►
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
So
yep,
first
of
all,
charlie
during
the
back
end
team,
she's,
a
senior
back-end
engineer
based
in
New
Zealand,
so
probably
not
gonna,
join
this
call
very
often,
given
that
it's
like
midnight
or
2
a.m.
something
like
that
she
will
be
coming
to
country.
So
if
you're
going
to
New
Orleans,
you
can
meet
her
there
and
also
handles
on
swag
get
up
also
an
issue
I
created
the
other
day
for
social
calls
between
people
in
the
plans,
age
groups,
so
because
we're
in
so
many
different
time
zones
I
think.
B
B
C
A
Thanks
Sean
and
thanks
for
putting
this
topic
on
the
agenda
Thanks,
so
everybody
can
look
at
the
issue.
We
are
a
very
big
team
now,
as
you
might
have
noticed,
like
just
a
amount
of
people
on
this
call
or
who
is
invited
to
this
call.
So
it's
definitely
not.
It's
definitely
a
great
problem
to
have,
but
we
should
keep
moving
fast
and
the
way
we
do
that.
A
If
we
work
in
startups-
and
you
know
just
software
general-
is
to
have
really
small
teams
so
that
you
can
make
quick
decisions,
you
have
to
wait
on
each
other
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
It's
easier
to
improve
your
process.
If
you
have
a
handful
of
folks
is
then
ten
plus,
so
that's
exactly
what
we're
doing
in
plan
and
across
all
teams
at
the
lab
as
well.
So
if
you
look
at
that
issue
the
create
folks
inspired
by
this
issue,
and
then
they
created
their
own
issue,
so
you
can
look
at
that.
A
A
So
I
anticipate
we
will
have
a
new
key
amirseun
and
then
it
looks
like
we
have
a
lot
of
back-end
engineers
in
front
integers
already,
and
so
the
reason
why
I'm
pushing
for
this,
in
particular
for
product
management
is
I,
don't
want
to
follow
managers
fighting
each
other
for
work
to
be
done.
I
think
that's
a
really
bad
and
Tibetan,
and
instead
that
the
that
PM
should
be
able
to
prioritize
by
themselves
what
they
want
to
do,
and
they
don't
need
to
ask
the
other
p.m.
A
and
then
also
ask
a
team
what
they
want
to
work
on
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
that's
that's.
Definitely
what
I
want
to
avoid,
or
any
new
product
person
coming
in,
so
that
they
can
get
focused
and
move
quickly,
and
so
that's
why
I've
been
pushing
for
this.
So
I
think
it's
a
little
less
so
so
I,
pinged,
UX
and
quality
here
I
think
that's
a
little
less
problematic
business
less
folks
and
expect
those
teams
to
be
able
to
be
it
just
flexibly.
But
4
p.m.
A
D
I
think
you
mentioned
this
last
week
and
Pedro
probably
already
said
it,
but
this
was
an
idea
for
UX.
We
could
do
team
planning,
Pedro
and
planning
me
and
certify
Alexis,
but,
like
you
said,
there
are
only
three
of
us,
so
I
think
it.
You
can
just
be
pinged
on
the
issue
and
then,
if
you
don't
do
it
than
any
of
us
can
do
it.
That's.
A
The
mess
of
of
a
split,
so
I
think
that'd
be
great
for
that
person
whenever
that
person
joins
so
I'm
hoping
to
do
that,
but
I
think-
and
these
were
blocked
on
on
me
figuring
out
when
that
timeline
is
in
talking
about
area.
I
want
some
clarity
on
the
split
on
how
product
managers
would
own
each
parts
and
then
I
think
Shawn
and
Don
already
had
some
feedback
on
on
how
engineering
would
be
spent.
So
that's
why
I
don't
think
it's
blocked
there,
and
so
for
certified
in
particular.
A
I
would
not
want
to
move
forward
with
that
until
a
new
in
time
Noah
product
manager
is,
is
joining
like
say
next
week
or
the
week
after
and
before
I
have
that
clarity
I,
don't
want
to
move
forward
with
the
certified
just
yet.
So
that's
why
there's
also
a
blocker
there,
so
I
expect
by
this
time.
Next
week
you
have
a
lot
more
clarity,
but
people
please
participate
on.
Nonetheless,
while
Maher
and
Alexandra
do
you
want
to
verbalize
your
points.
Yeah.
E
A
Thank
you
for
asking
the
questions.
That's
that's
excellent
and
one
more
you
do.
If
you
don't
mind
you
can
link
to
what
you're
talking
about
here
in
the
agenda
and
so
other
temperature
and
seemed
like
only
I'll
put
a
link
there.
Great.
Thank
you
so
yeah!
That's
that's!
Just
a
good
practice
in
general.
I
get
laughs
just
to
just
crazy
cross
linking
because
you
never
know
who
cares
or
is
interested
and
then
a
few
more
people
care
about
the
things
you're
working
on.
It's
only
better
for
yourself,
Alexandria
Europe,
yeah,.
C
So
I
was
wondering
about
this
single
codebase
as
we
want
to
get
there
as
far
as
I
know
like
I'm,
around
22nd
of
May,
or
something
like
that.
So
it's
fairly
soon
like
to
release
cycles
away.
So
I
was
wondering
if
we
kind
of
did
capture
everything
we
need
to
kind
of
move
to.
A
single
codebase
were
I
know
that
there
are,
there
are
tickets,
a
issues
in
every
every
milestone
to
work
on.
I
was
just
wondering
if
that
captures
everything
we
have
work
or
there
is
field
stuff
to
be
investigated.
C
B
One
thing
that
occurred
to
me
about
this
that's
slightly
annoying,
but
there's
not
much.
We
can
do
about
it
and
it's
it's
a
good
problem
to
have
is
that
if
we
do
all
the
backend
and
front-end
issues
for
plan,
but
other
groups
aren't
done,
we
still
don't
get
the
benefits
for
a
single
codebase,
because
we
don't
get
it
until
everybody's
done
it
and
the
whole
thing's
done.
B
But
that's
okay
of
you
know
we
should
just
try
and
get
as
done
as
fast
as
we
can
and
go
from
there.
But
Urich
said
that
they
will.
The
delivery
team
will
do
a
check
again
once
think
we're
getting
close
just
to
make
sure
we
haven't
missed
anything
major
and
there
are
still
some
areas
that
are
sort
of
open
questions
that
aren't
related
to
any
stage
group
that
delivery
and
the
working
group
are
taking,
and
thanks
Victor,
adding
a
link
to
the
epic
about
that
as
well.
Yes,.
B
So
the
idea
is
that
we
would
just
have
a
gay
lab
code
base.
That
would
be
e,
but
you
can
extract
C
from
it
by
removing
the
e
directory
and
you
can
still
run
the
test
on
that
and
download
a
version
that
is
fully
open
source
because
the
e
directory
has
different
license
to
the
rest
of
the
code
base.
That's.
A
Question
Shawn,
just
just
maybe
as
I
was
talking
about
this
to
the
candidate,
maybe
yesterday
I
forget
my
understanding
is
right.
Now
EE
is
structured,
that
you
can
run
EE
in
free
mode
and
we
we
want
customers
to
do
that,
because
if
one
day
they
do
buy,
they
don't
have
to
reinstall,
so
that
that
was
a
great
change
that
was
instituted
I
like
this
last
year.
A
I
think
so
many
years
had
to
do
some
changes
there,
which
is
great
and
then
see
E,
is
there
only
because
for
those
hardcore
organizations
that
cannot
run
proprietary
code,
whatever
license
that
they
can
use
a
C
version
and
so
how
you
mentioned
stripping
away,
and
so
how
do
those
organizations
handle
that
in
the
future,
do
they
have
to
work
some
magic?
Do
we
provide
them
a
script?
Is
there
some
way
to
strip
away
that
code
like
how
does.
A
B
F
B
We
will
continue
to
provide
a
fully
open
source
version
for
package
install
for
a
source
install
for
whatever
install
method
we
support
now.
As
far
as
I'm
aware,
like
you
know
how
much
are
and
everything
else
as
well
like,
we
will
continue
to
provide
that
because
we
are
not
saying
that
get
lab
is
now
a
fully
proprietary
project.
We're
saying
there
is
still
a
completely
open-source
version
of
get
labs
that
you
can
install
it's
just.
That's
the
development
convenience
road.
G
B
B
Breaking
everything
to
that
and
like
the
sooner
we
get
to
this
single
codebase
state,
the
better,
because
we
don't
have
to
do
that
anymore
and
the
extraction
of
open-source
version
from
the
Enterprise
version
is
fully
automated
at
that
point.
So
we
don't.
We
don't
have
all
this
manual
work.
We
have
now.
G
I
haven't
seen
any
talking
about
around
you
know
what
the
community
is
going
to
be
submitting
code
against,
because
some
people
are
or
are
hardcore
about
only
committing
to
open-source
projects
so
I.
Imagine
we're
gonna
have
a
separate
code
base
where
we
just
have
a
script
that
pushes
things
without
EE
code.
What
are
we
gonna
be
accepting
community
contributions
in
that
in.
B
Think
we
will
be
accepting
community
contributions
that
way,
but
we
might
provide
a
way
for
people
to
submit
a
contribution
that
doesn't
involve
like
creating
a
merge
request
against
that.
There's,
a
working
doc,
I
think
that's
linked
from
the
working
group.
Doc,
that's
linked
from
the
epic
and
so
I
would
check
there
because
there's
a
few
things
that
we
need
to
work
out
once
we
get
to
that
point
like
which
project
do
we
keep
and
which
project
to
remove
all
of
the
issues
from.
A
Well,
I
would
imagine,
maybe
we
just
keep
them
around
and
then
somehow
prevent
people
from
creating
the
ones
in
this
room
place.
There's
multiple
ways
to
do
it.
From-From,
like
an
issue
management
perspective,
that's
a
smaller
problem.
They
can
work
around,
but
but
ya
know.
Your
point
is
well
me:
I,
don't
know
if
you're
getting
this
Mario,
but
when
code
control.
Let
me
step
back
and
ask
where
original
question
Shawn.
So
it
sounds
like
the
code
base.
A
The
one
code
base
will
have
both
will
have
proprietary
code,
but
gitlab
will
provide
these
scripts
so
that
if
you
want
to
run
a
version
without
proprietary
code,
you
can
run
that
script
and
it's
really
easy
or
maybe
not
even
a
script.
You
can
just
click
a
button
and
download
a
version
without
proprietary
code,
because
we've
already
done
that,
for
you
is
that
the
idea.
A
That's
fine!
So
right
now
what
we
do
is
from
a
developer,
contributing
perspective,
there's
two
repos
and
you
contribute
to
both
and
now
in
this
new
future.
You
contribute
to
one
repository
which
has
proprietary
code,
but
if
you
want
to
run
a
version
of
kit
lab
without
proprietary
code,
you
can
do
so
because
we've
already
created
the
binary
packages,
we've
already
created
the
source
packages
that
have
been
already
stripped
hug
and
so
that
so,
therefore,
the
development
is
easier
of
running
provide
running
without
per
project
code.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
I.
Don't
know
if
Mario
getting
to
that,
but
I
could
I
could
anticipate
it's
not
really
my
problem
to
solve,
and
it's
just
something
to
bring
up
really
quickly,
but
I
could
anticipate
that.
Maybe
a
developer
would
be
scared
to
contribute
to
code
base
that
has
proprietary
code
and
we
would
have
to
tell
them
don't
worry
about
it.
You
know
this
like.
If
you
follow
these
steps,
you
can
see
that
your
code
will
be
used
by
everybody
because
it
would
go
to
this
license
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Yeah.
G
A
That's
great
and
then
I
wanted
to
echo
Shawn's
earlier
point
with
this,
so
back
to
exam
just
one
night.
This
is
a
big
effort
from
what
I
see
and
it's
really
hard
to
coordinate,
and
it's
not
really
like
meirin
appears
to
be
coordinating
it
with
cross-product
as
well.
So,
even
though
we
won't
get
the
benefits
right
away,
I
think
it's
in
our
interest.
A
Just
to
do,
I
participate,
sponsible,
get
it
done,
and
then
we
can
move
on
to
other
things
more
interesting
things
and
then
well,
once
we
get
this
done,
then
we,
you
can't
put
pressure
on
your
peers
in
different
departments
or
in
the
same
department,
engineer,
power
and
other
teams
to
to
get
their
job
done
so
that
you're,
that
is
realized
sooner
so
I'm
really
exciting
for
that,
as
well.
Yeah.