►
From YouTube: Plan group weekly meeting
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).
B
Yep,
so
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
our
she's
good,
the
crew
shells
on
the
call
as
well
any
features
in
11.11
that
we
think
might
be
a
good
fit
for
using
graph
QL
on
the
front
end
for
the
community
to
communicate
between
the
front
end
at
the
back
end.
So
on
the
backhand
side,
we've
been
doing
some
work,
this
release,
which
I'm
not
sure
we
will
get
100%
finished,
but
we'll
get
pretty
close
to
get
this
graph
QL.
B
B
So
I
spoke
to
Brett
about
this
yesterday
because
he's
been
doing
a
lot
of
the
backend
work
here
and
he
said,
but
probably
a
smallish
feature
would
be
a
good
fit
now.
Looking
at
11.11,
I
didn't
I
think
I'm
all
came
to
the
same
conclusion:
there
aren't
that
many
features
that
leave
both
from
sending
back
a
little
overdue
11,
so
the
one
we
want
I
found
that
we
think
might
work.
Is
this
one
which
is
about
viewing
the
epic
tree
in
an
epoch?
B
C
Yes,
so
right
now
we
are
having
bunch
of
VPS
just
to
access
a
fix.
For
example,
if
you
look
at
the
roadmap
or
the
main
road
map
page
then
right
now,
we
are
relying
on
query
balance.
If
we
want
to
embed
roadmap
in
the
epic
page,
for
example,
in
11.10,
be
our
introducing
own
app
as
in
epics,
and
currently
we
are
reusing
the
API
that
we
already
had
for
roadmap.
C
I
think
that
is
one
area
where
we
can
have
a
common
API
for
both
the
actual
road
map
page
as
well
as
road
map
within
the
epics
page,
where
we
just
pass
on
what
are
the
properties
that
we
need?
Because
currently,
if
you
look
at
the
main
road
map
view,
there
will
be
support
or
query
parameter
filters,
because
we
have
the
filtered
search
bar.
We
have
preset
support.
C
We
have
ability
to
switch
sorting
orders,
none
of
those
exist
in
epics
page
because
there
we
just
rid
of
the
road
map,
so
we
can
string
down
what
we
get
on
the
back
end
and
then
use
it
within
the
epic.
So
that
is
one
area
where
I
think
we
can
use
graft
well.
Another
one
is
that,
right
now,
when
you
load
up
epic
page
initial
load
includes
data
from
Hamel,
which
includes
epic
title
description
and
all
the
second
bar
items,
which
would
include
start
and
finish
dates.
C
Participants,
labels
and
notification
occur,
but
the
issues
list
and
epics
list
is
something
that
we
make
another
request
as
soon
as
the
page
loads
and
that's
when
we
fetch
additional
data
like
what
are
the
related
issues
for
all
the
related
effects.
But
if
you
want
to
make
whole
thing
as
synchronous,
then
that
is
also
one
area
where
we
can
never
stop.
B
Yes,
so
that's
a
really
good
point.
Actually
I
forgot
the
Heinrich,
who
created
an
issue
about
how
the
road
maps,
for
instance,
does
support
all
this
stuff
that
isn't
actually
needed
for
road
maps
and
does
return
stuff.
It's
not
needed
for
road
maps,
so
perhaps,
instead
of
doing
it
for
a
new
feature,
we
could
do
it
for
this.
Existing
road
maps
feature
and
try
and
convert
that
to
graphic
your
first,
which
would
reduce
the
risk
a
little
bit
because
like
if
we
don't
do
it,
road
map
still
works.
B
A
D
A
D
B
B
A
That
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
like
the
J
Department,
was
scaring
me
but
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
it's
it's
available
in
the
code
and
we're
just
using
it
for
different
places.
So
so
then
the
next
question
is:
if
it
is
the
future,
then
every
new
feature
we've
built
that
is
not
using
vacuo
is
dead.
Was
it
not.
B
B
Plan
is,
if
you
make
the
existing
rest
api
use
the
graph
QL
api
internally
system,
how
so,
from
the
front-end
perspective
that
doesn't
matter
it's
just
that.
Like
the
more
times
we
can
use
graph
QL
directly
from
the
front
end,
the
better
like
experience,
we
can
get
about
like
what
works.
What
doesn't
work,
what
we
need
to
consider
stuff
like
that,
so
like
yams
on
the
caller,
so
you
know
as
well
like
yeah.
I
know
you've
been
doing
some
work
on
this.
A
So
sorry,
again
before
you,
if
we
were
sorry
sure
I'm
not
trying
to
cut
you
off
but
I
wanted
to
to
to
I
understand
this
may
be
like
even
the
technical
piece
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
I
need
to
understand.
Clearly
I,
definitely
trust
the
team
I'm
thinking
the
right
one,
but
when
you're
saying
pick
one,
that's
appropriate
I
understand
the
desire
to
have
something,
quick
and
something
you
know.
Usable
and
I
appreciate
that
and
you're
saying
like,
for
example,
107
94.
A
If
you
you,
epic,
treat
and
epic,
you
know
I
appreciate
you
saying
that
it
would
take
more
work
to
to
do
it
in
graphic
you
out.
But
my
concern
is
we
don't
do
an
exact
you
know.
Are
we
in
current
that
day?
So
why
don't?
We
actually
do
the
more
work
on
it
and
same
with
any
new
feature
and
plan,
and
you
know
I'd
be
proud
to
be
the
first
team
I.
Don't
you
know
I
feel
that
to
really
you
know,
invest
our
time
in
doing
it
and
doing
it
the
right
way.
B
A
B
E
B
A
Yeah
so
the
way
I
say
just
any
new
future
should
be
using
just
our
newest
technologies.
Ambition
encourage
that.
So
in
the
same
way,
that
would
be
did
this
thing
with
related
merger
questions.
On
the
issue
design,
somebody
said
that
we
friend
and
team
here
said
that
we
needed
to
do
to
it
and
views,
and
so
I
view
that
as
yes,
that
that's
the
way
we
do
it
because
it's
a
new
feature
and
therefore
we
use
the
new
technology.
A
We
don't
keep
using
the
old
technology
and
incurring
debt,
and
then
the
discussion
about
revamping
old
features,
I
think
that's
that's
a
harder
discussion,
but
I
think
we
can
I
would
be
comfortable
just
setting
a
rule
just
any
new
feature.
We
develop
sure
he's
using
my
latest
and
greatest
technology
efficient,
because
to
me
that
yes,
there's
more
there's
risk
there,
but
I
see
that
risk
mitigated
or
the
opposite
risk
of
not
using
the
new
technology.
A
lot
higher
then
trying
to
go
back
and
finding
problems,
and
you
know
over
time
goal.
A
Well,
we
reap
the
benefits,
we'll
learn
all
these
things
that
you
mentioned,
shot
that
we
might
need
to
learn
both
ways
and
so
forth.
So
I
think
we
should
to
me
like
this
discussion
here
is:
do
we
need
to
find
a
feature?
No,
because
we
like
that,
like
there's
plenty
of
features
that
are
new,
so
what
does
automatically
have
to
be
on
for
them
and
if
you're
gonna
say
like
maybe
we
should
be
spoke
this
one
to
focus
on
revamping
an
old
one.
A
D
I
agree
to
I
just
want
to
confirm.
There
is
no
scenario
where
we
say
like
we
build
this
and
we
build
everything,
we're
building
and
grab
ql,
where
we
say
that
graph
QL
is
not
gonna
work,
we're
we're
we're
stepping
back
and
then
we'll
have
the
rewrite
this
stuff.
With
roughly
with
the
REST
API
I
mean.
Are
we
there
yeah.
A
F
I
might
comment
regarding
this
if
you
plan
to
add
graphical
supports
for
each
feature
or
something
like
this
just
I
agree
that
we
should
expect
much
slower
progress
because,
from
my
brief
check
of
graphical
current
state
I
think
there
are
many
things
to
do,
and
many
things
are
still
missing
so
and
I
think
we
don't
have
yet
the
best
practice
for
how
to
solve
all
of
them.
So
I
guess
it
will
require
more
investigation
too,
and
all
this
stuff
yeah.
A
F
A
I
mean
the
whole
point
of
this
exercise.
It's
it's
the
latest
technology,
so
the
promise
I
mean
to
me
hopefully,
is
that
like
in
a
like
in
two
or
three
months
time,
we
will
all
become
gratia.
Experts,
Idealab
and
things
should
actually
be
faster.
There
should
be
less,
but
they
should
read
more
performance
like
I'm,
hoping
that's
true,.
A
F
A
I
don't
mind
being
a
testbed
I
mean
that's
what
it
sounds
like
like
from
from
the
contents
from
the
back
into
here.
Saying,
like
you,
don't
want
to
commit
or
a
promise
anything
I
think
that's
what
we
fail,
but
I
don't
mind
like
I've
been
told:
Graff
kills.
The
future
of
your
lab
confirms
it
on
the
spot
and
we're
recording
it.
So
we'll
hold
each
other
accountable
to
that
to
that
statement,
and
then,
let's
do
it.
I'm
on
board
yeah.
G
So
there
are
at
least
two
if
he
features
that
currently
in
works
related
Mars
and
issue
list,
sorry
implemented
in
viewer,
actually
like
42
to
build
from
Hamel
like
there
was
a
decision
a
couple
weeks
ago.
That
would
use
best
API
to
get
the
data
for
for
those
features
now
now
like
having
these
discussions
seems
that
we
gotta
like
stop
a
bit
on
the
backend
part,
at
least
on
there
and
I'm
used
best
well.
Instead,
I
would.
A
B
A
B
B
Second
thing:
I
think
reflectors
are
actually
like
a
trap
for
stuff
like
this,
because
if
we're
already
refactoring
the
front-end
and
we're
changing
the
backend
to
use
graph,
you
well
at
the
same
time
that,
like
massively
increases
the
amount
of
things
that
can
go
wrong
with
this
refactor
and
we
you
know,
we
know
from
previous
reef
actors
that
we've
done
like,
for
instance,
the
merge
request,
widgets
or
to
merge
request
commenting,
neither
of
which
belong
to
plan.
Now
but,
like
you
know,
that's.
B
A
discussion
in
the
past,
like
the
refactor,
introduces
a
lot
of
leg
uncertainty,
so
it's
better
to
like
keep
that
the
steps
of
that
as
like
separated
as
possible.
So
even
though
it
will
be
more
work
in
theory
in
total
to
make
the
front
end,
use
the
REST
API
and
then
make
front
side
use
graph,
QL
API.
First
of
all,
we
don't
need
to
initially
Bo
need
to
rush
to
make
the
front
end
use
the
graph
QL
API.
B
G
The
thing
is
that,
like
these
features
that
are
moved
to
view,
what
like
in
the
back,
there
is
still
happening.
The
refactoring
sync
happening
in
the
back
end
because
they
were
previously
using
like
controllers
and
points
and
now
we're
moving
that
moving
them
to
the
rest,
the
rest
api,
which
also
requires
some
changes
and
linked
data.
So
I
was
just
thinking
that
maybe,
instead
of
doing
this
work
for
the
best,
if
you
move
on
and
do
it
for
the
for
the
graph
right
away,
but
I
mean
either
way
it
works.
G
B
No
I
think
I
think
it
does
just
because,
like
of
what
yan
said
as
well
like
we,
we
have
so
many
open
questions
about
using
graph
for
things
like
this
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
answer
all
those
questions
while
potentially
blocking
the
front-end
refactor
or
something
like
you
know.
If
it's
a
smaller
feature
like
maybe
we
can
block
that
feature,
or
maybe
we
can
like,
because
it's
also
because
the
the
roadmap
things
are
smaller.
B
Sorry,
the
equity
tree
thing
is
a
smaller
feature,
like
worst
case
like
where
it
goes
terribly
wrong,
with
graphically
where
we
come
from.
We
just
rewrite
it
to
use
the
REST
API
and
like
right
arrest.
If
you
have
to
do
that,
whereas,
like
here,
if
we've
already
started
with
a
REST
API,
then
would
be
doing
the
opposite
before
we
even
know
that
it
before
we
even
have
a
reason
to
essentially.
A
Quickly,
Sean
and
Donald:
do
you
mind
documenting
this
or
just
or
like
I'm
sure
we
can
remind
each
other
on
the
merge
request
about
this
decision,
but
we're
going
to
make
sure
that,
like
everybody
on
the
plan,
engineering
team
knows
this
so
that
there's
no
confusion
and
we
don't
EE
cyclones,
I've,
asked
in
each
other,
like
on
every
single
issue.
I.
A
A
H
H
A
A
C
C
C
A
sequel
still
currently
vo
set
its
height
limited
to
600px,
because
there
isn't
any
way
where
we
could
allow
user
to
scroll
the
page
and
then
the
moment
user
reaches
to
the
end
of
the
page,
and
you
would
basically
stick
these
tabs
at
the
top
like
we
would
in
case
of
merge
across
labs,
because
the
way
we
have
implemented
the
timeline
scoring
for
own,
that
CSS
limitations
won't
allow
us
to
do
that.
So
we
have
set
excite
to
their
own
a
few,
although
in
case
there
are
too
many
epics
added
within
an
epoch.
C
User
would
be
able
to
still
school
this
list.
But
the
timeline
is
analyst
scrollable,
as
it
would
be
in
case
of
normal
road
map
view
and
if
any
epic,
that
is,
that
is
added
within
this
list,
which
has
dates
coming
into
the
future.
It
would
get
dynamically
added
and
that
would
be
right
now,
looking
at
the
limitations
that
I
have
mentioned
here.
So
one
glaring
limitation
here
is
that
these
tabs
are
not
all
manageable.
C
So
if
you
have
used
logical,
then
you
would
notice
that
any
tab
that
you
would
click
on
merge
requests
would
have
its
own
URL.
So,
for
example,
if
you
go
to
depth
or
if
you
open
my
clients
for
commits
page
within
any
merge
request,
URL
would
change,
and
this
would
essentially
allow
you
to
copy
the
URL
and
share
it
with
someone
and
the
user
would
not
he'll
land
on
to
that
tab
open
by
default.
C
That's
not
the
case
here
when
I
was
implementing
these
tabs
I
looked
at
how
tabs
are
implemented
in
case
of
modulus,
and
the
implementation
was
not
very
clear,
and
it
felt
to
me
so
I
resorted
not
to
use
it.
I
want
I
would
rather
use
a
simpler
implementation
to
help
the
formal
links,
and
it
was
doing
so
many
things
on
switch
in
case
of
modulus
and
that
pummeling
feature
has
been
around
in
modulus
for
quite
long.
So
it
is
a
lot
of
legacy
code.
C
There
so
we
cannot
directly
use
it
in
objects,
but
I
don't
see
it
as
a
blocker,
at
least
for
11.10,
because
we
only
have
two
tabs
for
now
and
although
the
permalinks
are
not
in
place,
11.11
will
definitely
change
it,
because
in
11.11
we'll
be
working
on
epics
treeview,
then
we
would
be
adding
third
tab
and
then
all
three
tabs
of
the
common
increments.
So
right
now
we
only
have
to
tap.
So
it
is
fine
for
now
not
to
have
homilies,
but
we
will
have
it
essentially.
So
that
is
one
thing.
A
C
C
Currently,
when
you
load
the
page,
there
are
two
network
requests
that
can
happen
right
away
when
the
page
loads,
which
basically
is
this
list,
these
three
items
get
rendered
asynchronously
and
then,
as
long
as
you
do
not
click
on
this
tab,
we
do
not
make
second
requests
to
switch
topics
once
again,
but
the
moment
you
click
on
roadmap.
For
the
first
time,
it
would
touch
in
your
map
data
again
for
all
the
child
epochs,
and
then
we
would
render
the
time.
C
So
that
is
something
that
we
can
use
graph
QL
code,
because
right
now,
when
we
make
network
requests
for
they're
entering
this
list,
it
does
not
include
related
information.
So
epic
title
is
time
status
and
IDs
and
other
metadata
streams.
So
if
you
want
to
use
those
information,
probably
we
can
combine
these
two
requests
and
make
it
into
a
single
one.
There'll
be
fashion
all
the
nests
meta
data
and
then
render
both
the
things
at
once.
So
that
is
one
thing
so
coming
back
to
another
point,
so
one
thing
is
epic
creation
about
film.
C
This
is
something
that
we
have
discussed
in
the
past
as
well,
so
currently
the
only
way
to
create
a
Pyxis
by
going
to
the
epics
in
this
phase
and
clicking
on
new
button,
which
would
a
coconut
Rob.
Now,
when
you
can
pass
on
the
epic
title
and
it
create,
it
would
first
create
epic
and
then
would
navigate
the
page
to
open
that
epic
page
itself,
and
then
you
would
be
able
to
set
additional
items
like
the
eights
description
such
and
that
feels
slightly
out
of
out
of
context.
C
When
you
look
at
how
issues
and
Ammar
creation
works,
where
we
show
full
form
at
once,
and
user
can
set
all
the
necessary
metadata
and
then
hits
create
and
then
issue
or
amar
gets
created.
So
is
there
any
plans
to
help
similar
workflow
for
creating
epics,
at
least
on
the
main?
The
next
page
clicking
new
would
open
a
new
form
that
you
can
at
least
voice
start-finish.
A
So
that's
the
thinking
that
you
want
and
so
that
you
want
to
create
the
object
and
it's
there
and
then
people
can
use
it
right
away
so,
and
so
obviously
there's
arguments
against
that
because
you
wanna
have
you
want
to
share,
then
you
want
to
have
a
good
draft
before
it
goes
out
to
the
world,
but
I've
always
been
of
the
opinion
that
you
should
push
toward
the
share
share
share
mentality.
So
that's
the
sort
of
underlying
reason.
I've
always
wanted
issues
to
not
have
a
forum
and
then
so
when
we
introduce
the
new
concepts.
A
I'm
like
this
is
a
great
opportunity
not
to
go
down
that
path
and
so
therefore
I
push
for
that
and
then
so.
The
other
benefit
is
just
this
less
UI,
there's
less
cognitive
complexity
and
so
forth.
So
your
your
point
about
consistency
is
definitely
valid.
Your
point
about
all
those
other
things
like
I
said
earlier
about
how
to
attract
mode
or
issues
you
want.
Maybe
you
want
to
mark
it
confidential
right
away.
A
So
that's
another
obvious
one
that
you
can't
have
it
so
until
there's
really
strong
arguments
and
I
could
be
convinced
that
we
need
a
new
epic
form.
Then
then
we
can
build
it.
We
can
have
an
issue
for
it.
I,
don't
think.
Actually,
maybe
somebody's
crazy.
Well,
I,
don't
think
I've
closed
that
proposal.
A
Is
that
I
wasn't
clear
when
you
were
touching
on
this,
or
maybe
you
weren't,
but
we're
going
to
have
the
ability
to
create
multiple
epics
in
line
right
and
so
anything
I
like
that's,
actually
a
better
experience,
but
that's
an
argument
to
say
that
a
dedicated
web
form
for
you
I,
think
is
actually
less
important,
because
now
there's
more
ways
to
create
epics
and
you
can
create
the
relationships
or
right
away
and
you
create
them,
and
then
you
click
into
them
to
make
the
changes.
So
to
me,
that's
yet
another.
A
A
Yeah
nose.
Thank
thank
you
for
that.
We
shout
that
comes
up
every
line,
dance
I!
Think
that's
a
that's.
A
great
thing.
I
think
that
to
me
creating
a
new
epic
on
the
list
pages
is
weird.
It
just
feels
weird
as
an
experience,
but
I
like
the
experience
once
you
look
once
you
know
it,
it's
like
to
me
the
best
experience
but
I
think
from
like
that
from
it
maybe
an
expectation
or
like
a
the
light
perspective.
Maybe
it's
not
that
great
I
forget
I.
A
I
think
that's
super
useful
and
I
use
that
all
the
time
so
I
think
that
also
makes
sense
for
where
you
couldn't
epically
epic
itself,
but
I
would
say
like
it
doesn't
go
to
a
new
epic
poem
it
just
it's
the
same
UI,
it's
a
drop-down,
so
I
think
I
would
be
to
them
with
that,
because
it's
I
presume
a
small
change
and,
and
it's
the
consistency
in
it
would
be
useful.
Yeah.
C
So
current
flow
is
obviously
faster,
like
you
can
just
click
on
new
and
directly
create
new
epic
without
going
through
a
lot
of
steps,
but
the
reason
why
I
think
consistency
could
be
useful
is
so
in
eleven
dot
leaven.
We
would
eventually
allow
user
to
create
tender
pics
from
within
an
epoch
instead
of
going
to
the
older
route
of
creating
epic
first
and
then
added
to
an
existing
epic.
C
F
C
Yes,
so
there
we
only
allow
user
to
provide
the
title,
but,
for
example,
what
if
user
wants
to
create
an
epic
inline
along
with
providing
start
and
finish
dates,
because
currently
there
is
no
way
to
do
so.
We
we
do
have
similar,
UX
or
in
case
of
issue
boots,
where
user
create
each
group
mode
by
by
visiting
just
a
single
board
right
away.
C
So
if
we
want
similar
approach
for
creating
child
epics
from
the
Dylan
epic,
then
we
can
probably
leverage
or
at
least
start
and
finish
dates,
because
the
only
reason
why
I
miss
a
full
form
right
away
is
that
when
I'm
creating
a
new
epic
chances
are
I
might
as
well
want
to
provide
start
and
finish
dates,
because
I
have
a
certain
context
with
the
time
of
creating
an
epic
and
having
dates
provided
along
with
the
creation,
would
be
much
more
faster
than
me.
I.
A
Know
I
think
we
should
create
an
issue
crucial
to
chaffeur
I.
Think
again,
I
still
believe,
my
point
that
you
should
just
create
the
object
and
edit
it
afterward,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
nuance
there
in
there,
specifically
in
the
case
that
you
brought
up
that
I
think
it
deserves
some
like
just
more
UX
discussion
and
then
like.
We
might
want
to
consider
like
how
to
harmonize
it
with
issues
a
tissue
board,
as
you
mentioned,
I
think
it
would
issue
board.
A
So
do
we
ever
want
to
do
that
like
consider
that
I
don't
know,
that's
messy.
Like
we're
issue
board,
we
have
a
design
where
you
can
edit
the
metadata
without
leaving
the
issue
board
and
you
can
Pedro
provided
a
design
work,
not
just
the
metadata
pops
in,
but
the
entire
issue
comes
in,
but
you're
still
in
the
board,
and
so
you
can
edit
it.
A
So
do
we
ever
want
to
entertain
an
idea
with
like
an
epic
tree
which
would
be
pretty
impossible
because
I
think
row
map
where
you
stay
in
that
context,
but
you
can
do
editing
of
the
information
in
the
objects.
I
think
that
would
be
pretty
interesting
so
that
that's
what
I
think
we
should
have
these
create
an
issue
so
I
like
it
can
I
ask
a
question
since
we
are
in.
I
C
Accurate,
so
yes,
I'm
currently
are
currently.
If
you
open
road
map
page
directly,
you
would
notice
that
next
to
those
three
preset
buttons
or
quarters
months
and
weeks,
we
have
a
drop-down
where
we
will
be
able
to
select
the
status
of
ethics,
but
that
would
only
allow
you
to
select
whether
you
want
all
that
it's
show
up
or
you
want
that.
You
want
me
open,
epics
or
closed
epics
show
up.
Similarly,
we
can
have
epics
be
rendered
without
dates.
C
Victor
already
proposed
it
like
what,
if
you
want
to
show
those
epics
away
with
thousands,
the
timeline
like
these
are
not
present.
We
simply
don't
render
the
blue
timeline
all
for
that
epic
will
quickly
switch
those
up
within
the
list.
Only
problem
with
that
approach
is
that
currently
lists
of
epics
in
the
roadmap
are
controlled
by
a
certain
sorting
order
and
that
sorting
order
is,
and
they
will
do
these
entirely
on
gifts.
C
So
if
an
epic
doesn't
have
any
date,
where
do
we
put
it
whether
we
put
it
at
the
bottom
of
the
list
or
in
the
top
of
the
list?
And
if
you
are
viewing
a
group
which
has
close
to
house
and
epics,
which
is
already
there
our
case
or
our
github
or
group
within
we
left
off,
where
we
have
already
having
nine
hundred
plus
effects
in
those
cases,
if
any
of
the
epic
doesn't
have
any
dates,
it
simply
doesn't
show
up.
But
if
we
do,
the
site
will
show
up
later
within
the
list.
C
When
we
put
it
because
then
we
would
have
to
make
users
scroll
all
the
way
through
all
the
items
in
the
list,
and
then
the
user
will
be
able
to
show
those
epic,
because
sorting
order
correctly
doesn't
allow
you
to
sort
based
on
epic
night.
It
only
allows
you
to
sort
based
on
creation
date
or
start
or
finish
list
so
sort
order
is
one
sort
of
a
blocker
where
we
do
not
allow
those
epic
I
city
thanks.
A
A
A
But
basically
there
was
this
thing
about
70
percent
like
being
ambitious,
and
so
we
schedule
the
over
schedule
so
that
we
can
only
do
70%
and
so
I've
always
didn't
like
that,
because
it
was
really
weird
and
it's
apparent
I'm.
Guessing
apparently
it
was
confusing
to
people
because,
like
are
you
supposed
to
over
schedule,
or
does
it
just
apply
for
Direction
issue?
A
Does
it
apply
for
all
issues,
and-
and
so
I
saw
a
survey
that
doggie
has
sent
out
I,
don't
know
if
it
was
supposed
to
go
to
me
because
some
other
people
didn't
go,
they
didn't
go
to
some
of
the
people.
Careless
I
think
it's
gone
out
to
engineering
at
least
and
then
so
I
think
there's
some
confusion
about
that.
A
So,
where
most
of
the
team
is
on
board
books,
we're
just
gonna
get
rid
of
that
and
I
brought
it
in
the
party
meeting
like
we
just
didn't
even
have
a
number
I
shouldn't,
say:
100
pesetas,
seeing
100
percent
is
really
saying
nothing
because
that's
sort
of
expected
like
if
you
have
a
team
and
you
estimate
how
much
work
you're
gonna
do
like
the
assumption
is
you're
gonna.
Do
all
of
it
like
that.
That's
sort
of
just
baseline
right
logic,
but
so
so
I
serve
complain
a
little
bit
about
that.
A
But
I
I
took
that
complaint
back
because
we
need
the
hundred
percent
to
emphasize
is
not.
Seventy
percent
now
so
the
the
way
I
like
to
think
of
it.
Let's,
let's
socialize
this
I
mean
let's
make
it
clear
to
the
plan
team,
that's
what
we're
doing
and
then
maybe
in
half
a
year,
we'll
just
remove
that
hundred
percent
from
the
handbook.
B
The
top
of
that
right,
we
as
planned,
need
to
build
some
features
and
to
get
love
for
that
as
well,
so
that
works
for
me,
I
think
this
month
as
well.
I'm
gonna
add
this.
The
retro
one
comes
around,
but
I
did
I
under
waited
a
lot
of
things.
I
think
so
we
didn't
M&T
percent
by
weight,
but
taking
that
away
will
definitely
help
because
right
at
the
moment,
there's
a
load
of
back-end
issues
left
and
that's
really.
E
B
Fault,
because
the
ones
that
were
already
there
like
were
higher
weight
than
I
thought
they
were
rather
than
my.
You
know
the
team
not
actually
contributing
as
much
as
they
normally
would
and.
A
I,
don't
know
episode
of
ambitious,
yes,
but
I've
been
cutting
a
lot
of
things
from
11.11,
so
this
is
actually
pretty
sparse
and
because
I
truly
want
to
be
able
to
get
really
close
to
finishing
a
back
a
sprint
of
issues
from
for
maybe
two
or
three
reasons.
One
of
them
is
I'd
love
to
team.
To
be
able
to
just
have
have
some
satisfaction
about
that,
and
and
not
have
this
right
now.
A
A
And
then
yeah,
no,
no
I
I
totally
agree
with
that
Sean
and
then
there's
been
people
that
have
been
saying
like.
Oh
what,
if
we
under
schedule,
that
would
be
terrible
that
will
slow
down
like
that's,
never
happened
in
the
history
of
the
lab,
I'm,
pretty
sure
and
and
furthermore,
we
will
never
at
least
for
the
plan
team.
I
can
speak
of
clearly.
A
We
will
never
be
in
a
place
that
oh,
no
there's
nothing
to
do,
because
our
designers
and
prime
managers
haven't
figured
it
out
yet
and
like
oh,
no,
like
I,
have
to
work
on
something
that
I'm
not
sure
that
they
want.
That
will
never
happen.
You
can
always
find
something
in
the
backlog
in
the
Mexican
Ozlem,
there's
always
gonna,
be
a
bug.
There's
always
gonna,
be
something
I
priority
that
you
know
because
we're
in
sync.
So
that
will
never
happen
so
so
I.
Don't
think
that
to
optimize,
for
that
is
I.
A
Think
pretty
silly,
at
least
for
the
plan
to
my
would
argument
expend
most
people
think
we
because
there's
just
so
much
stuff
to
do
and
then
it
seems
that
we're
always
defined
and
I
don't
like
that
to
frame
our
work
in
that
that
we
don't
have
the
joy
of
finishing
and
I
think
that
there's
you
know,
there's
studies
out
there
for
people
who
do
that
Lots.
That
said
like,
if
you
have
you,
know
high
morale
and
stuff
like
that,
that's
actually
correlated
with
high-performing
teams
like
there's
high
morale,
CICE,
high
frequency
of
the
toys.
A
All
your
tooling
is
good
so
that
you're
not
annoyed.
There's,
there's
people
that
study
these
things
and
so
I,
don't
think
we're
getting
satisfaction
of
finishing
a
milestone
and
we're
getting
satisfaction
of
finishing
features
and
releasing
amazing
things,
which
I
think
is
great.
But
as
a
team
together
we
can
come
together
and
say
like
oh,
we
did
amazing,
but
this
past
month.
This
is
awesome
and
we
finished
out
what
we
set
out
to
do
like
I've.
A
Never
seen
that
right,
and
so
that
to
me
is
a
change
because
I
know
we're
doing
great
work
and
I
know
we're
not
slacking
and
I
know
we're
we're
doing
the
opposite
of
select.
You
know
people
are
putting
in
probably
more
hours
so
so
to
be
able
to.
We
could
have
always
done
this,
but
now
we
sort
of
have
this
100%
thing
and
we
can
do
it
efficiently.
So
that's
why,
whether
it's
a
question
now,
so
that's
why
the
purpose
to
you!
A
That's
really
thing
because
I
know,
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
overlap
from
11:10
and
I'm
trying
to
make
room
for
that,
and
also
this
leads
to
number
six
panel,
which
is
e,
I,
actually
removed
this
from
the
1111.
So
I,
don't
know
what
you
want
to
say
about
number
six,
but
if
we
need
to
bring
that
back
into
the
Levin
Levin,
let's
talk
about
that,
but
that's
one
of
the
ones
that
I
actually
just
kept
so
go
ahead.
D
Is
that
UX
ready
do
we
have
a
timeline
of
when
that
will
be
ready,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
I
should
wait
it
for
the
front-end,
if
we'll
even
be
able
to
get
to
it
and
I
know
Annabelle's,
not
here
anymore
and
she's,
the
one
that
that
issue
is
assigned
to,
but
have
we
done
that
previously
are
we?
Are
we
trying
to
get
like
a
release
ahead
on
the
majority
of
the
UX
issues,
I.
A
Don't
I
think
we
moved
away
from
that
to
say
like
we
don't
do
like
product
discovery
or
an
issue,
that's
only
a
UX
deliverable.
We
had
that
for
a
while
I
think.
That's
worked
well.
I
can't
speak
from
the
rating
perspective
because
I've
been
avoiding
participating
too
much
in
that.
So
maybe
that
will
impact
what's
happened
up
to
now.
A
A
Maybe
I'll
have
like
a
really
ugly
balsamic
thing
and
then
maybe
edible
has
like
one
or
two
designs,
but
we've
actually
moved
to
a
direction
where
we
put
things
into
a
mouse
tone
where,
where
it
was
half-baked
from
a
UX
perspective,
I
think
that's
worked
well,
because
I
haven't
had
an
expectation
that
I
needed
to
eat
delivered
so
in
this
new
world
of.
If
we
wanted
to
get
a
hundred
percent,
do
we
change
that?
A
So
maybe
that's
a
separate
discussion
that
we
should
have
so
I,
don't
know
because
I
have
seen
the
situations
where
in
within
and
also
we
had
a
great
UX
conversation
and
we
delivered
the
feature
all
at
once
and
I
mean
that's.
That's
just
I
think.
That's
all
that's
ultimately,
so
I
would
like
to
continue
to
do
that.
But
if
that's
sort
of
I
don't
know
like
because,
but
you
might
say,
then
let's
split
up
UX
and
front-end
work.
A
D
A
D
I
agree:
we
should
hold
off
on
this
conversation
until
we
do
have
someone
from
UX,
but
it
also
kind
of
relates
Thor
goes
into
the
way
we
separate
front-end
and
back-end
I.
Don't
think
we
have
a
set
way,
definitely
not
in
the
organization,
but
even
on
the
plan
team
of
when
an
issue
involves
both
back
and
in
front
it
and
do
we
split
up
I
I
mean
I've
done
it
different
ways
at
previous.
B
D
Like
with
JIRA,
you
would
just
create
a
sub
task
and
then,
as
a
team,
we
would
probably
wait
the
entire
the
entire
issue
or
story
together,
but
then
we
be
able
to
track
a
front
end
and
back
and
work
on
separate
like
some
issues,
I,
don't
like
I've
seen
us
do
it.
You
know,
create
another
issue
for
front-end,
but
then
not
have
any
weight
on
it
or
like
I.
Don't
think
we
have
consensus
on
how
we're
doing
that.
So
we
should
probably
probably
have
a
conversation.
Definitely
think
UX
should
be
involved
in
that
at
all.
D
A
E
A
E
J
Floors,
Oh
Victor
all
right,
I
want
to
do
a
quick
shimmer
and
share
with
you
guys
something
that
we've
been
working
on
this
record.
This
is
good
for
the
recording.
This
one
is
really
cool.
So
earlier
this
year,
Gartner
started
a
Magic
Quadrant
process
which
included
the
asking
customers
for
reviews
and
when
they
do
that
they
put
those
reviews
into
a
tool
that
they
call
Gartner
peer
insights.
Let
me
show
you
what
Gartner
pure
insight
says
about
the
work
we
do.
J
You
should
see
my
screen.
This
shows
products
reviewed
in
the
last
12
months
notice.
Get
lab,
has
39
reviews
about
Enterprise,
agile
planning
tools.
We
have
an
overall
4.5
rating
if
I
sort
I,
don't
care
how
you
look
at
this
data.
This
is
awesome
data
for
us.
We
have
the
third
most
reviews
on
this
site
for
gitlab
for
enterprise,
agile
planning
tools.
This
is
a
reflection
of
the
work
you
all
have
been
doing
to
build
and
develop
plan
and
and
to
get
us
there.
B
J
They're
supposed
to
be,
if
you
search
for
get
lab,
they
actually
have
us
in
two
different
sections:
one
for
application,
release,
orchestration
and
also
for
the
enterprise,
agile
planning
tools,
I
think
the
way
they
do
this
is
we
end
up
in
the
section
based
upon
when
they
start
a
Magic
Quadrant
and
it's
up
to
the
user
who's
doing
the
review
to
decide
where
they're
going
to
align
with
us.
So
you
know
some
of
these
are
more
product.
It's
it's
there's,
not
a
strong,
rigorous
set
of
rules
that
enforces
it
one
way
or
the
other.
J
Yeah
and
in
fact,
on
the
enterprise
on
the
application
release
orchestration,
which
you
know
was
last
year,
we
ended
up
winning
the
customers
Choice
Award,
because
we
had
so
many
reviews
and
we
kind
of
overwhelmed
them
on
that
some
of
them
I,
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
get
to
that
level
with
with
the
enterprise
dental.
But
it's
awesome
to
see
this
coming
so
Victor.
Could
we
stop
the
recording
I
want
to
talk
about
something
else.