
hit
refresh
because
I
was
staring
at
this,
considering
that
I
did
something
very
wrong
because
I
didn't
say
anything
else
until
I
refresh
my
page
just
wow
that
happens
thanks
Kenan,
that's
wild
I
didn't
know
about
that.
I
was
I
was
like
man,
I
missed
the
instructions
or
something
because
sorry
about
that.
Oh
I.
A
D
G
A
M
M
H
I
H
A
F
A
O
D
O
O
A
M
B
O
I
A
D
Just
wrote
it
I
I'm
not
married
to
it,
but
I.
It's
I
saw
it
missing
a
title,
so
I
added
something
but
I
resonate
with
me,
because
each
of
those
three
are
are
certainly
risks
that,
like
we
can,
we
can
go
in
a
certain
direction
and
cause
a
lot
of
problems
for
ourselves,
when
my
mind
their
more
risky
if
those
things
become
hard
to
walk
back
or
unravel.
D
O
A
All
right,
so
the
next
step
would
be
to
to
vote
and
full
disclosure.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
been
able
the
voting
feature
in
murals
so
be
patient.
It
should
just
work
we'll
take
about
and
actually
mural
should
give
you
like
an
indicator
that
we're
in
a
voting
mode.
So
let
me
go
ahead
and
able
it
and
see
if
anyone
has
any
questions
about
how
it
works.
I
A
A
A
I
don't
want
to
risk
that
I.
Don't
want
to
take
the
chance
that,
like
a
significant
risk,
that's
been
grouped,
isn't
escalated
or
elevated.
So
does
that
make
sense?
You
can
vote
individual
cards
if
you
want
to
the
fact
I
would
probably
biased
toward
individual
cards
just
so
we're
really
clear
and
you'd
get
three
votes.
I
think
the
voting
session
is
about
to
start.
A
J
A
G
Just
think
it,
it
affects
almost
everything
here
right
all
these
risks,
especially
like
in
the
upper
right.
If
we
don't
have
the
capacity
to
think
about
some
of
those
things,
those
are
gonna
be
even
riskier.
If
we
don't
have
I,
don't
know
what
this
would
be
a
capacity
issue
necessarily,
but
it's
we're
not
keeping
internal
and
external
users
is
involved
because
we
don't
feel
like
we
have
time
to
do
that
due
to
other
priorities
popping
up
and
that
could
also
be
a
larger
risk.
A
P
I
Just
generally
echo
that
for
yeah
I
was
a
little
whisper
Donald,
it
might
have
been.
You
might
be
on
your
like
computer
mic
or
something
but
I
was
I,
would
just
echo
what
what
Donald
said
for
further
back
inside,
especially
it's
it's
a
related
issue.
There,
the
risk
they're
working
on
the
extensible
issues,
that's
also
sort
of
like
a
similarly
large
rethink.
That
would
would
pull
from
the
same
resource
pool
so
yeah
just
trying
to
think
through
how
we
would
start
to
approach.
It
is
from
a
recent
like
people.
Standpoint
is
tricky.
E
C
Our
patterns
that
have
come
in
because
the
boards
aren't
surfacing
the
information
we
need
or
not
boards
like,
but
just
our
tools
generally,
they
make
it
be
extremely
difficult
to
find
things
to
track.
What's
the
most
important
thing
you
can
do
today,
what's
the
most
important
thing
you
need
to
look
up,
and
so
instead
we
come
up
with
these
kind
of
so
these
other
things
and
I'm
fine
with
it,
by
the
way
like
doing
things
that
don't
scale
provided
we're
kind
of
working
towards
a
better
solution
and
learning
from
an
entire
product.
C
But
I
don't
know
if
I
voted
specifically
on
team
capacity
by
the
way
about
some
sort
of
related
things.
Question
is
like:
is
it
important
enough
to
pull
people
off
of
other
things
to
to
focus
completely
on
this?
We
did
for
Giro
and
Porter
coming.
It's
not
a
question.
I
can
answer
right.
It
takes
it's
dependent
upon
other
people.
Can
we
pull
people
off
other
projects
so
to
work
solely
on
this
yeah.
D
And
that's
why
I
voted
on
it.
I
believe
the
answer
is
yes
and
that's
the
solution
to
mitigate
capacity,
but
the
reason
why
I
voted
on
it
was
the
trade-off
of
doing
that
right.
So
we
do
get
a
lot
of
asks
from
a
lot
of
different
people.
There
are
a
lot
of
concurrent
projects
in
flight.
Customers
are
asking
for
things
that
we
think
we
can
deliver
in
the
next
handful
of
milestones.
D
If
we
were
to
do
this
and
actually
wanted
to
commit
to
it,
we
would
reprioritize
resources
across
the
groups
just
swarm
on
this
effort
and
that's
a
painful
trade-off,
but
I'd
be
the
trade-off.
We'd
have
to
make
I
think
and
I'm
personally
supportive
of
a,
but
it
obviously
come.
You
know
it's
the
output
of
this
conversation
to
understand
if
that's
the
right
decision
and
their
conversation
amongst
PM's
engineers
and
and
you
xers,
to
figure
out.
If
that's
what
we
should
do
so
that's
I'm
going,
can.
D
I
mean
I
would
love
that
no
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if
that's
something
we
can
solve
here,
but
I
think
it's
about
our
confidence
in
the
solution
and
direction.
We
come
out
of
this
with
or
boards,
and
if
we
have
a
compelling
sort
of
case
for
the
direction
we
want
to
go
like,
we
can
make
that
argument
across
the
board
and
find
creative
solutions
right
to
to
fun
to
the
work
I.
K
K
You
know
I
can't
prioritize
it
over
requirements,
management
right
now
and
that's
that's
been
like
the
theme
for
last,
like
three
or
four
releases
and
I
know
that
the
engineering
teams
have
heard
it,
but
it
makes
it
very
hard
for
me
because
as
much
as
I'll
say
team
capacity
as
an
issue,
I
can't
volunteer
people
to
help
with
it,
so
I
feel
like
I
shouldn't,
keep
harping
on
it
because
I
can't
solve
it.
But
that's
where
we
sit
I
mean
that's.
That's
the
real
realistic
view
of
where
we're
at.
A
Yeah
and
this
I
think
this
conversation
acknowledges
that
it's
a
significant
risk
and
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
solve
the
problem
here,
but
I
think
it
is
a
clear
next
step
that
we
need
to
have
a
mitigating
mitigation
strategy.
Again,
we
don't
have
to
come
up
with
that
here,
so
we're
at
a
quarter
till
the
hour.
We've
been
at
this
for
an
hour
and
45
minutes
and
I've
been
really
impressed
by
the
level
of
energy
from
everybody,
an
engagement.
So
you
know
thank
you
for
really
showing
up
for
this.
A
Possibly
workflows
but
I
think
given
the
the
depth
of
the
context
of
this
topic,
I
think
in
the
next
session
we
could
probably
realistically
do
jobs
to
be
done
in
part
ization,
so
I
hope
you
can
all
make
it
for
that
on
Friday
and
thanks
again
for
your
participation.
And
would
anyone
like
to
make
any
closing
comments
before
we
break
off
I
just.
D
A
D
Well,
like
it
looks
like
I
mean
I'm
just
taught
my
head,
the
next
section.
Enrolls
a
persona
is
like
you
did
a
you
wrote,
sort
of
a
description
there
of
what
we
could
do
like.
We
could
probably
spend
five
minutes
each
of
us
between
now
and
Friday
to
make
sure
we
have
added
a
persona
there
that
we
feel
should
be
represented
as
a
small
thing,
but
I
more
defer
to
you,
Mike
I
I,
don't
want
to
there's
things
that
are
valuable
to
do
as
a
group.
I
want
to
wait
to
do
that
as
a
group.
A
Yeah
and
I,
actually
that's
a
good
point:
I
also
misspoke.
We
had
actually
do
jobs
to
be
done
and
then
activities
and
workflows
which
will
lead
to
feature
ideas
which
would
then
go
into
prioritization
so
on
Friday.
What
we
would
we'd,
probably
breeze
through
the
personas,
because
that's
more
just
like
everyone
get
familiar
with
these
and
keep
a
tab
open.
So
you
can
refer
back
to
it
at
any
point.
I
think
the
jobs
to
be
done.
A
Discussion
might
might
get
pretty
deep,
but
it'll
still
be
an
important
conversation
to
have
and
I've
been
working
with
Holly
and
Gabe,
primarily
to
maybe
refine
the
jobs
to
be
done
a
bit
more.
So
we
could
probably
do
that
asynchronously
and
then
I
think
the
activities
and
workflows
are
a
good,
a
good
synchronous
activity.
Yeah
I
think
it's
tough
to
do
a
sync
and
then
prioritization
also
would
probably
be
preferred
synchronous,
but
we
could
also
have
follow-ups
asynchronously
about
prioritization
too.
A
D
Yeah
and
I
also
wanted
to
echo
the
comment
you
made.
Mike
like
I,
have
been
impressed
as
well
with
everyone's
energy
and
engagement.
So
thank
you
all
for
the
time.
I
know
it's
a
it's
a
lot
to
spend
synchronously,
especially
when
we're
all
spread
across
across
a
lot
of
different
time
zones.
So
thank
you
all
and
I
appreciate
it.