►
From YouTube: 2021-04-21 meeting
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).
A
B
A
A
A
So
first
thing
I
I'll
have
a
hard
stop
about
the
hour
and
but
let's
see
how
how
the
meeting
goes
so
we
we
can
follow.
I
think,
at
least
in
my
mind,
I
the
main
thing
is
about,
and
I
see
that
there
is
the
pr
and
the
discussion
about
that,
so
it
seems
to
to
to
be
progressing
with
the
discussion.
But
I
think
the
main
thing
in
my
mind
is
the
question
about
the
extensibility.
A
C
A
Okay,
so
yeah,
so
it
seems
to
be
progressing
and
I
think
the
the
the
discussion
there
is
is
going
well.
We
don't
need
to
address
any
specific
concern
here
right
now,
so
for
me,
it
seems,
seems
going
well
starting
by
may.
I
should
be
really
full
back
on
the
project,
so
I
I
hope,
also
to
be
contributing
more
with
code
and
and
reviews
and-
and
I
I
hope
to
help
with
that,
but
for
me
right
now.
That
was
the
thing
that
I
had
in
my
mind.
A
A
D
A
So
are
we
gonna
make
for
a
shorting
meeting
today
then?
If
nobody
has
anything,
I
we
get.
We
gain
some
minutes
back.
A
Cool
cool:
oh
I
see
that
chris
joined
hi
chris.
So
if
you
don't
have
anything
else,
then
let's
save
some
minutes
and
one
last
meeting
on
the
day.
G
B
F
Oh,
I
can
hear
you
now:
okay,
great
robert,
do
you
have
anything
you
wanted
to
talk
about
during
this
meeting?
I
don't
think
we
have
really
any
topics.
G
G
D
I
can
share,
but
because
you
like,
you
would
need
to
drive,
you
could
need
to
tell
me
which
ones
to
to
open
up.
Will
that
work.
G
D
Let
me
share,
but
the
thing
is
because
I'm
since
last
week
I
was
sick
and
I'm
a
little
plugged
out.
I
I
can't
drive,
it
doesn't
like
what
you
look
at,
but
let
me
open
it
up
and
then
you
can
kind
of
drive
you.
So
you
can.
You
have
issues
sharing,
but
you
can
see
you
can
see
my
screen
right.
F
D
Yeah
so
robert
question,
for
you.
G
So
first
one
was
brought
up
by
david
and
I
think
it's
quite
important,
especially
if
you
want
to
make
any
distribution.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
defaults
are
the
hotel,
so
we
are
not
being
want
to
default
to
datadog
conventions
right
and
I
think
it's
kind
of
required
at
least
for
assets
in
splunk.
If
you
want
to
release
anything
so
let's
go
maybe
further.
A
One
question
that
I
will
have
is:
does
it
make
sense
to
implement
this
after
we
have
the
extensibility,
so
we
can
change
the
defaults
via
the
extensibility,
but
we
have
to
remember
about
one
thing
about
the
tests.
You
know.
A
Yeah
that
that's
my
my
first
impression
is
that
we
should
do
the
extensibility.
Then
we
tackle
the
the
default.
G
Is
it
possible?
Do
you
have
some
board
here
some
github
project,
so
we
can
yours.
D
It's
been
a
while,
since
we
actually
did
something
with
the
board
right.
I
need
to
find
some
orientation
here.
Why?
What's
going
on.
G
I
mean
the
last
one
on
the
board.
I
think
it
will
be
closed.
D
G
D
This
is,
is
this
still
a
thing.
F
Is
kind
of
I
think
that
was
creating
the
actual
mechanisms,
so
one
is
creating
the
call
target
mechanism
which
has
been
created,
and
the
second
is
there's
a
separate
issue
that
we've
created
to
track
actually
migrating
this
repo
to
using
it.
So
we
can
move
this
one
and
keep
track
of
the
other
one.
D
D
So
for
this
one
I
have,
we
have
the
the
library
loading
part,
but
I'm
not
actually
working
on
activities,
so
I
would
say
that
it
can
be
split.
Somehow,
oh,
there
is
an
issue.
Okay,
I've
edited.
D
Activities-
that's
not
even
in
progress,
so
I
guess
let
me
let
me
let
me
follow
up
and
actually
edit
this
item
to
clarify.
What's
done?
What's
not
so
I'll
do
that
today?
Oh,
this
is
actually
done.
So
this
is
the
bit
that
that
was
done.
The
the
dynamic
ds
loading
and
it
was
blocked
on.
D
This
is
also
done,
so
it's
all
good.
So
how
can
I
hit
this.
I
D
Okay
I'll
update
this,
but
it's
not
in
progress.
So
let's
move
here
and
so
in
the
review.
Do
you
guys
have
value
from
this?
Yes,
right
or
not,
is
really
in
reviewing
progress,
kind
of
the
same.
A
D
Yeah,
it's
it's
just
a
trick
of
things:
yeah
yeah
yeah,
some
people
like
in
review
to
me
it's
like
in
progress.
I
didn't
want
to
remove
it,
I'm
not
okay
with
this,
but
okay.
So
how
do
we
get
here?
All
the
other
things
into
here?
There
is
it's.
G
G
D
D
D
D
F
All
of
them,
I'm
gonna
close
that
one
I
created
that
two
seconds
ago
to
test
it.
D
D
Doesn't
really
need
def
work.
D
And
you
guys,
please
stop
me
like
really
all
of
them,
because,
like
this
one
probably
not
like,
we
should
only
have
issues
here
that
are
actual.
Could
that
work.
B
J
J
D
So
I
would
say
now
we
can
put
them
in
an
order
that
is
priority
order.
Would
it
make
sense,
correct?
Okay,
let's
do
it,
let's
just
make
sure
that
the
order
is
that
this
tool
actually
does.
So,
let's
do
this,
I
am
taking
a
I'm
just
moving
like
say
I
move
this
like
this
test
or
would
be
second
now.
Let
me
go
take
a
screenshot
of
this.
D
G
H
H
A
The
fourth
from
top
yeah
yeah
that
one
I
I
should.
F
F
So
a
quick
update,
we
can
so
I'm
going
to
create
a
new
bug
right
now
or
feature
whatever,
and
you
should
see
it
show
up
at
the
bottom
of
the
backlog.
F
So
that
one
right
there,
if
on
the
bug,
creation,
template
or
just
in
the
issue,
there's
a
project
field,
and
so
you
have
to
set
it
to
the
hotel
one
and
then
it'll
automatically
put
it
here.
Cool.
D
A
Yeah,
I
I
don't
want
to
because
this
is
a
a
side
kind
of
thing,
but
the
third
one
that
we
have
from
the
top.
I
think
we
can
close
the
one
about
cls
compliance
if
you
go
to
the
top
of
the
backlog.
D
A
Yeah,
I
think
we
should
not
be
following.
I
I
put
the
reason
there
unless
some
someone
we
can
wait
a
little
bit
if
someone
has
a
reason
for
that,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
be
worried
about
being
cls
compliant.
G
A
Yeah
and,
and
also
I
think,
it's
great
to
have
this
kind
of
decision
documented
in
the
ripple
somewhere.
D
G
D
Zero
position
to
it
just
my
question:
do
you
really
want
to
spend
time
on
it?
If,
yes,
no
problem.
D
Okay,
no
problem
should
I
then
assign
it
to
you
no
problem.
I
G
A
I
nothing
crosses
my
mind
right
now,
but
I
think
we
should
be
adding
those
and
I
think,
when
we
go
to
do
that,
call
on
the
community
meeting
for
some
people.
Then
we
have
a
bunch
of
officials
at
hand.
You
know
so.
D
Like
like
what
sort
of
oh
issues,
it
doesn't
like,
please
contribute
by
grabbing
something.
G
D
Okay,
I
agree:
do
you
want
to
do
you
also
want
to
take
it
on
yeah?
I
can.
A
As
I
mentioned
before,
I
need
to
leave
now
for
the
hour
see
you
guys
around.
D
All
right
this
one,
this
is:
when
should
we
tackle
this.
D
So,
for
now
it's
in
the
right
place:
yep!
Okay,
I
see
simple
gi
stands
for.
D
D
So
I
would,
I
would
suggest,
not
to
create
abstractions
that
are
not
already
used
so
just
having
having
the
eye
like
we
as
engineers.
We
always
have
this
intuitive
urge
to
make
things
more
extendable,
but
in
practice
extensibility
is
usually
good.
G
G
So
it's
not
about
making
stuff,
you
know
extensible
or
general,
creating
interfaces
even
in
some
places.
If
we
just
have
something
you
know
not
tightly
coupled,
I
think
it
will
improve
the
testability.
D
So
did
we
not
have
something
specifically
about
singletons
here
this
one.
D
It
see
some
take
dependency
on
the
library
or
just
do
something
some
structure
like
this.
Could
you
open,
maybe
so.
C
D
So
how
about
we,
we
do
this.
D
G
D
And
I
wasn't
following
this
one
and
I
really
don't
wanna
like
hijack
the
meeting,
but
guys
please
be
careful
about
extendability
models
that
are
that
are
not
actually
used
right
now,
because
we're
going
to
create
something
that
is
very
cool
and
may
be
used
for
something
that
can
come
up
in
the
future.
But
whatever
comes
up
in
the
future
will
be
slightly
different
and
then
usually
that's
what
happens
and
we
will.
We
will
have
spent
time
in
it.
So
so.
G
Like
the
plan
right
now
is
to
tackle
it
in
a
minimal
way,
so
we
want
to
offer
only
two
extensive
extensions
like
extensibility
points.
One
would
be
auto
compliant
also
to
make
the
review
and
design
more.
I
don't
know
how
to
say
easier
to
review,
because
it
will
be
just
adding
new,
auto
propagators,
which
is
even
told
in
hotel
that
it
should
be
possible
to
add
custom
propagators
and
the
second
one
which,
which
is
something.
G
B
D
D
F
Move
it
I
was
actually
about
to
suggest.
Maybe
in
our
done
cut
column,
we
add
the
automation.
So
if
the
issue
is
closed
or
if
a
pull
request
is
merged,
it
gets
automatically
moved
to
done.
If
that's
fine.
D
G
Not
even
heading
here
I
think,
pull
request
is
just
like,
but
if,
if
there
will
be
for
some
chance,
okay.
D
F
G
G
E
J
L
F
How
so
I
mean
I,
I
kind
of
joined
when
that
decision
was
already
made,
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
how
might
we
get
the
ambient
tracer
state?
Are
you
without
that
static
instance?
We
currently
store
stuff
in
like
tracer
instance,
is
a
static
field
to
get
us
the
whatever
tracer
instance
is
held
in
the
async
local.
F
Because
the
we
could
be
starting
a
trace
from
say,
an
incumbent
like
a
web
server
and
then
later
on,
we
might
instruments
like
a
hp,
client
request,
that's
going
outbound
and
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
using
the
same
the
same
scope
and
so
the
way
we
did
that
right
now
is
we
got.
D
Mean
I
think,
generally
it's
it's
a
it's
a
design
issue
because
sorry,
we
should
like
having
the
same
scope
like
we're.
Gonna
store
the
current
span
and
trace
not
the
tracing.
F
Sorry,
let
me
correct
myself,
I
misspoke
the
tracer
is
just
static
and
it's
the
scope
that's
being
held
in
a
single
local.
D
Okay,
let's,
I
would
say
wow
so
many
of
them,
let's
put
it
at
the
end
and
it
might
not
be
the
very
end,
but.
G
Basically,
just
maybe
one
sentence-
I
was
just
thinking
about
one
thing,
even
still:
keeping
the
singleton
of
the
tracer
just
the
adjust,
the
the
auto
instrumentations
that
you
have
implemented,
not
use
the
static
field
of
singleton,
but
just
reject
the
singleton
somehow.
So
you
could
then
use
it
in
tests
using
the
interface
of
the
tracer,
which,
as
far
as
remember,
we
have
some
interface
for
it,
and
some
mock
tracer.
G
G
D
Okay,
moved
documents,
installation
and
village.
G
D
G
H
G
G
L
D
J
D
No,
the
wrong
robot,
the
first
one,
that's
good
yeah!
So
I'm
assigning
this
to
you
but
like
this
is
just
documented,
like
I'm
not
suggesting
that
you
actually,
because
otherwise,
so
so
much
work
is
assigned
to.
L
F
F
I
can
try
and
take
that
do
a
first
draft
and
get
some
feedback,
and
I
mean
if
what
I
have
is
insufficient,
then
obviously
you
guys
can
point
out
hey
this
needs.
Why
this?
Why
this.
K
This
this
to
do
this
properly
will
take
several
days.
Are
you
sure
you
you,
you
have
the
bandwidth
right
now.
K
F
Ignore
it
over
it
yeah
I
don't
think
it'll
I
mean
I
don't
think
I'll
get
done
in
the
next
couple
days.
I
think
this
will
be
like
sort
of
in
the
background,
but
I.
F
Yeah
yeah
yeah
I'll
take
it.
I
don't
mind.
B
D
G
D
D
I
think
this
is
a
long
term.
There
is,
like
a
whole,
a
whole
conversation
to
make
configuration
generally
read-only.
I
think.
D
To
me
it
sounds
like
a
refacturing
of
the
whole
tracer
like
related
to
singletons
and
whatnot.
If
you
guys
see
easy
solutions,
then
please
correct
me,
but
to
me
this
is
like
I
would
group
it
together
with
with,
with
with
this
one
sort
of.
D
Maybe
not
necessarily
deleted,
but
also
requires
long
discussion
and
whatnot.
Also.
G
D
D
It
was
like
it's
not
a
blocker
release
yeah.
I
would
do
like
this.
J
G
D
Well,
maybe
maybe
we
can
keep
it
so
that
we
can
keep
it
like
in
one
place,
but
there
will
be
let's,
let's,
let's
keep
this
one
and
then
stuff
that
is
below
we'll
move
it
below
the
thing
below
the
bathroom.
So
I
would,
I
would
suggest
you
put
something
like.
D
F
D
Because
because,
like
the
tracer,
essentially
the
way
we
configure
it
once
it's
configured,
it's
a
singleton.
I
think
the
whole
singleton
question
and
having
one
thing
and
scope,
but
I
have
a
strong
feeling
it
might
be
related.
But
it's
it's
just
because
design
just
on
not
not
because
for
concrete
reasons,
but
because
singleton
designs
usually
mean
singleton
configuration
means
what
happens
when
you
change
it,
how
you
make
sure
that
it
is
initialized
before
the
singleton
is
accessed
and
all
of
these
topics?
That's?
Why
not
not
for
more
complete
reasons.
H
H
Is
trying
to
ensure
that
the
settings
that
that
have
been
configured
make
sense.
G
D
Before
or
after
after
this,
oh
after
okay,
okay,
so
what
specifically,
should
I
add
to
this.
G
D
D
E
F
So
this
one
andrew
lock
on
our
side,
is
addressing
it's
kind
of
slow
progress,
because
getting
the
whole
pipeline
running
including
integration
tests
takes
a
bit
of
time.
So
I
think
that's
probably
what
slowed
him
down
the
most,
but
I
know
he's
working
on
in
the.
M
D
Because
I
think
I
don't
want
to
add,
I
don't
want
to
force
andrew
to
keep
this
up
to
date
here.
If
we
are
okay
with
keeping
it
up
up
to
date,
then
we
can
keep
it.
We
can
move
the
progress,
but
then
it
needs
to
be
assigned
to
somebody
who
is
actually
attending
regularly.
F
I
would
probably
say
robert
is
most
authoritative
on
this,
since
he's
working
on
this
day
like
every
day.
G
D
G
F
G
Reality
is
that
he's
doing
work,
and
I
think
that
it's
worth
to
put
it
in
progress
even
to
make
his
work
visible,
even
if
we
will
track
it,
that's
my
opinion.
Even
if
someone
will
need
to
then
later
take
care
and
merge
it
and
resolve
conflicts.
I
think
it's
really
worth
to
give
credits
to
andrew
he's
really
working
on
it.
D
Yeah,
I
just
don't
want
to
force
him
to
keep
this
up
to
date.
He
has
a
lot
of
displays.
That's
that's
all!
So
if
we
keep
it
keep
it
in
progress,
then
somebody
of
us
needs
to
actually
track.
This
is
this
card
is
like,
since
you
have
a
problem.
F
G
G
But
still
open
like
yeah,
I
think
so.
What
is
this
about?.
F
G
D
So
so
this
is
just
a
suggestion,
because
I'm
not
involved
enough
in
today
like
not
contributing
enough
right
now
to
kind
of
insist
on
it.
But
here
here's
a
consideration
to
me
like
we
have
some
kind
of
planning
cycle.
That
is
a
concrete
training
cycle
and
you
it
can
be
like
one
month
or
three
months
or
six
months,
but
not
more
than
that,
because
more
than
that,
nothing
is
concrete.
D
And
then,
if
an
issue
is
unlikely,
it
should
be
tackled
within
the
the
current
and
the
subsequent
planning
cycle.
It
shouldn't
be
tracked
because
then
it's
just
noise
and
by
the
time
we
get
there.
Things
will
be
so
different
that
essentially,
if
it
comes
up
again,
then
it
will
automatically
be
retract
and
if
it
doesn't
come
up
again,
that
means.
G
D
Oh,
you
did
it.
Okay,
sorry,
then
make
sense,
basically
you're
saying
that
you
think
that
in
the
next
six
months
we
get
to
actually
do
something.
D
Yeah
my
phone
competes
with
my
computer
for
the
headset,
so
you're,
basically
saying
that
you
think
that
the
next
six
months,
something
will
be
done
on
this.
D
Yes,
okay,
cool!
What's
this
one
next.
H
So
yeah,
so
this
is
about
removing
all
of
the
big
pieces
of
data
that
aren't
relevant
to
open
telemetry
from
the
repo
and
then
it
sounded
like.
G
But
I
cannot
do
it,
it
has
to
be
someone
who
has
is
able
to
rewrite
the
git
history,
so
it
has
to
be
maintainer,
but
I
described
how
to
do
it.
D
Okay,
fair
enough
before
after
that,.
D
Okay
sounds
good,
then
zach,
one
of
us
can
do
it
I'll
move
it
up,
sorry,
which
one
was
it
like,
but.
D
D
Yeah,
it's
okay,
yeah,
so
move
option.
D
I
think
that
this
is
for
me
and
please
override
me
if
you
like,
but
to
me
this
is
not
just
bureaucracy
like
you
know,
one
day
when
we
are
when
we're
talking
about
ga
rather
than
bitter,
and
we
have
like
stability
and
people
are
using
us.
G
I
L
G
It's
more
important.
G
G
G
D
So
again,
I
don't
want
to
delete
it
if
you
guys
have
a
position,
but
we
can't
keep
an
issue
for
everything
for
the
people.
People
ask
a
question:
it
is
because
what
will
happen
is
we
will
end
up
with
a
million
issues?
People
will
never
look
through
this.
We
will
have
yeah.
D
Yes,
yes,
yes,
so,
like
things
like
this,
I
would
rather
close
this,
but
if
you
prefer
to
keep
it
open
I'll,
actually.
C
G
I
close
it
for
now.
We
can
always
reopen
it
later.
D
It's
just
from
from
consistent
experience
when
we
track
everything,
then
it's.
M
H
So
I
think,
that's
after.
G
D
Okay,
hardcoded
name
in
the
output
file
on
the
code.
F
Would
be
worth
creating
yeah
another
small
note
that
says
ga.
I
D
D
Bar
really,
for
example,
this
one
is
this
above
gaba:
do
we
need
this
for
g?
D
H
I
think
that's
hotel
compliance
yep,
but
we
need
to
be
hotel
compliant
for
ga
the
product.
Yes,
but.
D
G
D
Oh
okay,
so
so,
basically,
I'm
not
trying
to
push
back
on
it.
I'm
trying
to
push
back
on
the
general
idea
that
should
promote
the
general
idea
that
we
should
really
be
aggressive
with
prioritization,
because
if
we
say
everything
is
j,
then
j
will
never
come,
but
okay
license
headers
results,
file
for
sure
hardcoded
name
yeah.
We
were
here,
and
this
is
oh,
but
by
the
way,
by
the
way,
sorry
I
I
got
distracted.
D
So
this
one
we
said:
yes,
it
can
be.
I
D
D
I
I
have
only
a
few
minutes
left,
so
we
won't
finish
anyway,
unless
you
you
guys,
can
continue
without
me,
but
I
I
need
you.
L
D
G
L
G
Glance:
okay,
zach.
I
think
that
most
of
the
rest,
one
probably
is
for
beta
this
auto
db,
stuff
compliance
sweep.
You
can.
G
G
D
D
So
now
I
put
things
into
beta
without
specific
order,
which
is
bad
and
then.
G
D
Right
this,
we
said
below
j
right
container.
D
Hard
coded
name
output
file-
we're
almost
done.
Maybe
we
can
finish
it
so
this
one.
G
M
D
G
G
D
G
F
L
D
So,
for
more
than
one
second,
this
one
to
track
this,
because
I
don't
wanna
again,
I
don't
wanna
force
tony
to
actually
be
tracking
this.
D
L
I
L
L
L
G
D
Okay,
so
below
the
below
ga
bar
below
gaber.
L
D
I
G
Quick
question:
have
you
been
discussing
potential
problems
with
compatibility
if
we
start
reusing
such
stuff.
D
I
think
I
think
it's
a
big
topic
to
talk
about
in
the
future.
For
now
I
mean.
G
Like
just
asking,
if
there's
some,
you
know
videos
on
youtube
that
I
can
watch,
would
you
mean
compatibility?
I
mean
this.
If
we
use
the
sdk,
I
imagine
we
can
have
the
same
problems
as
we
can
when
you
are
referencing
any
other
library,
yeah
yeah,
so
we
shouldn't
be
actually
referencing
sdk
for
sure
so
vendoring
you
want
to
vendor
it.
D
Using
your
tools,
I
think
we
should
discuss
it
when
we
get
to
it,
but
I'd
be
very
wary
using
the
referencing
sdk.
We
can
use
some
code.
We
can
like
put
put
something
you
know
at
build
time.
We
can
do
whatever,
but
referencing.
The
decay,
in
my
opinion,
is
a
normal.
F
One
of
the
main
issues
is
especially
with
dynamic
framework
where
there's
and
there's
pretty
strong
version.
I
guess
assembly
binding.
We
can
uploading,
I
guess
a
different
version
of
it,
and
so
some
of
the
concerts
won't
be
equivalent
or
like
both
of
them
will
be
loaded.
And
so
what
happens?
Is
we
only
get
just
the
automatic
stuff,
not
the
actual,
there's
not
actual
any
integration.
So.
D
Let's
see
yes,
so
so,
sharing
code
with
with
the
sdk
is
always
nice,
but
I
definitely
like
to
me
it's
just,
and
I
know
that
again,
people
who
are
not
deep
into
the
topic
as
engineers,
there's
always
the
intuitive
will
to
say.
Oh,
why
don't
we
use
things?
Why
don't
we
use
the
same
stuff,
but
but.
G
H
Yeah,
there's
still
going
to
be
some
subtleties
there
to
deal
with,
but
I
think
the
bigger
thing
is
that
there
are
some
expectations
in
community
behavior-wise.
D
Well,
we
can
like
allowing
flexibility
is
something
we
can
together
like
as
an
auto
group,
make
a
decision
when
we
get
to
it
right
now.
I'm
just
saying
the
specific
technical
act
of
referencing,
the
sdk
as
a
as
a
as
a
library,
dependency.
D
Okay,
yeah
yeah,
that
that's
that's
fine.
I
think
I
said
I
think
what
I'm
saying
there
is.
We
do
just
need
as
a
group,
to
design
it
in
a
way
that
does
that
avoids
the
library
version
problem,
correct
and
and
whether
it
will
be
code
or
some
dynamic
thing.
I
think
code
would
be
much
easier
and
that
they
will
figure
out
when
we
get
you
does
it
make
sense.
M
D
D
Yeah
all
right,
so
I
think
we
are
okay.
This
is
done.
A
hardcoded
output
file
tracking,
then
continuous
below
the
bar
possibility.
Additional
http
below
the
bar
propagators
may
be
related,
and
then
here
it's
we
just
moved
a
few
things
that
are
out
of
order.
Should
we
real
quick
order
these
things,
so
I
removed
big
blobs.
I
think
these
three
this
one
this
one
and
this
one
which
is
either
for
me
or
forzak,
is
same
priority,
so
it
doesn't
matter
how
we
order.
Would
you
agree?
D
Okay,
then
this
one
compliant
db,
instrumentation.
G
D
I
was
just
going
in
order,
so
this
one
is
this
one
here
and
then
yeah.
This
one
is,
should
be
more
important
right.
D
All
right
we're
way
over
time,
so
I
think
jackie
on.
D
F
I
don't
I
don't
know
how
to
share
a
screen,
but
I
just
oh:
I
need
to
update
that
list.
Anyways
yeah
one
question
you
have
maybe
for
later
is:
maybe
we
can
yeah.
I
didn't
update
this
list,
so
some
people
on
my
attending
list
didn't
actually
10..
One
question
I
have
for
the
that
project
board
is,
should
we,
I
think,
maybe
next
week
or
as
we
get
more
issues,
we
might
want
to
consider
also
how
we
group
untriaged
items.
F
So
we
know
what
hasn't
been
triaged
yet
so
we
don't.
You
know
we
know,
have
easy
way
to
detect
what
we
need
to
look
at.
D
I
I
this
is
the
suggestion
that
they
sort
of
had,
but
we
can
do
any
other
ways.
I
was
suggesting
not
to
automatically
put
issues
on
the
project
board,
but
leave
them
as
issues
and
then
essentially
they
only
get
on
the
project
board
once
they
tried.
F
Yeah,
because
right
now,
they're
not
automatically
added,
we
actually
have
to
just
assign
the
project
on
the
issue
for
it
to
show
up
on
the
board.