►
From YouTube: 2021-09-13 Plan/Manage/Ecosystem weekly design review
Description
This week we discuss Service accounts, Persona research for Sys Admins, and Wizards / Onboarding systems.
00:00 - Service accounts discussion
24:42 - Persona research for Sys Admins
26:51 - Wizards and walk thru for setting up Issues
A
So
yeah,
let's
just
do
a
quick
show
and
tell
of
what
I
got
going
on
for
access.
Let's
see
here.
A
A
A
So
the
idea
would
be
that
you
can
create
an
account
and
you
can
create
various
tokens
associated
to
it.
So
in
this
case
we'll
say
I
want
an
access,
token
or
a
scheme
or
deploy.
A
A
So
from
here
you
would
be
able
to
return
or
create
a
new
access
token
based
off
of
whatever
you
want
here,
so
this
is
kind
of
like
the
first
iteration
on
how
this
would
work
and
I've
already
gotten
a
bunch
of
feedback
from
some
other
folks.
So
I
had
some
other
interviews
lined
up.
These
are
all
internal
stakeholders
right
now,
tams
and
support,
and
my
front-end
engineering
manager,
but
there's
been
discussion
on
how
this
would
work
across
the
organization.
A
So
that's
my
next
iteration
is
testing
this
with
not
at
the
instance
level,
as
we
have
it
here,
but
rather
at
every
level,
so
a
top
level
group
in
the
sas
environment
or
the
instance
level
at
the
top
and
then
groups
and
projects
based
off
the
idea
that
anybody
should
be
able
to
make
these
sorts
of
tokens.
A
But
I
have
some
questions
on
security
if,
if
that's
a
good
thing
to
allow
people
to
do
but
yeah,
so
we'll
I'll
investigate
that,
if
you
have
any
feedback
like,
I
said
it's
mostly
just
a
show
and
tell
about
bots
and
service
accounts,
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
all
have
any
interest
or
need
for
service
accounts
or
bots.
B
How
does
it
differ
than
the
current
flow
daniel,
like
what
you're
proposing
other
than
the
instance
level.
A
Yeah,
so
the
flow
is
definitely
different,
because
currently,
the
way
that
it
works
is
that
at
the
project
level
you
would
generate
an
access
token
first,
and
then
that
goes
and
creates
a
bot
user
that
nobody
ever
would
would
ever
see
unless
you
were
to
go
look
for
it.
So
that's
one!
That's
the
current
flow,
I'm
curious,
if
that's
a
logical
flow,
and
so
that's
what
I'm
going
to
try
and
validate
with
this
prototype
with
external
customers.
A
Also,
the
limitation
of
only
having
one
token
per
user
is
what
we
currently
experience.
So
the
this
iteration
would
allow
us
to
associate
various
tokens
for
a
particular
or
individual
bot
which
would
allow
more
flexibility
and
future
growth.
So,
if
I
want
to
say
I
have
a
security
bot
and
it
has
a
defined
role
and
a
defined
task,
and
in
the
future
we
have
some
sort
of
new
feature
implementation.
A
We
can
actually
add
to
that
by
just
going
and
modifying
that
experience
or
that
user
or
bot,
and
so
that
would
be
the
idea
of
this
new
flow
or
new
process
that
we're
trying
to
iterate
on.
B
A
So
right
now,
users
are
having
to
create
a
user
seat
that
takes
up
a
billing
seat,
and
so
it's
not
necessary
because
these
bots
never
interact
with
the
environment.
They
never
interact
with
the
platform
and
strictly
they
get
into
the
system.
With
their
token
they
do
a
task
and
then
that's
it
so
having
them
pay
for
that
seems
kind
of
unfair
other
organizations.
Don't
have
that
also,
so
we
want
to
try
and
help
that
as
well
as
offer.
A
You
know
security,
flexibility
or
flexibility
for
security
features,
external
cert
apis
things
like
that,
making
connect
to
the
system
using
these
bot
services
and
do
whatever
sort
of
thing
that
they
would
not
have
the
ability
to
do
within
our
environment.
B
C
I
don't
have
a
ton
of
feedback.
Unfortunately,
my
wi-fi
froze
in
the
middle
of
your
presentation
and
I
had
to
switch
to
a
different
wi-fi,
so
I
missed
a
portion
of
it,
but
it
seems
like
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
is
understanding
or
validating
if
it
is
valuable
for
the
user
to
have
multiple
tokens
per
bot,
correct.
A
Not
exactly
no,
this
was
just
kind
of
like
a
show-and-tell
of
what
we're
doing.
What
we're
validating
is
is
the
flow
logical
and
does
the
feature
allow
for
flexibility
in
the
future.
A
So
I'm
going
to
present
it
to
or
offer
it
to
a
round
of
feedback
testing
from
external
users
and
see
their
take
on
it
and
does
it
meet
their
need
based
off
of
the
feedback
that
we
already
have
received
in
that
issue,
because
it
was
quite
a
long
issue
and
it's
actually
quite
heated-
there's
been
some
very
grumpy
internal
and
external
customers.
D
I
don't
know
how
useful
I'm
going
to
be
here,
but
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
at
least
appear
to
be
useful
daniel.
You
in
the
flow
that
you
showed
there
was
like
a
generate
token
screen
and
the
token
actually
shows
up,
and
then
you
you
typed
up.
You
hit
a
button
for
create
bot.
I
think
from
that.
D
The
reason
I
bring
that
up
is
that
from
from
this
yeah
right
here,
you
started
talking
about
like
multiple
bots,
multiple
access
tokens,
that
sort
of
stuff-
and
I
was
wondering
if
we
would
need
the
user
to
be
able
to
copy
that
token
to
a
clipboard.
At
this
point,.
A
Yeah,
that
was
one
of
the
that
was
one
of
the
feedback
points
that
I
had
in
my
discussion
is:
how
does
somebody
save
this?
Is
there
a
download
button?
Is
there
a
copy
paste?
Something
like
that?
So
I
definitely
want
to
iterate
on
that
and
figure
out.
What's
the
most
logical
solution
for
that,
because
this
is
a
one
directional
thing
only,
you
can't
come
back
to
it
and
look
it
up,
because
it's
always
a
security
problem,
so
I
want
to
find
out
or
I'm
open
to
suggestions
if
you
have
feedback.
A
What
do
you
think
would
be
a
good
solution
here,
apart
from
just
like
a
little
button
that
says
copy
or
download
a
text
file
with
this
serial
number,
which
I
assume
might
be
kind
of
sketch
downloading
an
object
to
an
unknown
location,
yeah
yeah?
I
would.
D
I
would
wonder
about
the
security
of
it
as
well,
downloading
it
or,
if
it's
just
a
code
that
we
can
copy
to
clipboard
and
there's
a
way
that
we
can
salt
that
in
a
secure
situation,
I
would
hope
I
would
imagine-
and
maybe
we
haven't
gotten
there
and
we
can
contribute
this.
But
in
our
design
system
we
would
have
like
a
little
clipboard
icon
or
something
that
goes
next
to
the
feed
or
attached
to
our
field
or
attached
to
the
field.
That
sort
of
thing.
D
A
A
an
icon
button
what
we
would
have-
and
I
would
just
use
that
copy
function
for
it
and
that's
what
I
was
thinking
is
that
for
our
our
first
mvc
is
just
let's
try
that
and
get
feedback
on
it
to
see.
If
this
is
a
logical
thing,
because
the
way
that
it
would
work
is
that
you
would
take
that
access
token
and
put
it
into
your
code,
and
so
you
would
have
two
windows
up
and
then
you
would
move
on
with
your
task
and
my
assumption
is:
that
would
be
the
logical
process.
C
We
have
that
icon
by
the
way
in
issues
in
the
sidebar
for
reference
and
issue,
email
there's
a
little
like
copy
click
to
copy
icon,
and
there
might
be
a
pattern
there,
because
I
think
we'd
show
a
tool
tip
as
well
when
it's
copied
that
says
hey
it's
copied,
I'm
pretty
sure
we
do
also
for
copying
the
id
for
projects,
so
that
might
be
something
I'll
select
into
I'm
curious.
C
A
A
So
I'm
not
sure
what
the
best
thing
would
be
here,
because
if
you
don't
want
to
create
a
new
token,
arguably
I
think
that
would
be
the
more
logical
assumption
is
that
you
only
need
necessarily
one
type
of
token,
and
so
you
just
you're
done,
and
then
you
would
return
to
the
list
of
tokens
and
now
that
I
say
that
out
loud,
perhaps
going
to
the
list
of
tokens
is
moot.
A
Unless
this
save
is
part
of
the
problem
that
I'm
thinking
of
now
like
as
I
go
through
it
like
create,
give
it
a
name
and
then
save
it,
you
can
do
that
without
tokens,
and
then
you
can
create
a
token
how
this
process
stumbles.
At
that
point,.
D
C
A
Yeah,
so
basically
I've
skipped
that
frame
in
this
prototype
in
this
wireframe.
So
definitely
I
need
to
add
fidelity
for
that
and
have
that
screen
so
clicking
here
would
give
them,
or
this
would
be
grayed
out
clicking.
It
would
give
them
a
generic
name
and
this
would
be
opened
available,
but
that
also
brings
the
question:
is
this
necessary?
Do
they
need
to
create
the
container
or
the
account
first
and
save
it
before
going
on,
or
can
they
create
the
token
in
the
same
process?
So
I've
clicked
on
created
a
name?
A
B
Daniel,
I
put
it
on
the
agenda,
but
did
you
think
about,
like
I
think,
austin
and
maybe
maria
a
while
back
we're
trying
to
solve
a
kind
of
similar
problem
around
like
modals
here
or
yeah?
You
can
open.
A
B
Like
how
do
you
save
the
access
token,
how
do
you
even
name
it?
I
think
you
were
kind
of
mentioning
the
naming
of
an
account
or
a
token.
Could
you,
instead
of
having
that
kind
of
progressive
item,
appear,
do
a
modal
or
is
that
strange
within
settings.
A
B
Is
it
something
you
have
to
you
have
to
kind
of
go
through
that
step
in
order
to
return
to
the
previous
form
that
you
were
working
on
to
the
previous
step
in
the
form
within
your
flow.
A
So
yes,
and
no
so
if
I
go
back
or
at
the
start,
I
can
create
an
account.
I
can
click
and
create
a
name
and
save
it
and
I'm
done,
but
I
have
not
given
it
an
access
token
and
that's
where
I'm
saying
does
that
make
sense?
Should
it
actually
just
be
one
unified
process
where
you
create
the
access
token
and
give
it
a
name?
At
the
same
time,
you.
D
Can
do
it
that
was
my.
That
was
one
of
the
items
that
I
wanted
to
jump
in
with
was
does
this
need
to
be
so
many
separate
screens?
D
Can
this
actually
be
one
separate
one,
one
unified
process
as
well,
and
then
and
then
the
one
thing
that
I
also
wanted
to
jump
in
on
before
I
be
quiet
since
I
interrupted
alexis,
is
the
the
way,
the
buttons
the
action
buttons
jump
from
top
top
right
to
bottom,
to
top
right
to
bottom,
and
that
could
be
solved
with
a
unified
sort
of
flow
as
well?
That's,
that's
it
sorry.
Alexis.
B
A
A
Yeah
exactly
I
don't
know
why
I
don't
have
any
groups
or
projects
but
yeah
like
so
there's
in
cases
where
we
have
a
lot
of
content
and
there's
the
save
is
like
somewhere
down
here,
like
actually
several
scroll
pages
down,
and
I'm
trying
to
think
of.
Is
there
a
better
way
of
doing
this,
because
it's
such
a
very
specific
action,
the
idea
of
a
wizard?
A
I
think
we
need
to
investigate
more
as
an
organization,
because
I
know
there
are
cases
for
it
and
it's
not
really
been
discussed
beyond
growth
and
mate
was
talking
about
this
a
while
back
in
terms
of
generating
a
wizard
or
a
process
to
onboard
new
users,
and
I
think
that
can
help
across
the
organization
for
things
like
this
right.
How
do
you
go
and
generate
this
sort
of
process?
A
The
one
thing
I
have
on
hesitation:
there
is
the
making
it
simple
enough
or
excuse
me
not
so
simple
enough
that
it
would
interfere
with
somebody,
who's
technically
competent
and
says,
like
I
don't.
I
need
the
token
type
and
they
type
scope
and
the
code,
and
I'm
done
right
instead
of
having
to
click
through
like
a
clippy
right.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that
there's
a
and
maybe
we're
kind
of
talking
along
the
same
line,
there's
a
difference
between
wizard
and
steps.
D
Stepping
out
a
process
yeah
and
like
a
wizard
to
me
thinks
I
think,
of
like
a
actual
complicated
long
process
where
the
wizard
actually
takes
some
of
that
complication
away
by
by
simplifying
it
explaining
things,
I'm
not
going
to
say
dumbing
things
down,
but
that's
kind
of
in
the
back
of
my
mind
when
I
say
that,
but
there
is
also
something
where
you
know:
it
kind
of
resembles
a
wizard
because
there's
multiple
steps,
but
it's
just
simply
stepping
the
user
across
a
process.
D
There's
always
a
difficulty
in
in
daniel.
You
mentioned
it,
which
is
don't
alienate
your
pro
users
like
you,
want
to
make
everything
as
approachable
and
as
easy
as
possible.
But
at
what
cost?
And
you
know
I
I
don't
know
the
the
I
don't
know
the
the
metrics
yet,
but
you
know
in
these
areas
I
would
imagine,
you've
got
you're
more
pro,
more
sophisticated
user,
and
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
we
also
don't
need
to
accommodate
for
somebody
that
may
not
understand
this.
A
B
D
I
was
gonna
say
this
sounds
kind
of
like
this
is
setting
up
for
a
future
of
more
functionality
where
this
area
is
gonna,
see
so
maybe
setting
it
up
in
that
stepping
fashion.
Even
though
right
now
we
could,
we
could
probably
take
care
of
this
this
process
with
a
single
screen,
as
we
were
talking
about
before,
but
it
may
not
be
like
that
much
longer
and
sort
of
setting
the
user
up
for
a
stepped
process
might
be
good
in
sort
of
anticipation
for
the
user.
D
Those
that
spend
a
lot
of
time
in
this
area,
daniel
I'll
leave
that
definitely
up
to
you
on
sort
of
like
where
you're
seeing
the
future
of
this
going.
Do
we
want
to
just
unify
this
into
a
single
screen
and
make
it
simpler
or
easier
to
develop
and
easier
for
the
user
not
going
back
and
forth,
or
do
we
want
to
think
about
the
future
of
this
area
and
where
that's
going?
If
so,
a
stepping
function
may
may
be
something
to
set
up
for
the
user.
C
In
order
to
be
able
to
create
an
issue
and
the
specific
context
is
they
need
to
be
able
if
they
come
to
an
issue
page
the
issue,
tracker
page
or
issue
list
page,
and
they
have
a
group,
but
they
don't
have
any
projects.
They
don't
have
any
issues,
but
they
can't
create
an
issue
until
they
create
a
project,
so
there's
kind
of
a
multi-step
process
that
they
have
to
do
and
when
you're
on
boarding.
This
feels
especially
complex.
C
So
I
wonder,
if
there's
value
in
exploring
kind
of
a
step
process
with
that,
I'm
trying
to
articulate
this
in
an
empty
state
right
now,
which
feels
maybe
overly
complicated.
C
But
I
think
that
there
is
value
in
us
differentiating
between
the
two
types
of
processes.
If
we
do
start
documenting
it
in
pajamas,
because
there
are,
I
think,
you're
right.
I
think
there
are
different
approaches
there,
that
that
tend
to
happen
and
there's
a
difference
in
the
level
of
depth
required
for
the
user
interaction
versus
how
much
the
system
is
going
to
try
to
take
on.
I
think.
C
I
just
put
a
link
to
my
thing,
so
y'all
are
welcome
to
just
check
it
out,
but
it's
I
told
jeremy,
it's
not
a
proposal
in
terms
of
the
graphic,
the
graphic
I
just
threw
on
to
try
to
kind
of
communicate
what
I'm
thinking,
but
if,
if
anybody
has
a
chance
to
look
I'd,
love
feedback
on
what
I'm
proposing
there,
hopefully
it's
pretty
clear.
D
Yeah,
I
think,
there's
plenty
of
plenty
for
you
to
think
about
daniel
on
on
this,
and
I
think
that
you're,
your
main,
your
fulcrum,
if
you
will
on
where,
where
to
go
with
this,
is
the
first
thing
in
my
mind,
would
be
if
it's
I
just
want
to
get
an
mvc
out
on
this
is
in
my
mind-
and
this
is
ultimately
your
decision-
think
about
that
unification,
because
it's
just
in
my
mind,
it
doesn't
seem
like
it
needs
to
be
two
or
three
separate
screens.
D
It
could
be
one,
however,
with
your
product
counterpart
and
us
obviously
think
about
where
this
is
going,
and
if
it's
gonna
get
really
complicated
or
several
steps
deep,
then
you
know
we.
We
need
to
sort
of
set
up
that
that
nbc
as
an
anticipation
of
that
complexity,
for
the
best
of
all
of
our
users,
both
pro
and
not
so
pro.
A
Yeah,
no,
I
definitely
agree.
I
think
that
was
my
next
step
was
to
go
back
and
unify
the
screens,
because
I
don't
think
the
complexity
will
be
that
much
in
the
future
to
where
it
needs
like
a
wizard
so
to
speak,
and
I
think
I
was
just
making
things
overly
complicated.
A
So
yeah,
like
I
said,
we're
out
of
time,
but
if
y'all
want
to
stick
around,
I
can
move
on
to
the
next
thing.
D
A
Yeah,
so
I
was
doing
where
to
go.
It's
now
gone
from
others
at
the
bottom.
The
workspaces
stuff
there's
been
no
persona.
Research
on
sysadmins,
which
I
thought
was
bizarre,
and
so
we're
doing
that,
and
I
was
curious
if
anyone
could
give
help
or
feedback
on
feedback
sessions
come
and
the
persona
or
not
the
personas,
the
testers
we
got
there
and
if
I
know
alexis
you
had
done
one
recently,
if
you
have
tips
on
how
to
generate
like
a
list
of
people
to
talk
to.
B
As
in
like
write,
a
screener
or
like,
like
get
a
list
of,
what
do
you
mean.
A
B
On
user
testing,
I've
had
really
good
luck
with
just
like
having
kind
of
I
don't
know,
not
a
vague
screener
but
basing
it
on
what
they
do
in
their
role
every
day.
So
not
trying
to
be
too
specific
around,
like
the
title
of
their
role,
but
like
here
are
some
kind
of
like
general
jobs,
select
the
ones
that
you
do
and
trying
to
be
kind
of
picky
there.
But
that's
really
the
only
place,
I'm
super
picky
and
I
don't
care
about
their
role.
B
It's
just
like
do
they
do
this
thing
that
I
want
to
research?
Does
that
make
sense
and
I've.
A
B
And
then
afterwards,
like
even
asking
on
user
testing
like
hey,
if
you're
interested
in
talking
with
us
still
can
you,
you
know,
write
your
email
things
like
that,
and
I've
had
a
few
people
ask
to
do
more
tests,
so
I've
actually
had.
I
feel,
like
sometimes
better
feedback
on
unmoderated
testing
on
user
testing
than
they
have
with
our.
Like.
First
look,
I
don't
know
what's
going
on,
but
I've
loved
it
so
far.
I
can
help
you
with
screeners,
but
it
sounds
like
that's
not
your
issue.
So.
C
Yeah
I'll
keep
it
really
quick,
because
I
know
we're
over
but
again
the
specific
problem
was.
Let
me
just
share
my
screen.
Really
quick
I'll
show
you
all
the
two
situations.
C
There
is
more
for
me
to
share
regarding
work
items,
but
that's
such
a
big
topic
that
probably
that'll
need
to
wait
until
next
week.
Originally
one
of
our
engine,
can
you
all
see
my
screen?
C
Okay,
one
of
my
engineers
reached
out
and
said:
did
we
know
that
we
are
advertising
for
jira
issue
tracking?
If
someone
has
a
group
but
no
projects
and
no
issues
on
the
issue
tracker
page,
but
we
are
not
advertising
to
create
a
gitlab
issue,
so
we're
saying
create
a
jira
issue,
but
not
a
gitlab
issue
which
isn't
really
what
we're
saying,
but
it's
kind
of
implied,
because
we
don't
have
an
explicit,
create
issue
button.
C
So
it
was
a
good
point,
but
it
made
me
realize
that
the
reason
that
we
don't
have
a
create
issue
button
here
is
because
they
don't
have
a
project,
and
so
that
led
me
to
think
well.
We
really
need
to
establish
kind
of
the
the
process
that
they
need
to
go
through
and
again,
I'm
not
proposing
this
graphic
or
this
verbiage
necessarily,
but
just
trying
to
articulate
to
the
user
that
there's
a
multi-step
process
that
they
need
to
do
in
order
to
see
issues
at
all.
C
Here
I
also
raised
the
question
of:
is
there
value
in
even
showing
the
issue
tracker?
If
you
don't
have
any
projects,
because
you
don't
have
a
project,
you
can't
have
issues
because
issues
are
created
at
the
project
level.
They
may
surface
at
the
group
level,
but
they
are
created
at
the
project
level.
So
if
you
don't
have
any
projects,
why
even
show
the
issue
tracker
feature
to
me?
C
That
makes
sense
my
pm-
and
I
are
in
a
bit
of
disagreement
about
this,
because
he
feels
that
it's
better
for
us
to
surface
that
and
have
that
as
a
discoverability
option.
C
So
that's
something
that
we're
kind
of
working
through,
but
my
thought
was
initially
if
we
do
keep
the
current
functionality
and
just
try
to
improve
this
page
for
nbc.
While
we
research,
whether
or
not
we
should
even
have
issues
shown
that
we
would
first
encourage
them
to
see
that
this
is
a
multi-step
process
and
that
first
they
need
to
create
a
project
and
then
second,
they
can
create
an
issue
from
that
project.
C
This
actually
led
me
down
this
kind
of
rabbit
hole
of
looking
at
onboarding
in
general
when
it
comes
to
creating
an
issue
as
it
relates
to
groups
and
projects,
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
there.
So
I
did
create
an
onboarding
issue
and
spoke
with
the
growth
team
and
they've
been
doing
some
research
on
it.
So
I've
gotten
some
good
feedback
there,
but
I
think
for
just
mvc.
C
Is
there
a
better
way
that
we
can
articulate
that
this
is
something
that
they
would
need
to
do
this
multi-step
process
in
order
to
see
issues
here,
so
this
was
kind
of
my
first
stab
at
it.
But
I
I
really
think
that
we
do
need
to
have
something:
that's
a
bit
more
standardized
in
terms
of
like
a
multi-step.
C
C
In
this
case,
you
would
have
gone
to
the
issues
page,
the
like
issue
list
page,
but
you
don't
have
any
projects.
You
can
still
view
so
like
if,
if
I'm
in
an
issue
here,
it
would
be
this
page,
but
there
are
no
projects.
Therefore,
there
are
no
issues.
If
you
don't
have
a
project,
you
can't
have
an
issue,
so
there
are
no
issues,
but
that's
again
my
thought
is:
why
even
show
this.
D
B
C
C
C
C
D
A
Like
it
was
preemptive
before
they
figured
out
the
in-between
step
by
saying
I
have
no
project,
why
am
I
showing
you
lists,
because
we
still
have
issues
attached
to
the
project
object
and
now
they're
attached
to
the
group
object
which
doesn't
have
the
project
so
now
you're
in
this
weird
limbo
space?
So
to
me
it
feels
like
a
book.
A
Well,
that's
what
I'm
saying
so
right
from
here
like
if
you're
at
the
group
level
and
you
go
to
the
list
you'd
have
to
test.
I
haven't
done
it,
but
what
would
happen
if
you
were
to
go
at
the
group
level
in
your
own
project?
Go
to
the
issues
list
and
then.
D
A
C
C
I
might
set
up
some
chat
time
for
you
and
I
daniel
just
because
I'm
curious
what
is
going
on
with
workspaces
and
it
would.
A
It's
okay,
I'm
at
the
group,
I'm
in
my
issues,
list
yeah,
there's!
No
way
that
I
would
imagine
clicking
an
issue
here.
So
to
me.
This
feels
like
a
bug.
Why
am
I
seeing
this
when
I
can't
do
this
and
it's
like
okay?
Well,
you
can
do
this
thing,
but
you
need
to
create
a
project
first,
I'm
like
well.
Why
am
I
not
seeing
a
to
create
to
use
the
issue
tracker?
You
must
create
a
project
blah
blah
blah
need
to
be
improved
and
solved
in
a
project.
A
C
Agree,
and
actually
that
was
something
else
that
I
added
into
the
verbiage
for
the
proposed
change
that
I
made
was
a
little
bit
of
explanation
as
to
why
that's
even
relevant,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
that
that
page
has
been
there.
It's
just
most
people
don't
come
across
it
because
most
of
us
have
projects,
and
so
we
see
projects
and
issues
and
don't
usually
come
across
the
screen.
But
an
engineer
came
across
it
recently,
potentially
testing
it
was
alex.
A
C
A
Why
I
say
I
think
it's
a
bug,
because
I
don't
think
that
should
have
like
you
shouldn't
have
this
without
our
current
iteration
of
a
project
right
in
the
future.
Yeah
it
doesn't
matter.
I
can
attach
an
object
to
whatever
I
want.
A
I
can
attach
issues
to
groups,
but
that's
not
my
current
situation,
and
so
that
was
my
first
assumption.
Even
if
it
was
like
been
long-standing,
it
might
have
been
a
long-standing
bug
or
a
a
weird
experience
that
fell
to
the
cracks
right.
C
Yeah,
I
think
it's
probably
one
of
the
two.
That
being
said,
it
sounds
like
there's
already
an
mr
in
place
to
give
the
ability
to
create
an
issue
from
this
view,
in
which
case
the
empty
state
language,
I
would
expect,
would
be
very
different
than
hey.
You
got
to
create
a
project
first,
it
would
actually
just
be
create
some
issues
here
in
order
to
see
something.
So
we
had
already
started
talking
through
proposed
language
for
the
create
a
project
and
then
created
an
issue
approach.
C
Would
it
be
beneficial
for
me
to
create
a
bug
report
about
this
or
who
do
you
think
I
could
talk
to
to
even
first
verify
that
it
is
in
fact
a
bug,
as
opposed
to
maybe
some
ux
debt.
That
needs
to
be
addressed.
A
I
would
assume
it's
less
a
bug
like
official
bug,
like
oh
somebody,
typed
q,
instead
of
p
and
the
code
blew
up
versus
it's
just
an
experience
that
we
didn't
think
about,
and
now
this
is
the
weird
side
effect.
So
yeah
you
extend.
C
D
Yeah,
absolutely
now
that
I'm
familiar
with
this
yeah
somewhat
familiar
with
this
dale,
I'm
kind
of
thinking
the
same
thing
that
it
was
a
an
unhappy
path
that
you
know
a
designer
wasn't
involved
with
I'm
hoping
a
designer
wasn't
involved
with,
and
what
clues
me
into
that
is
is
the
odd
language
that
you
pointed
out,
holly
it
it's
not
the
best
most
helpful
language
and.
A
D
In
small,
and
not
only
that
and
the
way
that
it's
chosen
to
solve
the
issue
is
to
kick
them
out
to
jira
and
that's
questionable
at
first,
obviously,
but
then
at
the
same
time,
the
solution
is
in
that
really
itty-bitty
font,
and
it's
like.
Why
would
you
that's
not
very
helpful,
so
I
I
agree.
Yes,
I'd
like
to
be
tagged
in
on
it
just
so,
I
know
what
happened.