►
From YouTube: Planing Objects Requirements discussion 2021 05 27
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
B
A
Requirements
can
be
tested,
yeah,
epic
structure,
and
I
know
we
always
put
one
yellow
epic,
but
I
those
are
multi-level,
epics
and
so
like
technically
in
our
current
world,
those
could
be
seven
levels
deep,
mm-hmm
and
those
would
like
the
work
product
inside
that
would
be
like
it
could
roll
up
and
say:
okay
to
have
real-time
editing.
We've
got
four
months
of
work
in
this
epic
for
the
requirement
of
real
time.
B
A
A
You
could
maybe
have
four
levels
deep,
one
of
them
being
requirements,
or
you
could
have
that
might
be
the
pub
sec
one
or
you
could
have
like
the
standard
default
to
get
lab
one
which
just
rolls
initiatives,
ethics
and
issues,
okay
and
then
at
some
point,
I'd
want
one,
the
like
the
agile
one
where
it
says
epic
story
to
do
task
or
whatever
you've
got
them
like.
We
could
have
a
whole
bunch
of
different.
Like
configurations.
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
Because
they're
not
really
yeah
they're,
I
I
know
you
mean
they're
like
not
the
same
thing.
They're
like
what
is
a
good
way
to
describe
them.
I
don't
know,
but
they're,
not
a
planning
object,
they're
more
of
like
a
like
a
group
that
just
groups
things
together,
so
you
can
track
it
right
like
it's
like.
B
A
Thinking
of
initiatives
or
okrs,
because,
like
christie,
wanted
to
put
them
on
everything
and
like
the
initiative
would
behave.
It's
almost
like
some
of
these
planning
objects
will
behave
in
a
taxonomy
model
where
they
could
label
anything
or
in
the
true
I'm
following
this
waterfall
hierarchy,
and
I
only
have
parents
and
childs,
but
then
there's
these
other
kind
of
weird
ones
that
could
just
go
in
there
and
label
anything
or
like
connect
to.
B
Is
it
is
the
requirement
like
a
workflow
state,
emotion
like
like
doing
it
done
almost
right?
It's
like
this
requirement
is
in
the
backlog
and
we're
like
not
working
on
the
things
within
it.
Yet
it's
we're
working
on
right
now
and
it's
not
complete
yet,
and
it's
more
done
and
satisfied,
because
all
the
test
cases
have
passed.
A
B
And
you
can
see
like
what's
tested
and
like
what's
like
when
I
was
looking
at
like
literal
requirements,
or
I
guess,
like
quality
management,
I'm
kind
of
like
okay
like
what?
What
does
that
look
like
right
and
then
it
would
be
like.
Okay,
I'm
looking
at
a
requirement,
there's
requirement
line
and
then
within
requirement
line.
Here's
like
maybe
the
navigation,
basically
right.
So
I'm
like
okay,
there's
this
epic
there's
all
the
issues
within
it
and
then
like
here
are
the
test
cases
tied
to
each
or
like.
B
A
Yeah,
it
might
be
going
to
an
okr
the
way
that
would
work
yeah
like
because
it
has
everything
under
it,
so
that
might
be
a
key
differentiator
on
some
of
our
planning
objects.
They
either
participate
in
the
formal
hierarchy
or
they
are
more
generic
that
could
relate
to
anything,
get
its
fingers
in
anywhere.
B
Yeah
it
sounds
like
yeah.
Maybe
that
would
be
a
fun
thing
to
stuff
that
with
mark
like
what
is
this
thing
because
yeah,
it's
just
like,
I
think
it's
more
just
to
house
all
this
like
it's
an
organizational
like
you
said
kind
of
like
okr,
and
then
you
within
each
are
kind
of
tracking.
All
these
test
cases
and
the
engineers
can
better
track
what
they
need
to
test
right,
so
yeah
wow,
that's.