►
Description
Weekly meeting of those in GitLab's combined Static and Dynamic Analysis groups.
A
A
A
Okay,
welcome
back
happy
Monday
again
for
those
over
on
the
stage
call,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
go
through
the
agenda.
This
won't
take
the
full
time
and
what's
there's
hidden
announcements
that
I'm
not
seeing
yet
so
everybody
sees
Felipe's
out
for
a
couple
of
weeks,
Todd's
going
to
be
out
later
this
week,
the
the
the
big
three
things
that
I
wanted
to
go
or
there's
there's
a
few
things.
I
wanted
to
go
over.
A
So
there
is
an
M
R
up
or
team
yeah
Mille
to
be
updated,
so
I
was
waiting
to
merge
it
a
little
bit
but
but
I
think
that's
going
to
get
merged
in
today.
Unless,
unless
somebody's
going
to
look
at
me
and
tell
me
I'm
wrong,
and
so
that's
going,
there's,
there
won't
be
any
surprises
along
those
lines.
It's
going
to
just
is
going
to
formalise
conversations.
We've
already
had
and
team
split
that
we've
already
that
we've
already
mentioned
with
everyone
here,
the
the
after
that.
A
What
we
come
one-on-one
on
once
as
a
transition
period
and
then
I
will
fade
into
the
background,
is
from
a
one-on-one
cadence
perspective
and
at
least
where
we
left
conversation
last
week.
This
meeting
would
not
be
split
just
yet,
we've
continued
find
group,
and
so,
but
we
can
but
we're
reserving
the
right
to
split
it
out
to
break
it
out,
according
to
the
two
groups
at
a
later
date,
any
questions
on
that
and
where
we
are
at
the
moment
from
a
teams,
blood.
A
Okay
moving
on,
please,
please
don't
hesitate
to
bring
these
up
in
one-on-one,
so
whether
formal
one-on-ones
are
just
in
slack
or
whatever
channel,
that's
most,
that
she
did,
she
feel
most
comfortable,
bringing
it
up
so
part
of
moving
on
to
planning.
So
you
may
have
noticed
that
there
were
a
lot
of
issues
moved
out
of
12:2
last
week.
That
was
intentional.
The
twelve
to
the
iDEN
amount
of
items
in
12:2
was
not
realistic.
It
was
not
realistic
by
a
longshot.
A
The
and
the
reasons
for
that
are
the
are
there
was
there
was
nothing
deliberate
along
those
lines?
What
its?
What
it
really
highlighted
to
me
were
a
great
deal,
a
large
number
of
effectively
hidden
cues
that
are
inputs
to
work
in
a
given
iteration,
whether
they
be
documentation
updates
or
their
initiatives
coming
from
UX
or
their
initiatives
driven
from
p.m.
or
they
are
backstage
improvements
detect
that
payoffs
that
are
coming
out
of
out
of
engineering.
A
So
the
resulting
aspect
of
that
is
that
we
had
too
many
items
coming
into
12-2
without
any
one,
gatekeeper
or
series
of
gatekeepers
to
protect
us
from
that,
and
so
now
that
we
see
it
we're
gonna
do
we're
gonna,
try
to
fix
it.
I
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
the
result
of
it
was
that
the
number
of
things,
including
some
items
that
people
were
assigned
to
in
12
to
got
moved
to
12,
3
or
12,
4
and
so
forth.
So
we'll
be
reconciling
that
this
week
it
should
not
change
priorities.
A
B
So
just
quick
follow
up
on
it.
You
say
that
we've
got
visibility
to
it
now.
Does
that
mean
that
this
shouldn't
happen
again,
and
you
know
basically
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
you
know
we
want
to
keep
that
visibility
on
all
the
things
that
we
should
be
working
on
right,
so
invisible
cues
are
always
the
the
death
of
productivity
so
making
sure
that
those
things
stay.
You
know
at
the
forefront,
it's
good
I,
don't.
A
Know
that
we
have
the
tooling
yet
to
prohibit
it,
but
we
have
visibility
to
it.
We
know
it
can
happen
and
know.
We
need
to
pay
attention
to
it
on
a
daily
basis,
so
that
when
we
see
it
occurring,
we
can
correct
it
immediately
as
opposed
to
it
languishing
for
a
couple
of
weeks,
which
is
what
happened
here.
A
So
we
can
at
least
mitigate
the
impact,
while
also
starting
to
identify
what
the
I
mean.
We
know
where
they
come
from.
We
haven't
yet
identified
root
cause,
and
maybe
it
is
a
process
failure.
Maybe
it
is
a
tooling
failure,
but
at
least
we
can
start
those
conversations
and
know
we
need
to
pay
attention
to.
It
know
that
it
can't
occur
so.
A
A
A
And
along
those
lines,
I
mentioned
this
in
the
stage
call,
but
it's
more
apt.
It
is
directly
relevant
here,
I'm
looking
for
reference
issues,
so
if
you've
gone
through
and
you
and
you
worked
an
item
that
you
know
fits
a
specific
size,
please
link,
please
please
contribute
to
the
reference
issue.
The
reference
issue
issue.
A
A
C
A
I'm
just
doing
all
the
talking-
and
this
feels
like
it's
just
it's
coming
top-down-
and
it's
not
intended
to
be
that
way.
So
I
was
looking
for
feedback,
please
if
you've
got
feedback
and
you
want
to
share
privately
I.
If
you
don't
know
this
about
me
already,
I'm
motivated
by
improvement.
So
if
it's
something
about
my
body,
language
or
the
way
that
the
phrasing
I
would
appreciate
that
feedback,
alright
I've
got
one
more
item
on
the
agenda.
Yeah,
it's
a
reminder:
backlog,
grooming.
A
Let's
continue
to
pay
our
this
continue
to
help
ourselves
and
pay
it
forward
on
it.
As
far
as
sizing
goes
and
making
sure
that
we're
not
overbooked
in
future
iterations,
there
are
links
for
12,
3
and
12
4
above
it
to
do
grooming.
If
you
have
any
questions
on
how
to
do
it
or
what
the
expectations
are,
we
can
talk
about
those
offline,
either
asynchronously
over
slack
or
in
a
one-on-one
conversation,
and
with
that
I'll
throw
out
what
I
did
for
the
last
one.
Any
questions,
comments,
criticisms,
concerns
or
complaints.
A
C
A
quick
comment:
I'll
probably
update
the
links
at
the
top.
We
are
now
breaking
up
the
SAST
and
DAST
issue
boards
as
part
of
all
the
labels
going
through.
So
those
issue
board
should
now
be
separated,
so
the
links
up
at
the
top
of
12
to
12
to
dev
so
on
and
so
forth,
will
be
updated
with
the
respective
filters.