►
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
Okay,
this
is
the
YouTube
unfiltered,
recording
we're
going
to
talk
about
how
we
want
to
use
prioritization
and
how
we
schedule
bugs
better
and
on
the
call
there's
a
Greg,
ohms
joshua,
lambert,
good
surfer,
our
director
director
of
development
and
also
tonya
andrew
manager,
vocal
engineering.
So
let's
hear
it.
D
So
we
stay
a
little
bit,
you
know,
I
think
we
potentially
discussed
having
additional
part
of
ables.
You
know
P
five,
six,
seven,
eight
but
I
think
at
some
point
you
know
how
many
different
parties
you
actually
need-
and
you
know-
and
at
some
point
at
a
certain
distance
out-
it's
all
sort
of
fuzzy
anyways
right
setting
setting
us
a
low
of
a
year.
D
D
And
the
nice
question
was:
is
that
you
know
in
looking
at
some
of
the
bugs
backlogs.
We
have
bugs
that
are
petrie
in
p2
that
hoping
for
a
very
long
time
years
in
some
cases,
and
while
there
is
benefit
in
having
a
triage
and
having
some
sense
of
priority
attached,
the
fact
that
we
have
a
label
which
is
communicating
externally,
a
certain
due
date
that
we
know
or
have
no
intention
of
meaning
doesn't
feel
doesn't
feel
great
right.
D
It's
committing
a
sense
to
our
customer
is
that
yes,
we
know
this
is
p2
but
and
there's
a
date
attached
to
it,
but
we
just
have
no
intention
of
actually
delivering
this
within
that
time
frame.
So
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
fix
that
and
have
the
P
one
two
and
three
be
achievable.
We
can
be
I
think
we
can
miss
in
some
cases
right
which
is
fine,
but
for
cases
where
we
know
we're
not
going
to
make
it
then
we
should.
Then
we
should
figure
out
something
else
to
do.
D
That
makes
sense,
and
you
know
some
that
might
be.
You
know,
rigged
grooming,
some
of
these
things
right,
some
of
the
p3s
that
haven't
been
looked
at
in
a
year
and
a
half
you
know
I,
really
didn't
figure
out
how
to
solve
it.
But
I
think
that
would
be
a
world
come
from
from
a
customer
standpoint
which
is
I
would
hope.
The
People's
mean
something
and
we're
having
us
a
lo
is
them
than
they
should
be
achievable.
D
D
Or
we
go
through
and
trying
and
try
to
yeah
groom
them,
I
think
I
think
doing
that
you've
done
anyways
frankly,
and
we
can
figure
out
how
the
best
way
to
do
that,
whether
we
go
through
and
closed
ones
at
all
in
two
years
or
or
what
not
I
mean
some
of
them.
More
mature
stages
have
over
a
thousand
bugs.
D
And
that
and
that
just
they'll
take
you
days,
I
think
to
get
through
so
I
think
we
can
figure
out
a
way
to
try
and
you
know,
triage
them.
I
think
a
good
step
would
be
to
just
yeah.
Do
one
of
two
things:
remove
the
SLO
dates
or
like
lower
the
ones
that
we
just
aren't
going
to
try
to
achieve
just
like
I'm
the
question
to
you,
but
where
I'm
making
my
clothes
quality
on
the
date
side,
why?
How
do
you
feel
about
that?
I.
B
Am
more
concerned
on
getting
s1
s2,
it's
fix,
ASAP
I,
think
the
rest
can
wait.
I
I,
don't
really
want
to
change
the
dates,
because
we
now
have
a
lockstep
with
security
that
p1.
It
means
something
across
the
board
right
and
then
we
want
to
use
that
across
the
board
as
well.
Now
I
did
propose
adding
p5
and
I
think
that's
already
killed.
So
we're
going
to
talk
about
that.
B
Hey
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
move
with
two
key
fours
and
actually
remove
the
date.
The
NES
allows
around
p4.
So
that's
like
the
back
pocket.
I
am
also
concerned
on.
If
something
was
a
p1
before
I
think
we
talked
about
before
Josh
like
it
was
a
few
one
before,
and
it
starts
to
sleep
right,
I
unders,
and
that
we
have
a
lot
of
stuff.
B
So
moving
to
p4
is
fine,
but
do
we
want
the
track
that
this
used
to
be
a
p1
before
and
now
it's
a
p4
or
we
just
want
to
say,
hey
folks,
let's
reset
across
the
board,
whatever
it
is
done
before
it's
okay,
but
like
going
forward.
We
know
p1
is
a
key
one
and
then,
if
you
leave
it
there,
it
means
something,
and
now
it's
like
the
time
for
us
to
just
do
a
reset.
A
It
seems
like
I
smell
to
me
if
we
have
a
lot
of
p3s
that
are
not
getting
done
within
the
p3
SLO
or
anything
not
getting
done
within
the
wrestle
O's
that
either
we're
setting
too
high
of
a
priority
when
we
first
initially
label
those.
So
we
should
address
that
or
we're
not
doing
a
good
job
in
in
our
planning
process.
We're
prioritizing
feature
work
above
fixing
these
bugs
that
we've
already
prioritizes
needing
help,
which
there's
a
conversation
between
the
ends
and
PM's.
A
E
It
sounds
like
for
security,
Security's
been
using
the
prioritization
with
the
it
must
be
done
by
this
point
and
it
sounds
like
product
is
using
it
as
we
could
use
it
that
way,
but
product
then
needs
to
you
know
like.
Is
it
okay?
Is
it
really
that
time
frame
or
is
it
you
know
or
something
else,
and
you
can
argue
well
they
should
they
should
do
it
in
the
same
way
challenge.
D
Think
the
dates
make
sense
for
security
right.
There
are
disclosure
requirements
and
timelines
around
that
so
I
think
probably
team
is
never
the
government's
been
trying
to
really
rally
around
those
timelines
and
if
it
hasn't,
if
you
don't
think
we
can
achieve
them,
we've
been
going
security
and
essentially
saying
hey.
We
can't
do
this
and
then
we'll
have
a
discussion
at
that
point
in
time.
D
Left
I
think
that's
the
exception,
so
I
think
it's
worth
well
for
security.
I.
Think
to
your
point,
sir,
what
was
the
exception
if,
for
some
reason,
the
team
came
like
if
it's
a
larger,
if
the
fix
is
larger
than
we
can
get
done
or
it
for
whatever
reason,
cart,
ization,
wise
and
what
else
we
had
to
do?
We
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
the
security
went
finished.
D
Then
we
would
go
to
security
to
say,
hey,
we,
you
know,
think
we
can
meet
this
party
date
and
then
there's
a
conversation
that
happens
around
what
we
should
do.
I
think
that
happens
it
that
maybe
happened
a
couple
times
but
I
think
by
and
large
we've
really
tried
to
stick
to
the
SL
O's
in
the
priorities.
For
security
issues,
so
I,
don't
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
value.
E
Yes,
so
then,
then,
if
we
want
to,
if
we
want
apply
the
security
model,
security
has
very
well-defined
when
it
becomes
urgent
versus
next
for
at
least
versus
those
right.
I
think
that
we'd
have
to
add
the
similar
equivalent
of
that
product.
Like
like
10
million,
you
know,
I'll
use
a
will
use
the
moniker
10
million
dollars
is
on
the
line.
So
it's
a
p1
versus
you
know.
E
D
D
How
do
we
solve
that
problem?
For
the
P
twos
in
particular,
for
these
like
three
mature
stages,
the
rusticity
I?
Don't
think
you
have
a
problem
generally
looking
at
the
backlogs
and
then
like
I,
think
the
larger
issue
is
the
P
3s
which
which
just
struggle
on
forever
and
so
I,
think
I,
guess
I
would
I
would
vote
for
the
bugs.
D
B
How
about
we
focus
on
box
with
the
customer
label,
because
I
think
that's
a
more
important
funnel
to
tackle
then
then,
just
bugs
that
are
not
afflicting
a
customer.
I
have
not
been
found
to
affect
the
customer.
I
think
that's
part
of
why
you
want
to
make
this
number
better
I
want
to
solve.
We
want
to
confuse
the
time
to
resolve
box
for
all
customers,
and
even
what,
if
I
were
to
prioritize
I
would
pick
that
bucket
first
and
not
like
a
blanket
all
p3p
force
of
all
bugs.
D
D
Given
the
current
backlogs
and
the
realities
of
some
of
the
teams,
that's
enough
force,
if
we're
being
honest
about
the
gate,
is
gonna
force,
a
lot
of
things
in
the
p4
which
doesn't
make
sense,
and
so
I
can
impact
us
when
you
say
to
a
defense
sure
well
so,
okay,
so
it's
so
like.
Let's
look
at
I
was
just
trying
to
co-op,
which
one
do
you
want
I
think
you
pull
up
like
manage,
for
example,
which
is
just
one:
that's
a
mature
stage,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
bugs
I
think
right
around
a
thousand.
D
Yeah,
so
we
have
188,
that's
we
have
330
p4
259
P
3
s
and
3
v,
p3
v
p2
s
so
in
this
case
I
think
again
p2.
We
need
to
improve
there
and
I
think
the
teams
have
desire
to
do
so
when
conversations
are
happening
on
how
to
try
to
achieve
that.
My
challenge
is
P.
3S
have
a
dative
90
90
days
or
120
is
the
P
low
90s
for
p3,
and
you
know
there's
no,
where
we're
going
to
solve
260
bugs
and
in
3
months.
E
E
We're
saying
it's
at
the
cost
of
something
else
and
I
don't
but
I
don't
have
a
good
sense
for
is.
Is
that
the
right
call,
and
if
the
right
call
is
yes,
then
everybody
should
go
on
the
same
page?
Is
that
there's?
The
answer?
Is
we
don't
know,
and
it
feels
like?
We've
got
to
fix
that
part
of
it
before
we.
We
even
consider
that
aspect
of
it
and.
E
I'm
even
less
inclined
to
go
to
five
categories
because,
like
it
all
we're
doing,
is
we're
just
we're
just
spreading
the
problem.
We're
not
actually
saying.
Okay
like
this
is
behavior
line
right
like
what
a
curve
is,
is
what
we're
not
gonna
fix
this
263?
Well,
ok!
Is
it
so
we're
not
gonna
fix
em,
or
is
it
that
you
know
we're
gonna
push
off
features
or
you
know
what
is
there?
What
is
our
thought
process
there?
What
are
we?
What?
What
do
we
want
to
encourage
product
managing
management
in
engineering
to
do?
In
that
scenario,.
C
B
B
B
E
Can
you
see
what
I'm
saying
Josh
like
I'm
my
main
point
like
I'm
I'm,
really
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
affect
behavior
here
more
than
anything
else
like
like,
like,
let's,
let's,
let's
take,
let's
take
the
assumption
that
we're
always
going
to
have
more
bugs
than
we
have
resourcing
to
or
people
to
basically
address
every
organization.
I've
been
has
been
growing
100
30%
year
over
a
year.
E
Has
this
problem,
you
know,
let's
make
the
assumption
that
you
know
we
want
this
to
be
how
we
get
the
right,
informed,
behavior
and
set
expectations
if
those
are.
Those
are
two
high
level
assumptions
what
you
know.
How
do
we
look
at
this
scenario
and
say:
okay,
like
what
you
know
how
to
evaluate
and
then
the
tricky
part
here
is
we've
already
established
kind
of
like
if,
if
security
hadn't
already
established,
this
kind
of
mindset,
I
would
I
would
just
feel
like
a
priority.
E
Is
just
that's
the
freedom
and
there
are
no
s
all
those
associated
with
it
right.
It's
really
around
the
fact
that
we've
already
kind
of
established
it.
So
it's
almost
like
well,
I'll
pull
the
fifth.
The
fifth
label
and
Tonya
was
talking
about
which
is,
you
know,
feature
feature
versus
security
and
priority
is,
you
know,
treated
differently,
but
that's
gonna.
Confuse
people
like
feature
priority
versus
our
product
priority
versus
a
priority
security
priority.
D
B
D
I
think
the
behavior
mp1
is
fine
right.
Those
are
big,
though
that's
having
it
type
it
on
those
that
that's
a
good
behavior
when
I
have
I
think
we
also
want
to
have
some
general
pressure
when
looking
at
those
they
are
generally.
You
know
things
that
we
want
to
solve
right,
they're,
pretty
painful
P,
threes,
I'm,
just
spot
checking
a
few
of
these
right
like
dahling,
or
a
possibly
archive
using
API,
with
dots
in
the
name,
no
a
thumbs
up.
D
One
person
reported
it.
You
know
it's
a
p3,
you
know
I'll
just
link
it
here:
I'm
I,
just
I,
just
I
just
did
a
search
for
a
managed
p3
with
reproduced
on
github.com.
So
we
have
something
that's
been
reproduced,
but
you
know
you
should
that
be
done
in
three
months.
Yeah
I
mean
not
necessarily
I,
don't
think
it
has
to
we
validated
it,
which
is
great.
You
know
I.
So
some
of
this
is
grooming.
D
There's
hundreds,
though,
of
these
things,
and
you
can
you
come
in
and
you
kind
of
want
to
have
a
total
well,
so
the
behavior
on
these
I
would
think
which
it
should
just
be
just
just
keep
an
eye
on
them.
Right
like
trying
to
have
this
massively
growing
backlog
of
P
threes,
that
is
just
spiraling
out
of
control.
I
think
would
be
the
baby
I
want
to
have
on
Petrie's
and
so
just
manage
it
keep
an
eye
in
it
and
I.
E
Just
pulled
this
up
because
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
now
some
of
this
may
be
a
proportionality
of
it
to
like
P
ones,
repeat:
ezbee
versus
P
threes.
It
doesn't
look
like
reason.
Pressurization,
like
from
a
volume,
certainly
from
a
like
I,
would
have
expected
to
see.
You
know
P
ones,
being
the
largest
list
in
them.
You
know
proportionately
smaller
and
if
anything,
I'm
seeing
the
opposite,
like
I'm,
seeing
the
ether
equivalent
distribution,
that's
opposed
the
opposite.
Maybe
it's
better
way
to
put
it.
D
They
might
be
low-hanging
fruit.
Maybe
that's
what
we're
getting
to
them,
as
opposed
to
the
backlog
of
P
twos
that
we
have
in
some
cases
is
I
also
curious,
like
what
what
stages
are
coming
from
like
I
know
that
from
most
of
the
newer
stages,
they
don't
have
a
big
bug,
problem
and
they've
just
been
solving
them,
for
as
they
come
in
largely
it's
I,
think
and
so
for
those
the
danger,
probably
fine
right
like
not
like
that's,
not
really
concern
for
them.
I
think
the
dates
really
concerned
for
create
measure
yep,
the
big
big.
D
D
And
then
it's
not
just
continuing
to
spiral
out
of
control
because
that's
as
a
scientific
net
frustrated
customers
I
mean
getting
some
of
that.
Like
oh
get
like
this,
so
buggy
you're,
focusing
on
new
features
like
some
like
some
of
that
commentary,
but
you
know
I
do
think
we
managed
so
I
think
yummy,
the
behavior
on
the
p1
p2
and
p3
and
p4
speed
force
falling
the
same
bucket
as
Petrie's
I.
Think.
E
P3
says
within
the
next
three
releases:
we
don't
give
like
approximately
well
order,
as
opposed
to
anything
outside
of
the
next
reader.
This
is
which
actually,
to
be
honest,
your
your
proposal,
if
I
interview
proposal,
which
is
removing
SL
expectations
around
p3,
that
kind
of
fits
in
with
the
velocity
of
a
predictability
in
regards
to
the
fact
that
we
may
plan
out
the
next
month,
but
we
don't
really
look
out
two
quarters
to
say:
okay,
here's
I
hope,
here's
how
we
should
do
it
and
it's
probably
disingenuous
to
our
customers.
E
To
just
say
you
know:
yeah
we're
gonna
get
something
in
the
three
to
six
month
time
frame,
or
you
know
from
that
perspective
versus
the
one
to
three
month.
Time
frame
like
we
usually
have
a
pretty
good
idea,
one
to
two
months
but
like
beyond
that
I
would
I
wouldn't
question
any
any
any
level
planning.
At
this
point.
B
E
E
B
So
this
is
gonna
be
rolled
out
for
every
group
next
week
and
they
would
see
a
heat
map
of
the
bugs
in
their
area.
I
don't
have
work
in
progress
to
put
this
in
a
dashboard
yet,
but
I
think
that
that's
probably
the
next
step
either
in
in
whatever
dashboard
as
the
overall
heat
map,
but
this
will
be
generated
per
week,
so
it
the
metrics
there.
E
E
Similarly,
a
sub
4,
where
the
p1
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
unless
it's
like
blocking
product
from
you
know
product
development
in
some
way,
but
it
is
absolutely
no
customer
impact
or
something.
You
know
some
some
scurry
situation
like
that,
but
even
then
I
would
still
say
that
we
would
bright,
but
that
as
a
this
is
of
one
or
two
it
was
blocking
product
development.
E
E
Let's
see
what
the
heat
map
shows
us
like
I'm,
not
like
I'm,
just
telling
you
what
my
rule
thumb
is.
No
you
know,
I
can
be
told
I'm
wrong
on
that
I'm.
Just
I'm
thinking
about
previous
systems,
I've
been
in
work,
they've
seen
a
large
number
of
you
know
like
usually
it's
it's
as
you
get,
it's
very
gets
higher.
The
priority
obviously
gets
higher.
A
E
More
that,
as
you
get
higher
in
severity,
the
likelihood
that
it's
going
to
make
that
high
priority
issue
to
address
is
is
greater.
So,
like
you
know,
if
you
have
a
SEP
1
impacting
issue,
we're
more
likely
to
make
a
diaper
I
Ora
T
to
go
fix
it.
Just
because
it's
it's
it's
it's
it's
it's
classified
as
a
psych
and
acting.
E
E
E
D
So
one
thing
I'm
wondering
is:
if
we
should
just
more
aggressively,
have
higher
bars
for
p3
like?
Are
we
just
too
lenient
on
what
what's
a
p3
because
of
the
fact
that
we
know
if
I
put
an
mp4
it'll
be
like
lost
in
the
in
the
pool
of
B
fours,
because
yeah
so
there's
no
severity
as
no.
We
have
a
very
no
guidance
on
what
should
be
a
p3
other
than
this
should
be
fixed
in
three
releases.
I.
D
Think
that's
about
as
far
to
your
point
as
where
let
me
ever
want
to
go
right
because
we,
otherwise
it
just
gets
way
too
fuzzy,
and
even
that's
pretty
far,
but
for
security-
and
you
know
maybe
it's
helpful
but
and
then
just
using
it.
You
know
as
the
severity
labels,
and
maybe
maybe
we
need
to
be
a
little
more
cutter
sent
of
those.
E
D
I
guess
the
problem
is
that
we're
saying
broken
feature
with
an
extensive
workaround.
So
there's
no
workaround,
that's
Orion,
not
an
accessible
workaround.
Then
it
gets
flagged
as
an
s3.
So
even
though
it
might
not
affect
many
users
like
one,
if
there's
no
workaround
I
think
people
are
probably
bucketing
at
s3,
my
sense
because
otherwise
you'd
probably
see
more.
E
Yeah
I
think
the
way
we
interpret
this
Cheerilee
is
is.
Is
you
look
across
these
different
vectors
and
if
you
see
something
that
is
higher,
you
always
err
err
on
the
side
of
higher
based
on
it.
You
know
so
broken
feature
workaround
too
complex
and
unacceptable
would
immediately
but
notices
the
impact
to
users
would
probably
put
you
in
an
s2
unless
you
saw
like
less
than
5%
of
users.
Maybe
maybe
so
you
know
even
that
in
that
situation,
I
think
you
might
still
say
it's
a
mess.
Yeah.
D
E
Yeah,
though,
that's
a
good
example
we're
if
it's
at
one
customer
we're
growing
as
fast
as
we
are
I
could
quickly
turn
into
ten
customers
right.
So,
like
that's,
that's
where
sometimes
like,
not
having
an
acceptable
workaround
means
yeah,
you
got
to
go
fix
those,
even
if
it
is
a
small
population
at
this
point,
because
you
just
don't
know
if
that's
the,
unless
you
have
a
guarantee
that
population
isn't
going
to
grow.
D
B
E
B
No
I
think
you
want
me
to
Tsar
R.
If
I
buy
you
a
theory
right,
you
should
correlate
with
s1
s2
like
80
percent.
So
let's
focus
on
that
and
relieve
the
pressure,
because
it's
a
huge
backlog
and
with
the
spirit
of
good
lab
I,
think
it
makes
sense
in
this
case,
I
don't
want
to
push
for
things
to
get
done
without
understanding
the
underlying
reasoning.
So
it
makes
sense
for
me.
B
So
just
a
back
story
and
for
the
record
we
used
to
have
different
priority
labels
like
application,
ap,
1,
AP,
2
and
and
then
other.
There
are
many
tracks
of
priorities.
I
was
really
happy
last
year
where
we
just
consolidate.
Well
now
we
have
this
one
priority
label
so
like
I,
think
this
needs
to
be
improved,
but
they
I
think
we
we
are
improving
per
se,
but
we
just
need
to
get
get
the
close
rates
better.
E
Yeah
thing
I,
wonder
about
is
whether
or
not
I've
been
wrestling
with
is
is
like
if
a
lot
of
these
are
like
two
years
old,
as
if
they've
been
fixed-
and
just
you
know,
do
you
do
plication
and
all
that
kind
of
good
stuff
that
you
know
the
normal
grooming
kind
of
stuff
picks
up.
But
you
know
we
have
to
be
committed
to
cutting
down
the
volume.
Yes.
B
E
The
way
most
opens
first
projects
I've
seen
is,
if
you
have
something
that
customers
reported
that's
over
or
some
period
of
time,
you
close
it
and
you
ask
the
u
s--
and
you
know,
send
a
note
to
the
reporter
to
basically
say
you
know
if
this
is
still
a
problem,
please
please
a
reopen
issue
and
report
it.
You
know,
update
us
with
how
to
reproduce
it.
We
had
that
process.
Actually,
okay,
alright,
so
we
are
doing
that
in
some
level.
Okay,
okay,.
B
D
B
D
B
Could
also
be
why
I'm
I
need
to
talk
to
mark,
but
sure
I
think
there
was
some
of
the
automation
when
there
was
a
no
card
to
try
to
get
the
undefined
up,
and
then
we
would.
That
was
the
decision.
We
may
worry
if
it's,
if
it's
really
yeah,
that
was
a
default
label
and
that
we
went
through
I
could
also
be
playing
into
into
this
cool.