►
From YouTube: Verify United Kick Off
A
All
right
welcome
everyone.
My
name
is
jackie
porter,
I'm
the
group
manager
of
product
at
verify
and
we're
here
to
talk
about
a
new
concept
that
is
called
the
united
leadership
model
as
a
level
set.
A
new
the
vp
of
product
wanted
to
trial
a
new
method
of
aligning
security,
infra
and
product
quality,
as
well
as
design
and
engineering
priorities
without
doing
top-down
okrs.
A
So
we're
trying
this
new
united
model
at
the
stage
level
in
the
agenda.
I've
linked
this
part
of
the
handbook,
which
is
the
product
process,
and
this
method
currently
prescribes
having
a
representative
from
across
the
organization,
and
it
expands
what
we
currently
have
at
the
product
group
from
the
from
the
quad
perspective
and
adds
infrastructure
and
a
security
representative.
A
But
I
don't
think
that
that
really
will
work
steve,
because
your
team
has
a
lot
of
priorities
and
I
don't
think
we'll
be
able
to
have
like
an
embedded
infrastructure
person
inside
the
verify
team
like
we
would
so.
I
wanted
to
host
this
kickoff
call
for
the
united
method
and
kind
of
think
through
what
are
some
goals
that
we
can
tackle
on
with
shared
krs
and
iterate
through
what
we
wanted
to
accomplish
in
q2.
A
A
B
I
guess
maybe
I'll
comment
those
typing
down
below
that,
just
thanks
for
acknowledging
kind
of
like
the
the
infrastructure
situation.
That
being
said,
it
is
our
intent
that
we
that
we
do
end
up
with
with
basically
counterparts
aligned
with
each
stage
we're
just
we're
just
not
there
yet,
and
so
we
and
we
have
one
in
reliability,
engineering,
there's
one
manager.
You
know
where
we're
trying
to
get
to
a
point
where
there's
four,
and
so
we
can
have
you
know,
alignment
with
those
managers.
B
A
A
A
A
But,
for
example,
with
with
the
new
air
budgets
that
we
rolled
out,
I
have
the
shared
kr
around
achieving
error
budget.
I
have
the
krs
lined
out
here
across
runner,
testing,
pipeline
authoring
and
continuous
integration,
and
we
would
you
me,
you
steve,
and
the
engineering
manager,
as
well
as
the
product
management
team,
would
need
to
think
through
how
to
make
these
goals
smart
and
really
nail
down
what
we'd
want
to
accomplish
in
q2
around
this
availability
target.
I'm
not
quite
sure
if
this
would
be.
A
We
need
to
prioritize
infradev
issues
or
performance
issues
or
if
it's
a
quantity
of
issue
or
what
that
looks
like.
But
I
think
that
we
can
iterate
in
this
shared
kr
issue,
and
I
think
that
that's
what
this
united
framework
is
for
us
to
to
work
through
is
to
create
that
that
process
for
us
to
have
the
dialogue
around
creating
goals
across
the
infrastructure
team,
the
product
team
and
the
engineering
team
to
prioritize
these
objectives
and
accomplish
something
like
an
availability
target.
B
Okay,
I
think
for
this
one
I'll
note
also
that
we
can
probably
more
tightly
align
this
with
with
rachel
in
the
in
the
scalability
team
within
infrastructure.
So
that'll
that'll
be
a
little
bit
more
direct
alignment.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
I
should
just
note
that
in
a
comment
or
in
the
in
the
description
for
this,
where
it
would
be
helpful
for
that,
because
that
way
that
that
one
won't
have
to
go
through
me.
A
That's
perfect,
and
actually
I
did
have
a
comment
back
back
here,
so
I
will.
I
will
drop
a
link
to
the
comment
in
this
agenda
and
then
you
can
respond
back
to
that
and
we
can
update
update
the
issue
description
to
kind
of
either
link
back
to
the
already
existing
krs.
And
it's
just.
I
don't
really
know
exactly
how
these
will
look
from
a
reporting
standpoint,
because
we
don't
report
shared
krs
very
well
today.
A
C
A
Need
to
kind
of
talk
through
with
the
nuke
how
he
wants
that
to
look,
because
I
don't
really
want
to
take
credit
from
like
a
group
manager
perspective,
because
I
think
that
that's
what
he
wants
this
to
be
like
a
you.
He
wants
the
the
gmp
to
be
the
leader
of
this
initiative,
but
I
don't
want
that
to
be
the
reporting
function.
I
would
love
this
to
be
like
united,
verify
kr
and
have
that
roll
up
under
each
of
the
vp
functions
or
whatever
that
reporting
used
to
look
like,
but
we
can.
A
A
Okay,
so
other
krs
that
I've
created,
given
that
we've
done
a
lot
of
effort
around
pipeline
abuse
in
this
past
quarter
around
verify.
I've
created
this
follow-up
dog
fooding
support
kr,
where
we
have
creating
user
flows
instrumentation
around
identifying
what
typical
users
are
doing
in
our
platform
and
instrumenting
metrics
around
that.
A
This
is
something
that,
when
I
talked
with
charles
that
he
identified
that
would
be
really
helpful
that
he's
kind
of
like
a
an
ambitious
goal.
We've
had
a
lot
of
escalations
so
far
in
verify,
so
we'll
need
to
scope
this
further
down
when
it
comes
to
thinking
through
all
the
different
groups.
That's
in
packs,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
also
want
to
incorporate
other
security
pieces
into
this
so
dominic.
D
I
sorry
the
the
focus
definitely
needs
to
be
around
the
pipeline
abuse,
so
even
if
there
are
other,
like
the
the
whole
ci
job
token
and
the
rights
and
everything
this
could
benefit
a
bunch
of
people
and
it's
currently
being
worked
on
anyway.
But
I
think
ci
abuse
is
where
we
lose.
A
lot
of
money
is
where
there's
pr
impact
there's
so
much
impact
that
I
think
it's
it's
all
right
to
kind
of
zoom
in
on
that,
for
the
moment
at
least,
for
a
quarter,
that's
very
reasonable
and
yeah.
D
Just
I
can
be
the
bridge
to
trust
and
safety
at
the
moment,
if,
like,
if
I
know
a
bit
like
it,
they
don't
have
stable
counterparts
everywhere.
They
don't
have
a
very
big
team,
but
since
I
am
stable
counterpart
for
verified
through
appsec,
I
can
kind
of
beat
a
bridge.
If
you
have
a
hard
time
reaching
out
some
people.
A
D
A
Okay,
the
other
kr
here
is
on
usability
issues,
so
meaningfully
improve
usability
issues
in
q2,
and
here
the
dimension
is
quality
and
design.
So
what
we're
targeting
here
is
taking
the
s1
s2
bugs
and
targeting
security
availability
performance
bugs
for
some
groups
and
right
now
I
have
like
a
the
continuous
integration
target
here
is
taking
that
backlog
and
reducing
it
by
30
and
I'm
calling
out
continuous
integration,
because
I'm
the
pm
of
that
right
now,
so
I
can
set
that
target.
A
So
some
of
the
other
quality
and
usability
krs
that
the
teams
came
up
with
were
around
creating
a
framework
for
testing
improving
code
coverage,
introducing
standardized
frameworks
for
ci
testing
and
then
both
pipeline
authoring
and
the
testing
team
were
focused
on
introducing
usability
fixes
and
these
efforts
are
tied
to
the
ux
team's
push
for
sus.
So
that
supports
a
greater
ux
kr
as
well.
E
Jackie,
I
have
a
comment
on
this
one,
it's
kind
of
related
to
what
discussion
that
we
have.
I
think,
on
this
issue.
I
just
realized
that
also
for
for
ci
for
continuous
integration,
we
need
to
deliver
three
issues
that
will
impact
the
sus.
So
you
mentioned
just
a
few
more
moments
ago
that
you
could
also
link
back
right
this
this
efforts
to
existing
krs.
B
A
So
I
think,
for
this
particular
target
ci
will
probably
be
prioritizing
like
security
availability
and
infradeb
issues
that
are
s1
s2
and
making
sure
that
we're
burning
down
that
backlog
versus
delivering
usability
issues
just
because
our
backlog
right
now,
we
have
like
65
s2s
that
are
out
of
slo
in
this
year.
Backlog.
E
And
so
correctly,
is
you
saying
that
you
will
prioritize
the
issues
on
the
themes
that
you
just
mentioned?
Instead
of
the
usability
issues,
then
we
need
to
align
on
who
is
going
to
be
delivering
that
and
it
will
be
possible,
for
example,
for
let's
say
product
designers
to
tackle
themselves
some
of
the
the
issues
that
we
have
as
part
of
the
ux
okrs.
So,
but
we
can,
we
can
take
that
conversation
offline.
D
A
F
C
A
A
This
issue
and
kind
of
lined
out
resources
that
are
all
along
the
handbook,
and
I
have
this
deck
on
like
issue
hygiene
and
you
can
you
feel
free
to
push
back
and
say.
Tell
me
it's
ridiculous.
I'm
all
ears
on
that.
So
yeah
not
a
big
deal,
but
you
can
definitely
we
can.
We
can
de-scope
it
and
pick
a
different
percentage
of
completeness
on
that
too.
Okay,
I.
F
Personally,
haven't
gone
through
that
whole
list
yet,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
a
huge
time
commitment.
You
know
it
feels
like
it's
like,
maybe
an
hour
or
so,
and
I
think
the
the
benefits
you
know
even
for
ics
would
be
good
when
we
did
our
async
week.
I
got
a
lot
of
like
I
felt
like
the
managers
would
would
feel
a
big
impact
from
it,
but
the
ics
also
a
number
of
them
commented
in
in
the
retro
and
then
to
me
privately
too.
F
I
just
said
thanks
for
doing
this,
like
I
got
a
lot
more
time
to
focus
this
week,
so
just
taking
some
time
to
practice.
This,
I
think,
will
will
give
people
more
they'll
feel
like
they
have
a
little
bit
more
leverage
to
say:
hey,
I'm
gonna
do
this
async
or
you
know
we
don't
have
to
have
a
sync
meeting
about
this
and
just
to
get
a
little
more
focus
time.
So.
A
So
that
means
steve
you
and
I
we
can
talk
through
the
scalability
piece
of
that
and
the
error
budget
piece
and
that
roll
up
because
it
sounds
like
there
might
actually
be
some
that
that
exist
and
then
dominic
you
and
I
can
talk
about
the
trust
and
safety
one
and
what
that
interaction
will
look
like
as
far
as
cadence
for
this
group
to
meet.
Are
you
all
comfortable
with
like
once
every
three
weeks
connecting
okay
and
then
is
this
time?