►
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).
A
B
A
C
B
A
Okay,
okay,
so
the
purple
one,
this
good,
that
musics,
okay,
great,
okay,
great
yep,
something
I
think
that
worked
okay.
So
so
that's
done
and
then
the
following
week,
I
may
or
may
not
be
here
for
myself
bye.
My
kid
is
starting
daycare,
so
I
don't
know
if
he'll
be
able
to
handle
it
without
me
being
in
the
daycare
with
a
laptop,
so
we'll
figure
that
out
so
any
other
sort
of
logistic
things
we
need
to
talk
about
before
we
move
on
to
awesome
things.
D
D
For
the
scrolling
roadmap
yeah
thanks
for
highlighting
that
Pedro,
we
talked
about
a
few
different
things
and
we
talked
about
adding
a
date
picker
and
doing
all
these
other
cool
things,
but
for
a
first
pass
and
I
think
this
actually
works
pretty
well.
We
were
just
going
to
start
scrolling
horizontally
and
the
new
epics
will
just
kind
of
pop
in
and
out,
if
you're
on
it
like,
if
you're
on
a
creative
day,
it
won't
ever
pop
in
the
middle,
because
it'll
pop
at
the
top
or
the
bottom,
depending
on
how
you
have
it
sorted.
D
But
for
things
like
last
updated,
there's
a
chance,
you
could
scroll
into
a
new
version
earth
you
know
into
the
future
or
past
and
something
will
come
out
of
nowhere
into
the
middle
of
this
list.
So
I
talked
to
thought
to
you
a
little
bit
and
we
got
a
pretty
it's
not
great
this
demo,
but
it
does
show
what
we
could
do.
The
animation
isn't
great.
So
this
is
the
one
that
the
epics
will
just
appear
out
of
nowhere,
but
it
does
fit
in
a
little
bit.
So
you
start
scrolling
and.
D
D
The
other
version
is,
if
we
decide
to
do
a
button,
it
looks
more
like
this
you'll
scroll
a
little
bit
and
then
a
button
appears
here
doesn't
have
to
appear
here.
It
can
go
anywhere
and
then,
when
you
click
it
they
appear,
then
this
should
probably
go
away
and
maybe
it
should
say
new
have
eggs
have
been
loaded
and
then
you
know
it'll
come
back,
I
guess
if
you
keep
scrolling
or
if
you
go.
D
D
But
if
you
scroll
around
on
a
map,
you
can
redo
the
search
in
an
area
or
you
can
keep
this
checkmark
toggled
and
scroll
and
it'll
just
keep
redrawing
the
map
with
all
the
new
listings
which
I
find
kind
of
annoying.
But
I
like
that,
you
can
choose,
you
know
to
drag,
drag,
drag
and
then
redo.
The
search
or
you
can
have
it
repopulate
every
time.
Why
do
you
find
it
annoying
yeah.
B
D
I,
don't
use
everything
in
a
while,
but
I
would
look
for
specific
spot
identic.
Well,
you
know
I,
don't
want
to
be
in
Shipley
bridge,
so
I'll
start
scrolling
and
I
find
it
really
annoying
when
things
just
keep
on
popping
like
oh
I
want
to
go
to
Brighton
I'm
using
then
find
the
exact
area
I
want
to
be
in
without
all
these
things
popping
up
all
the
time.
So.
A
I
guess
that's
more
of
like
like
a
performance
thing
so
so
like.
If
this
is
supposed
to
be
an
analogy
of
the
physical
map,
then
they
should
thing
shouldn't
pop
and
they
should
just
be
there
and
so
you're
saying
because
you
don't
have
that
perfect
performance.
It's
annoying
to
you
edible
that
things
are
popping
in
it.
D
Might
be
a
good
for
performance,
but
also,
if
you're,
if
you're
looking
at
these
and
I.
Don't
even
think
these
are
in
order
by
the
way.
So.
But
if,
if
you
really
want
to
just
see
like
a
specific
area
of
the
map,
but
we
really
want
to
get
over
here
and
then
load
the
new
ones,
instead
of
them
popping
in
and
out,
lawyers
growing,
because.
A
This
this
versus
the
map
isn't
I
think
a
little
bit
different
because
because
the
map,
the
map
itself,
the
physical
geography
doesn't
change,
whereas
this
one,
if
the
analogy
is
the
vertical
space,
is
the
physical
map
and
this
one
it
does
change
so
I
think
that's
a
little
bit
different
right.
So
so,
if
anything,
the
map,
one
I,
think
nobody
would
complain.
If
there's
perfect
performance
and
it's
like
a
physical
paper
map,
you
just
move
it
around
and
things
just
you
know
appear
in
the
hundred
movie
infinity
yeah.
B
D
A
D
B
D
And
I
prefer
I
had
some
problems
with
the
animation
aid
and
I'm
using
just
fade
in
and
fade
out,
and
that's
not
what
would
be.
We
would
like
to
sort
of
change
the
height,
so
it
would
grow
in
and
it
wouldn't
just
kind
of
pop
in
like
that
which
might
look
a
little
better,
but
that
doesn't
fix
the
hover
kind
of
jumping
I.
A
A
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
it
might,
it
might
look
weird
they
might
y'all
scattered,
but
at
least
the
the
jarring
nature
of
the
thing
is
always
like.
Vertically,
you
see
things
jump
but
horizontally.
It's
maybe
not
as
terrible,
because
they're
always
coming
in
the
direction
that
you
expect
them
to
be
as
you're
scrolling
toward
it,
so
that
maybe
that's
something
to
account
for
I
really.
C
I
really
like
the
the
popping
in
and
out
I
thought
and
that's
why
I
suggested
doing
a
demo
because
in
in
my
mind,
I
was
trying
to
manage
it.
Imagine
how
it
could
look
like
and
rights.
I
thought
maybe
look
really
bad,
but
you
know
I,
don't
think
it's
really
when
you're,
navigating
and
you're
right
again.
The
purpose
of
this
is
for
you
to
be
able
to
browse
and
look
what's
coming
in
the
future.
Looking
what's
coming
in
the
past
and
comparing
the
epics
that
are
in
view
I
think
it's,
it
really
works.
C
B
B
B
B
A
C
A
B
C
C
A
That's
the
problem
right.
So
if
you're
you're
in
the
well
I
mean
that's
already
a
problem,
I
guess
so
you're
in
the
list
view
you
want
created,
add
because
that's
probably
like
90%
of
the
case
and
then
you
go
to
the
roadmap
view,
and
then
you
want
one
of
started
our
due
date
and
then
you're
always
changing
it
already,
and
so
that's
already
a
poor
experience.
Yes,.
B
D
F
C
Yeah
I
think,
but
but
this
is
I
think
doesn't-
is
not
part
of
this
prototype
work
to
think
about
the
the
loading
state
but
I
agree
with
with
Andrea
that
we
should
think
about
how,
if
it's
taking
a
bit
longer
to
display
the
epics
and
as
an
introduction
to
this
new
way
of
seeing
things
in
the
future
in
the
past.
How
are
we
going
to
load
them
in
yeah,
but
that,
but
that's
a
separate.
C
A
Interesting
because
I
didn't
think
about
that
deeply,
because
with
other
UI's,
you
can
always
put
a
loading
spinner,
which
I
don't
like
I
like
skeletons
but
whatever
right.
So
you
can
always
put
that
the
moment
the
front
and
sends
a
signal
to
the
backend
right
and
then
so
here
to
me,
that's
not
necessarily
true,
because
you're
scrolling
in
the
canvas
which
is
a
little
bit
different
from
you're
making
an
update
on
the
front-end
right,
like
the
concepts,
are
a
little
bit
different,
I.
Think
because
you
you're
moving
in
time,
and
so
do
you
just
like.
F
Versus
explicit
and
again,
this
would
be
a
very
silent
feature
that
will
be
surprising
when
they
start
using
it.
They
will
just
trip
on
it,
which
one
is
good
right.
They
will
discover
it
very
easily,
just
by
scrolling
the
other.
It
could
be
surprising.
There's
like
that
usability
mantra
like
every
action
should
be
initiated
by
the
user.
A
A
A
I
said
yeah
I
think
our
problem
is
harder
than
the
map
thing
for
like
what
I
said
earlier
about
like
the
vertical
space.
It's
it's
actually
a
hardware
problem,
we're
in
design
perspective,
cuz,
there's
more
there's
more
degree
of
dimensionality,
even
though
2d
is
more
than
one
D
or
no
I
guess
this
is
2d.
Reg
is
there's
this
end
and.
C
About
the
the
sorting
I
think
it's
it's
fair
if
we
create
an
issue
to
discuss
decoupling
the
to
sorting
from
the
list
and
the
road
map,
if
that
allows
us
to
have
a
better
experience
for
the
road
map
as
default,
because
I
I
don't
agree
with
you
Victor
that
people
will
immediately
change
the
sorting
I
think
we
should
do
a
good
job
just
to
have
the
best.
Oh
yeah.
A
C
G
C
One
thing
that
Sean
pointed
out
there,
a
very
good
point
was
the
different
behaviors
when
we
have
the
different
sorting
types
and
for
this
particular
view
in
the
road
map,
maybe
the
last
updated
and
created
dates.
Don't
make
that
much
sense
to
have
those
controls
and
I
was
suggesting
eventually
creating
another
issue
to
have
a
separate
discussion
and
don't
affect
this
idea,
but
to
discuss
the
possibility
of
decoupling.
C
The
sorting
of
the
road
map
from
the
ListView
and
eventually,
probably
removing
created
dates
and
last
updated
from
the
sorting
options
here
in
the
world
Matthew
because
created
date
is
the
default
for
both
lists
and
roadmap
and
they
are
tied
together.
So
you
change
on
one
side.
It
changes
on
the
roadmap
and
vice
versa.
Ok,
yeah.
D
D
C
You
Alex
wait
you
what
follow
right,
because
if,
if
it's
a
very
again
very
dumb
user
right
and
I,
think
it's
it's
good
for
us
to
assume
that
they
create
an
epic
and
then
they
see
it
immediately
on
the
top
of
the
list.
They
don't
need
to
change
the
sorting
to
to
see
or
reverse
the
order
as
well
to
see
the
nutrient
create
an
epic,
but
here
in
roadmap
we
are
only
showing
epochs
that
have
defined
dates
so
right.
D
A
Yeah
I'm
trying
a
product
works,
so
I
think
I,
think
decoupling
would
be
pretty
uncontroversial,
I
think
I'm,
at
least
amongst
us,
and
we
would
do
it,
but
then
taking
the
the
stab
of
actually
removing
last
started
or
last
updated
and
created
at
from
the
road
map
view.
It's
like
I
personally,
don't
care
if
you
leave
it,
but
I.
C
F
Is
one
of
the
things
that
if
we
had
to
usage
data,
we
could
go
in
and
see
how
many
people
are
actually
using
those
yeah
removing
stuff?
There's
always
going
to
be
like
hey
where's,
my
stuff,
but
in
this
case
I,
don't
anticipate
it
to
be
very
controversial
but,
like
Victor
said,
I
think
one
is
very
straightforward:
decoupling
we
just
create
that
each
and
schedule
it
the
other.
We
have
to
discuss
a
little
bit
more
but
other
than
that.
I
think
it
makes
perfect
sense.
Just.
B
F
A
A
A
D
There
are
any
other
comments
and
feel
free
to
say
them.
Otherwise,
I
think
just
will
open
an
issue
to
talk
about
the
drop-down
options
and
then
anything
else
can
go
in
I'll,
make
recordings
of
these
or
gifts
and
add
them
to
the
whatever
issue.
It
is
that
I
actually
don't
know
that
there
is
an
issue
tray
or
is
this
an
epic
there's.
A
C
A
A
Judge
positively
number
of
three
Shawn
already
answered
so
actually
just
for
my
edification
and
knowledge.
So
the
feature
flag
is
is:
is
such
that
the
feature
is
off
right
now,
so
we'll
11.7?
Will
we
be
shipping,
a
change
as
part
of
the
eleven
seven
to
remove
the
feature
flag
all
together?
Is
that
what
we're
doing
in
eleven
seven
then
my.
A
A
A
Oh
yeah,
all
right
so
provided
we
shipped
the
feature
in
eleven
point:
six,
with
the
feature
flag
off,
then
we
can
have
production,
team
change,
a
configuration
and
the
server
and
have
the
feature
on
but
we're
seeing
like
we
contend,
we
might
as
we.
We
don't
really
need
to
do
that
since
we're
gonna
have
it
in
the
early
RC
anyway.
So
it's
not
worth
it.
Yeah.
B
A
A
You
know
yeah
I
personally
well
made
me
well
yeah.
Let's
actually,
the
school
officials
finished
first,
it
emerged
like
even
if
entertaining
that
idea.
So
if
people
are
back
from
Christmas
all
days,
then
you
know
we
could
potentially
turn
it
on
and
people
can
try
it
out,
but
anyways
yeah.
So
that
issue
is
there
Sean
and
Andre
go
ahead.
20
seconds
yeah.
B
So
basically,
I
think
we
should
remove
this
label.
I
think
it
was
useful,
but
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
have
made
it
less
useful.
The
first
one
is
that
the
change
in
process
for
security
issues
and
the
amount
of
security
issues
that
we're
doing
means
that
we
basically
only
use
this
for
security
issues
now,
and
that
means
that
we've
been
getting
pretty
much
everything
in
for
the
22nd,
but
it's
not
particularly
useful
information
from
a
product
perspective,
except
that
we're
keeping
up
with
the
volume
of
security
issues
so
yeah.
B
Basically,
there
were
three
sort
of
objectives
that
we
had,
so
it
was
a
way
for
Victor
to
communicate
priority
more
granular
way
than
deliverable
and
stretch.
Now
we
have
a
ranked
list.
We
do
it
that
way,
that's
easier,
more
straightforward.
The
second
was
to
force
ourselves
to
ensure
that
issues
were
scoped
down
appropriately.
If
we
remove
it,
we
don't
keep
that,
like
you
know,
we
still
have
to
do
that
ourselves,
but
I
think
we've
been
doing
a
pretty
good
job
of
it.
B
So
I
don't
see
that
as
a
concern
and
it
was
give
everyone
a
clear
estate
of
the
milestone,
yeah
clear
estate
of
the
milestone,
because
you
know,
if
you
see
a
bunch
of
222nd
loads,
you
still
open
on
the
30th,
then
you
know
that
with
the
issues
that
one
is
but
also
I
feel
that
you
can
just
look
at
the
board
and
see
how
many
issues
are
in
each
area,
if
they're,
all
roughly
of
equivalent
weights,
we're
the
only
team.
That's
using
this
sort
of
thing.
B
We
can
actually
delete
the
label
entirely
for
security
issues
where
we
didn't
need
you
22nd,
because
they're
actually
do
around.
Then
they
also
have
due
dates
anyway.
So
you
can
just
use
the
due
date
to
see
the
exact
date
and
it
needs
to
be
ready
on
so
yeah.
Hopefully,
that's
pretty
uncontroversial
I
think
it
was
useful,
but
I
think
we
don't
need
anymore.
F
I
didn't
have
anything
that
just
that
I
agree
with
everything
everything
shun
said.
The
only
thing
I
would
ask
is
the
security
issues
right
now
it's
been
the
majority
or
not
the
majority.
The
100%
of
the
issues
of
the
do
22nd
for
the
past
two
milestones,
I
believe
right.
My
question
is
to
you
Victor:
do
we
do
we
anticipate
in
the
future
throwing
something
else
on
the
do
22nd
bucket
or
the
priorities
prioritized
ranked
list
is
enough:
I
agree
which
one
that
for
now
it
is
but
I
wanted
to
get
your
perspective.
I.
A
Think
it
I
think
it
is
like.
Then
we
don't
need,
like
it's
I
think
what
I
was
getting
at.
Is
that
it's,
where
we're
over,
specifying
right
now
we're
saying
the
same
thing
with
the
two
processes
so
yeah,
so
so
so
so,
like
I-I'll
bring
up
two
points.
One
of
them
is
really
silly
like
you
have
so
we'll
get
rid
of
the
do
twenty
second
label
and
then
we'll
have
a
stack
rank
list
of
issues
and
the
the
security
ones
will
be
at
the
top
so
like
which
ones
do
you
work
on?
A
First,
like
it
doesn't
really
matter
right
like
it
like
well,
I
mean,
like
engineers,
will
will
tell
us
right,
it'll,
be
Shawn
on
during
an
engineering
team,
we'll
figure
out
which
one
to
work
on
first
so
like
from
that
perspective,
it's
like
it
doesn't
matter.
We
could,
whether
it's
a
stacked
rank
list
or
the
do
twenty
second
label
like
if
it's
a
staggeringly
as
you're
supposed
to
pick
up
the
one
at
the
top,
but
I
think
we're
like
smart
enough
to
know.
That's
we
don't
have
to
like
take
it
to
the
letter
of
the
law.
A
From
that
perspective,
so
so
that's
one
sort
of
like
pseudo
issue.
If
you
even
thought
of
it
and
then
the
other
one
is
the
the
due
date
of
the
security
issues
at
least
a
way
that
I've
talked
with
security
team
in
the
past.
It's
it's
a
so
we
this
may
be
a
problem,
but
I
don't
foresee
it
is
that
it's
a
way
for
them
to
tell
us
when
something
is
due,
and
then
we
put
the
milestone
in
the
do
twenty
second
label
to
to
communicate
back
to
them.
Yes,
we
will
do
it
by
the
22nd.
A
So
if
they
put
like
December
25th
and
then
then
we
put
December
22nd,
then
we're
like
it's
technically
two
pieces
of
data
and
two
information
flows,
but
I
really
don't
think
that
would
matter,
but
I
just
wanted
to
call
it
out
if,
like
people
are
really
right
specific
in
their
communication,
but
like
I,
really
don't
see
this
problem
happening.
Another
point
is
that
I
think
other
teams
may
be
less
be,
are
more
conservative.
A
So
what
we've
done
with
the
do
22nd
is
we're
essentially
saying
it's
due
on
the
22nd
and
it'll,
be
murder
right
away
and
I'll
be
able
to
match
their
due
date
of
whether
it's
like
22nd,
23rd
or
24th
I,
don't
know
where
they
picked.
Those
dates
from
this.
Sometimes
it's
weird
right,
but
what
I've
seen
I
think
what
other
teams
do
is
that
I,
don't
know
actually
I
haven't
checked?
A
You
so
number
five
just
wanted
to
call
that
out
because
and
when
he
agrees
with
me,
but
I
wanted
to
call
this
out
specifically
because
I've
know
in
the
past
whether
it's
myself
or
just
in
general,
we
haven't.
Probably
me
I,
haven't
been
like
doing
a
good
job
of
like
prioritizing
tech,
debt
issues.
So
I
think
this
particular
case
is
I.
Believe
Heinrich
finished
the
the
feature
using
non
view
code,
but
the
front-end
team
wants
to
do
it
in
view
and
so
from
that
perspective
I
think
that's
totally
valid.
A
So
the
to
me,
the
issue
isn't
finished
right
so
because
every
only
time
you
create
an
issue,
you
have
a
merge
request
and
then
you
shouldn't,
like
a
product
manager,
shouldn't
be
able
to
go
to
engineering
team
and
say,
like
you
know,
ship
this
feature
without
fixing
all
the
technical
concerns
that
you've
brought
up
in
the
merge
request.
So
far,
so
I
think
that's
like
a
big
no-no
and
like
nobody,
IQ
lab,
does
that
anyway.
A
Gonna
have
to
do
this
in
view,
then
I
totally
agree
that,
like
we
do
not
merge
this
in,
because
there's
literally
nothing
to
merge.
But
in
this
particular
case
the
back-end
engineer
took
the
extra
step
to
implement
the
front-end
piece
and
so
to
me,
then
the
the
the
feature
is
complete
from
that
perspective
and
therefore
can
be
merged.
A
But
I
wanted
to
respect
that
the
technical
debt
process
and
and
schedule
the
issue
right
away,
not
scheduling
right
away
like
if
it
can
be
done
in
this
iteration,
because
we
have
a
stack
length
risk
of
prior
now.
Let's
do
it.
If
not,
then
it's
just
it's
just
in
the
next
lit
it's
just
the
next
most
highest
priority
item,
and
so,
if
it
makes
it
in
eleven
seven
it
does
it
makes
it.
If
it's
not
that,
then
it
goes
until
eleven.
F
Want
to
put
you
a
little
bit
on
this,
so
one
of
the
things
that
Betty
just
covered
really
well.
Is
it
yes,
like
the
back
and
took
the
initiative
of
having
that
part
done,
and
even
though
we
were
dissipating
that
to
be
tackled
by
Winnie,
he
has
so
much
stuff
on
his
plate
is
going
on
holiday
that
you
won't
be
able
to
make
it
just.
F
This
is
more
for
everyone
to
be
aware
of
what's
happening,
sure
and
and
I
just
talked
to
two
constants,
and
it
seems
like
you'll,
be
able
to
pick
that
up
in
on
Monday
to
move
the
implementation
at
the
back
and
did
to
move
it
to
view
so
I
have
no
issues
in
doing
that
in
do
to
merge
requests
like
the
first
minute
request
goes
in
like
it
is.
The
second
goes
after
and
clears
it
up,
hopefully
still
in
eleven
seven.
Just
like
you
were
saying.
F
A
F
And,
if
not,
would
just
like
by
the
end
of
this,
that
this
thing's
unfolds
costs
will
probably
be
on
it
already
so
you'll
be
able
to
pick
it
up
and
finish
it,
but
I'm
fine
having
to
merge,
request
clearing
the
issue.
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
that,
and
so
I
would
say
just
go
ahead.
I
wouldn't
the
only
thing
is
just
that.
Don't
close
the
issue
when
the
first
murder
case
goes
in
okay
well
for
the
second
one
to
be
cleared
but
yeah
otherwise,
I.
A
F
A
A
A
But,
like
the
the
my
point
is
that
the
way
we
do
split
up
work
issues
into
really
small
pieces
by
definition,
that
is
more
work
right.
But
but
the
whole
point
is
that
we've
agreed
or
we
you
know,
we've
known
with
like
software
development,
it
is
more
work
and
to
end,
but
then
you're,
actually
delivering
iterations
faster.
So
I
think
this
is
a
great
example
of
down.
I
wanted
to
call
that
out.
Yeah.
F
F
Like
we
did
on
the
checklist
case
that
I,
when,
when
Brad
was
assigned,
I
got
40
to
jump
in
start
talking
with
him
right
to
avoid
this
mismatch
of
availability.
So
that's
more
about
us
maintaining
this
awareness
that
whatever
make
something
up
that
has
a
northern
label
right
the
front
that
picks
it
up.
It
has
a
back-end
label,
keep
it
in
sync,
announcer
see
if
everyone,
if
anyone.
A
A
Yeah,
no,
no
I,
totally
agree,
I
didn't
even
think
about
it
from
the
front
and
back
in
perspective.
I
think
this
is
another
good
example.
I
would
say
that
this
is.
This
is
not
bad
right.
This
is,
you
can
say
it's
a
cost
of
doing
it
this
way,
but
it's
like
it's
just
benefit
like
the
benefits
outweigh
the
cost
right,
the
benefit
being.
We
have
the
flat
list.
We
can
move
quickly,
you
can
iterate
and
it's
just
the
nature
of
this
process,
but
your
thing
is
better
overall
cool,
so
incident
management.
A
B
B
To
go
first,
because
if
we
go
first,
we
might
say
a
bunch
of
stuff,
that's
irrelevant
to
what
they
want
to
design
and
a
failure
of.
They
might
say
us
a
bunch
of
stuff,
that's
irrelevant
for
my
technical
perspective,
but
for
us
it's
much
easier
to
say
what
shouldn't
be
there.
Then
what
should
be
there
right
right,
which.
A
A
A
B
Like
you
know,
there
are
some
knows
where
you
know.
We
say
that
if
it's
not
gonna
appear
in
the
issue
lists,
for
instance,
then
it
isn't
an
issue.
I
think
is
one
thing
that
you
mentioned
in
your
recent
comments
or
if
it's,
if
it's
got
different
states
and
I,
think
you
mentioned
resolution
around
States
and
resolutions,
I.
Think
that's
fine,
but
like
it's
got
different
states
to
an
issue,
then
it's
not
really
sure
if
you
actually
need
to
remove
a
field
as
opposed
to
hiding
it.
When.
I
B
A
B
The
trick
with
custom
fields
is
that
they're
apply
to
a
project
or
a
group
or
whatever,
and
then
they
use
it
bigger
about,
and
this
on
the
surface
is
very
similar
and
it
probably
will
use
some
of
the
same
stuff,
but
it's
not
very
big
difference
in
that
we
can
be
added
globally
as
long
as
you
have
the
life.
So
that's
right
and
I
think
this
is
in
core.
So
it's
not
it
globally
for
everybody.
B
A
B
A
A
Right
exactly
exactly
it's
like
I
can
see,
I
can
see
where
josh
is
coming
from
and
Pingdom
a
couple
more
times
to
make
sure
that,
like
good
I,
don't
want
to
come
off
as
being
unhelpful,
because
we're
not
and
I
also
want
to
assume
like
good
intention
in
this
part,
so
I
like
where
I
initially
came
from,
and
so
thank
you
for
that
shot
because
that's
that's.
How
we've
worked
in
the
past
and
I
think
we've
had
success
is
that
you
know
come
up
with
a
very
specific
detailed
design.
A
I
A
What
do
you
think
of
like
what
does
plans
vision
of
issue
types
and
like
what
is
the
the
you
know
that
the
circle
and
framework
tell
me
that
and
then
I
can.
You
know,
play
in
that
space
to
invent
and
innovative
incident
management,
so
I
think
they're
both
valid
and
you
need
to
like
give
a
little
bit
in
both
sides.
Yeah
a
lot.
B
Of
the
stuff
that's
mentioned
is
perhaps
not
stuff
for
an
MVC,
which
seems
like
it's
off
topic,
but
it
is
important
to
have
that
longer-term
perspective
right,
because
we
don't
want
to
do
like
three
iterations
on
this
and
then
realize.
Oh
actually,
we
always
knew
we
were
gonna.
Do
this,
which
means
it
should
have
been
an
issue
from
the
start
or
it
couldn't
be
an
issue
from
the
start.
B
Just
say
like:
if
it
has
this,
it's
not
an
issue
type.
If
it
has
this,
it's
not
an
issue
type
and
then
at
least
they
can
use
that
to
sort
of
make.
That
decision
like
that's,
not
to
say
that
we
can't
like
add
things
to
that
in
future
or
take
things
off
that
list,
but
I
think
we've
got
a
pretty
good
idea
of
like
things
that
we.
A
I
Completely
agree
with
you:
I
am
regarding
this
I'm
still
getting
back
to
to
the
custom
fields
because,
as
you
mentioned
before,
I
believe
that
this
is
partially
related,
because
if
we
want
custom
fields
for
issues
anyway-
and
we
say
at
the
same
time
that
each
you
type
can
have
only
additional
fields,
then
I
expect
that
we
should
consider
using
custom
fields
as
architecture
sorption
for
a
few
types
yeah.
If,
if
you.
I
C
I
was
just
going
to
say
that,
as
you
very
well
pointed
out
in
the
issue
itself
like
cooking
the
mock-up
from
the
presentation,
I
I,
linked
as
a
related
issue,
the
issue
where
we
discussed
that
vision,
design
and
as
with
everything
that
we
do
for
vision,
it
has
to
be
rethought
from
from
scratch
almost
right.
This
was
just
done
for
the
presentation
just
to
get
it
out
really
quickly
and
I.
C
Think
for
this
particular
case,
even
though
we
might
think
that
the
best
approach
couldn't
be
eventually
to
have
my
issue
types
or
to
have
this
in
the
issues
list
or
whatever
I
think
for
this
particular
case
and
since
the
the
the
intention
to
have
this
comes
primarily
from
monitoring
and
not
necessarily
from
planning
I
think
we
couldn't
have
better
ideas
and
have
better
solutions.
If
we
let
the
monitoring
team
drive
this
and
then
along
the
way.
C
I
think
this
is
what
I'm
saying
is
similar,
if
not
the
same
as
you
setting
the
issue
Victor,
which
is,
then
we
have
touch
points
where
we
can
align
in
terms
of
experience
in
terms
of
front-end
back
and
all
of
that
and
see
what
ok
with
so.
What
I'm
saying
essentially,
is
monitoring
devices.
What
is
the
MVC?
A
C
A
Yeah,
so
so
that
they
would
get
together,
drive
the
design
forward
and
for
incidents.
Obviously,
but
even
they
would
have
some
opinions
of
like
how
initial
list
would
work
with
all
issue,
and
then
they
would.
You
know
collaborate
with
you
closely
to
refine
refine
that
design,
but
that
they
would
work
closely
that
they
should
be
owning.
That
yeah.
C
I
think
I
think
they
should
be
owning
that
and
and
be
right
just
go
all
out
and
think
that
they
have
no
restrictions
at
all
and
just
what
they
think
could
be
the
best.
If
we
didn't
have
issues
at
all,
if
we
didn't
have
courts
at
all,
what
would
be
the
best
solution
to
solve
the
incident
management?
So
it
would
be
like
a
really
big
product
discovery
and
then
maybe
we
could
start
to
funnel
down
and
see.
C
Okay,
what
how
we
can
restrict
this
for
the
first
iterations,
knowing
that
this
is
the
vision
and
I
also
think
this
can
be
a
really
good
as
exercise
for
us
in
the
plant
side,
because
if
we
have
people
from
other
areas
and
especially
Sarah
and
Amelia,
really
haven't
been
very
long
with
us,
they're
fairly
new
to
the
company
to
the
product,
the
ideas
that
they
might
have
regarding
incidents.
They
can
have
great
ideas
that
we
might
be
able
to
port
over.
G
I
C
A
C
A
Sarah,
the
third
I
remember
like
they're,
just
gonna
be
a
third
Sarah,
and
so
it
I'll
tag
them
and
I'll
link
to
this
vid
I'm,
really
glad
that
we
have
it
I'll
link
specifically
to
this
time,
so
they
don't
have
to
watch
all
our
boring
said
like
and
then
and
then
we'll
we'll
get
them
to
respond
and
make
sure
we're
aligned.
Because
you
know
this
is
all
our
thinking
in
our
how
we
want
to
approach
the
problem.
A
That's
a
really
good
util-links
or
the
wing
for
the
win,
and
also
like
the
fact
that
youtube
you
can
link
to
the
timestamp
whenever
they
introduce
that
feature.
Like
maybe
like
10
years
ago,
it's
been
there
forever
dad.
That's
a
great
I
think
that
Bell
V
gets
it
to
get
everybody
on
board
as
soon
as
we
can
thanks.
A
E
F
So
this
is
more
like
a
mix
between
issues
and
merge
requests
in
itself.
So
it's
a
completely
different
entity
so
that
we're
going
that
with
a
separate
thing.
However,
again
and
then
the
rest
of
it
is
very
specific,
so
it's
not
really
related
to
that.
To
this
part,
however,
it's
a
top-level
thing
on
the
on
the
project,
alongside
issues
not
within
issues.
F
F
For
example,
you
will
be
able
to
create
a
board
only
with
incidents,
for
example,
whereas
in
this
case
we
won't,
but
this
is
the
road
that
there
that
were
considering
taking
I
kind
of
agree
with
it
for
now
I
for
the
incidents
in
specific
I
kind
of
think
it
makes
sense
the
type
of
issue,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up
as
it's
a
slightly
slightly
similar
thing,
but
we're
choosing
another
Road.
Another
approach,
no.
A
A
The
monitoring
like
this
is
I
think
would
be
a
great
example
of
like
this
is
exactly
that.
The
discussion
we
should
be
having
with
monitoring
like
like
this
evening
with
the
summit,
like
you
come
up
with
this
exactly
Pedro
said,
is
just
crazy,
awesome,
design
idea,
and
then
then
we
consider
the
trade-offs
right
like
do.
We
make
it
an
issue
to
ever
not
miss
you
time
what
are
the
trade-offs
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
there's
yeah
like
very
tangible
designs
there
from
g2
and.
C
Don't
ask
for
permission
right,
exact,
it's
just
do
it
and
and
if
I
think
in
this
case
it's
a
matter
of
who
feels
more
passionate
about
certain
things
right
and
if
monitoring
is
very
passionate
about
incident
management
and
they
have
the
time
and
resources
to
do
it
even
better
than
we
do
just
do
it
and
we
can
sync
up
along.
That's.
A
C
Start
I'm,
PJ,
o'clair
final
points,
so
yeah
from
yesterday's
New
Mexico,
and
this
was
also
shared
in
the
product
call
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
but
for
everyone
else,
we
the
UX
team,
every
UX
or
in
their
own
area.
So
in
this
case
it's
me
and
Anna
Paltrow
plan
for
this
milestone
and
also
the
next
couple
of
ones
we're
going
to
add
some
labels
to
the
issues.
So
don't
freak
out
they're
doing
it's
the
depth,
breadth
and
UI
polish
labels
to
all
of
the
issues
were.
C
F
A
Yeah,
no,
let's
see,
let's
see
how
it
goes
with
you
accident.
If
we,
if
we
make
sensor
to
make
it
broader,
I
I
saw
this
like
Sarah
announced
it
somewhere
over
I
was
looking
some
channel,
but
I
just
see
this
earlier
and
I'm
excited
like
that.
There
is
some
initiative
to
to
actually
try
to
quantify
this
I.