 Anything else from you folks that's more urgent? I just have just like general longer term updates. Yeah, I have an issue that I'm waiting for your feedback, but I pinged you on Slack. I don't know if you want to tackle it on Slack or on this call, which is regarding portfolio management and some issues that turns out we don't have capacity on the back end, and we should release it. Yeah, let's talk about those quickly then. All right, so let me just put the link there. What's your plan? Agenda or wherever you want? Yeah, I'm just grabbing the link, sorry. I should have gotten it first. No, no, no, that's fine. All right, so if you follow that link, it was the link that Kishal shared. I'll update the link to have only the ones. Oh wait, I think he already unassigned himself. No, never mind. I think he already unassigned himself from it. Okay, let's go with another link. Sean, if you have the links at hand, definitely help me, huh? Sorry, which one was that for? He's the one that Kishal highlighted, and then we turned out not to have capacity on the back end. The specific one that he's gonna work on? I just wanted to see that. So there are two of them that he couldn't work on because you didn't have capacity. Okay, I remember vaguely what they are, but I don't have them open, I'll find them just now. So it's the autocomplete milestone and the sort direction one, I think, right? Yeah, yeah. Okay, so those ones Kishal cannot do, is that it? No, the thing is that he could, but it turns out it's front and end back end. Oh, okay. They didn't get to that part, so they ran out of capacity before reaching those. So that means that instead of having front end working on something that the back end can't work, we're proposing removing those two, and if you find something that is equivalent, there are a total of six points in terms of weight. If you can find a replacement for portfolio management issues, that would be great, or plan, Kishal is fine taking something else, but so it's up to you, just see how you wanna do this. You wanna react and grab something out of backlog or something that you have prepared, or I can find things for him to work on, that's not an issue, but I definitely wanna give you the opportunity to be agreed. Yeah, if you give me two seconds, let me... You also can do that after the call, if it's preferable for you. Basically, that's all the info we had for you on this topic, is that we need to make a decision regarding those things. Okay, let's have, I'm impatient, so I just wanted to decide. Let's have removing of his front end, right? You said, yeah, so this is, okay, so yeah, this is why we need to move ahead with design a little bit more, I think. Well, no, I'm just thinking portfolio management stuff. Okay, yeah, I know what to do. So there is an issue for, oh no shit, that's also back in. Yeah, so most of the stuff needs back end for portfolio management, so maybe next iteration we need to ask Sean for more help on portfolio management and rejuggle it. So if that's the case, let's have Kushal just push forward with the refactor that he wants to do. You wanna do that? Yeah, that sounds good to me, I think he has, that might even shorten the deadline for that, because he was counting on 11.7, I think, to finish that. Yeah, well, you know, he did a good job of like splitting into a couple of issues, like I think two. All right, I'll check with him and then I'll confirm with you, yep. Okay, yeah, I know, I mean, just let me know, you don't have to confirm. I will let you know. Commit and let me know. Commit and let you know, that's fine, all right. It's somewhere in our handbook that we should do that. Okay, awesome. Nothing else from what I said. All right, that sounds good. Pedro, anything from you? Before we, I just have a couple of items that are not urgent. So I wanted to let the team talk about anything that's... I'm okay. Okay, more urgent, okay, great. So same with Ramya, please jump in if you have anything you wanna talk about. So if not, like I'd mentioned in Slack, there's a bunch of things, I don't know if this is a good idea, but I just started pasting a lot of things in the agenda at the top. It might just get ever increasing, which sort of defeats the purpose than we're inventing a new issue tracker inside a Google Doc. So that's sort of useless. I didn't feel like creating another label because these things get really messy. But these are the things that I've been thinking about a lot. So you can click through those ones. A lot of them, I think people on the call have been already responding for a couple of them. So that's really awesome. So I just wanted to highlight a couple of ones that are, I've been thinking about as of late. Doesn't mean that we'll do them right away, but just, yeah, because like we talk about something and get excited about it, but oftentimes at GitLab we don't necessarily work on it. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that's just how we roll currently. And so a couple of things I wanted to highlight is a filter by none and any in GitLab, some number five. So that's definitely something that I've not even put like timelines on. I don't know if I slack people about this, but this came up because our community is getting pretty good. I've noticed like uptick in community or either that or I've just been better at responding. I don't know if it's because of just, there's just more people now coming into GitLab, but there's just some inconsistency with filtering by none and any, especially those two words and the ability to do so and for various places in GitLab for milestones, labels, assignees and weight in particular for both the web UI and API. And so I spent a little bit of time on Monday creating a bunch of issues there and then I think either closing in or splitting out some issues that people are complaining about. There was at least one issue where apparently we lost ability to filter by one of those things for milestones in the search. So again, I don't think it's super urgent, these things. These are just nice to have. But what I found is a lot of community members are really wanting to participate. So I think it's pronounced Jacobo, one of our core team members was in one of them and created one of the issues. And then so I just cleaned that up and put it here and he's already jumped in and said, I'm gonna pick up two of them. So that's really exciting to me. Yeah, these are really nice as well from the contributor's perspective because the scope's pretty clear and it's not like a thing where you need a bunch of UX input and a bunch of backend input before you can even get started. It's a relatively well-scoped down and I see you've created a bunch of issues like for each specific case. So it's relatively well-scoped down thing which is quite encouraging as a new contributor. You don't really wanna dive into an issue with like a hundred comments and a bunch of like, you know, sort of a description that takes three pages to scroll down, right? So that's a great point, Sean. Something that I assume was the case, but maybe I think you're confirming. So I'm guessing there's a binomial by something distribution of contributors, ones that are, well, I don't know, maybe it's more than that. So there's multiple factors. There's people that wanna work on a big, exciting issue. There's people that wanna contribute because they're just excited about coding for whatever reason and they wanna, whether they're experienced or not, they wanna do small things because to get them in quickly or if they're new just because they're not confident yet. So what I'm hearing from you is that there's always enough of those cases and people that we should cater to them in this way and then there's another batch of people that wanna do some big, exciting thing. Like Sid says, like, let's do this and then there's people jump in and talk and then somebody starts writing code in them. But that never gets done, right? Like it's like two years before that and markets merge, right? So I don't know about like how good those things are. Or like, what's the strategy there? But at least there's at least enough people that care about these ones is what I'm hearing from you. Yeah, so like the way I think of it is like, obviously everyone can contribute to anything, but for somebody who, you know, a lot of the times people are interested in contributing to an open source project for, you know, maybe they use it, but maybe they're also just looking to improve their skills or they, you know, whatever. It's really good to have those issues ready and available for people. So we can just say, these ones are small in scope. They are understandable. Like, you know, you can see what's happening when you do them. Involves like forging new territory. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, I think they're really great to have. And they fill gaps in our products are great for us as well. Exactly, yeah, I mean, yeah. It's not 100% altruistic, but yeah. No, no, no, it's win-win. So, okay, awesome. So thanks for confirming that. So, you know, folks, feel free to jump in and debate, discuss and rip apart those issues, both from a design perspective and from like a scoping perspective. I just scoped them in a way that I thought would make sense, but it could not make sense. So please, if you have time or interest, do so. Resolvable discussions. Number six is something that Tori and Daoe went back and forth for a long time and trying to really make room for it in upcoming iterations. So that's why I started re-engaging them. So again, I think... I don't know if Pedro went and I went back and forth a little bit yesterday as well. So I don't wanna use too much of time here because it can get into really complicated really quickly. I haven't checked if you replied to me, so... I think I did. Now we can talk. Let's save it, especially since it can get... Well, we can come back to it. Let's come back to it if we have time. So, no, let's do it, I'm off on an agenda. But I like that discussion. So that's okay. Yeah, so... And the reason why I wanted to break it down is there's a lot there and we're not gonna do the whole thing on one shot. And I think people are clamoring for, as Tori pointed out, they're not clamoring for resolvability, but they're clamoring for taking a comment and like slacking it into a thread. So we need to figure that out first, but I wanted to figure out the whole thing, which is sometimes that sounds scary, but figuring, in this case, like figuring out three or four iterations, I think makes sense. So that's number six, custom fields. We talked about last time. I don't think I updated this group and I still have to do in my own list to probably update the MVC so that we do instead of freeform text. So this probably impacts a lot of Sean's comments earlier in the issue or Epic. So instead of doing freeform text as an MVC, but to do like a custom field where you choose a limited number. So you can choose like, my example was like Android or iOS is a custom field for an issue. And you can probably guess why, but one of our customers that I talked to said, freeform text field is useless. You can't search on it. Somebody will, my word somebody will spell iPhone one way and somebody will spell it with like a lowercase P and I get annoyed when people do that. And stuff like that, right? So you can, you won't have anything consistent. So they were saying that if you just have a freeform text field, then I might as well just put that in the description itself and then it's useless. So having custom field should be enumerated what would probably make sense. Or maybe like a number field. But I think probably if we do a number field maybe an enumerated field. So I just wanted to call that out and I definitely need to update that Epic with a discussion. You can see there was a discussion in there about like the database perspective. I mean, we've got some good news is that we can just assume that we'll use Postgres for this. We weren't sure. Right, right. I saw that, that big discussion. So that gives us a bunch of good options. Right. Actually, I think the options don't help us much with the list type, but that's fine. Like, you know, it's good to have that decision made anyway and put it in more detail. So yeah. That sounds good. I wanted to jump on this real real quick from a different perspective. I don't think it has been discussed a little bit, but this problem that we're tackling was actually a very big problem for the HTML5 specification. Because up until then they had like very specific semantics additions. And on HTML5 they introduced microdata which kind of solves this problem. Having extensibility of vocabularies. What they sorted out was that they created this website called schema.org that has like predefined schemas that people can just write, how do I describe a pet? What properties are there on a pet, for example? Right. And then you can have that sort of like consensus in schemas so that what for a platform, sorry, for a project is a platform, for another project is gonna be platform as well. So that you don't have like one, you have platform, the other have system, but they all mean the same thing. Right. So I'm just thinking that there's a big potential of like kind of learning from their experience. And I might jump on this issue later to try to share this there. Because it's more for a UX perspective, Pedro, how we can leverage this into making this an even more powerful feature than just like searching, but more about discoverability and indexing this on the web as well as on the semantic web and stuff. So there is a good potential there, but I just wanted to raise that. We'll talk a little bit more later. But it does sound a very similar problem which is it changed the game for semantic on the web. So sounds good. Yeah, thanks, Andre. Yeah, please do jump in. I will. Confidential comments, pinned comments. Yeah, people have been talking about that. We'll need to do one of them. I don't wanna do confidential description just yet, but again, I have a to-do to continue some conversations that have been ongoing there. So feel free to click through in particular to support the sales team and the product team before we do like hardcore sales force integration, which I think would take more time. But yeah, feel free to look in. The reason I put them together is there's this like weird edge case, if you have a confidential pinned comment, then people who can't see confidential comments won't see the pinned comment. But I talked to Yoba about this and we were like, yeah, it's okay. So, you know, feel free to think about that. Number nine is something. Right, just on that point, sometimes what communities do for this sort of things, like they will put a box there saying that there's a comment there, it's just hidden. And this like, it's a UX challenge. Like for instance, when you delete a comment on a thread or on a conversation, the ones below might have reference to that one. Right, right, right. So if you have this sort of thing, the threaded comments that you mentioned earlier is definitely less so that all the threaded conversation about that confidential comment is confidential as well. Otherwise it would just like leak. So I'm so curious, Andre, the use case you mentioned in other places, is it the same use case as GitLab where our confidentiality is about security? I can only think of two cases, security and like customer slash business strategy, blah, blah, blah, right? So those are the only two use cases for us. Are those the same that you're thinking about? My use case, I was thinking more like on Imager or Reddit when you delete a comment and there's a thread on top of, on thread below it, like it will show deleted comments. Right, right, right. You still have the thread. Okay, okay. It sort of mentions that there was something there that you cannot see now. Right. But the thread is still there if you wanna see it. Oh, okay, okay. The confidentiality was more of a. So UX. If you wanna, more of UX challenge, if we want to reveal that to others who can't see it, just say right, there's something here that you can't see. Sorry, it's confidential. But that makes sense. Thanks. It's a challenge. Yeah. Number nine, I think Sean already responded. It's just one of those really crazy ones. I'm gonna ping you up about this a little bit more, but feel free to take a look there. So that's number one to nine. We talked about other things already. Autocomplete logic. This is getting really crazy as I was writing it up this morning. So instead of just like making people read it if I'm gonna talk about it, I'll just sort of point and click to different things that could happen. So what I'm referring to here is, so this is like, I haven't made this issue. I try to tell people that you can, you don't have to wait for an issue to be complete to share it, but like I definitely need to link to issues here, but there was a couple of issues that came across this week saying like, how should this be populated here? And then how should say for example, this be populated? And then they're both in merge request or in stuff like that. And then there's like this, right? Which is the same thing, I guess. I think it's the same thing. So I don't know if that's, well, I mean, then it's, you can't really assign to a group. So there's a bug slash in UX tech that thingy. You can't? Well, you can't assign to a group, can you? Well, I don't know. With the quick action, I mean, I don't know. I think you can. Can you? I think so, yeah. It will assign everyone from that group. Oh, shit. Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah. So what I'm going to request because you can't have multiple assonies on a merge request, but it will work on an issue. And I think I accidentally did that yesterday somehow because I assigned Andre, Clement, Tim, and somebody else from the front end team somehow. I don't even know which group that was, but clearly I started typing Andre in there. GL managers, FMN, FE managers or something. That was probably the one, yeah. Yeah, I think it definitely makes sense. So just quickly, I'm going to add some feedback to the issue as well. Just quickly, one thing that is worth calling out is that, like I said, in merge requests, you can't have multiple assonies. So you wouldn't be able to, we shouldn't show a group there necessarily. Right. But we should for issues if you're in a GitHub install that does support multiple assonies for issues. So it depends on your license. But I do think it makes sense to include participants in... Right, right, right. Because right now it's kind of weird that if you use a Quick Action, you can assign a participant, like someone who says, I want to contribute this, like they will show up in that dropdown. Right. But you can't assign them from the sidebar. Exactly, exactly. Sidebar, because I always have the sidebar collapsed. Right, right, right. And with a Quick Action, you can assign anybody who's a valid assonie because you can just type it, whereas you can't do it in that assonie dropdown. So there's some wrinkles there, but I think it's definitely good to unify them as much as possible because of the moment that you can only do this from the Quick Action, which is kind of like a power user feature rather than like the main obvious way. Right, right, yeah, I definitely wanted... That's the philosophy I was going for here, Sean. Not necessarily even to prioritize this anytime soon, but just to make sure people are understanding what's missing, and then when we have those crazy issues where people are like... I don't know, when I'm staring at all those technical discussions, first of all, I don't know what's going on. Secondly, I'm worried that people are discussing things that maybe wasn't intentional, wasn't valid, and I don't want to waste everybody's time fixing something that doesn't need to be fixed and stuff like that. So I wanted to have people recognize, like intentionally we're doing certain things. So first of all... This issue is really good because for that other issue that I think you're talking about, nobody knows what it's supposed to do. Right, right, right, yeah. So sometimes I, like, yeah. We know exactly what it does, like we can look at the code and see exactly what it does, but that's why it's intentional. A bunch of changes are like mostly people have tried to keep the same behavior, but it's really hard to figure out why the original behavior was that way. Right, right, yeah. Writing down what it should do is a great step, yeah. That's helpful to confirm that this is not a waste of time. Okay, so because, you know, every time I do one of these, it gets a little bit unwieldy if the scope is too crazy. And I wasn't even thinking of that particular tarot code case that I just did, right? So clearly this is another feature where you can do this from here. But what I wanted to just get clarity and consistency written down, but not necessarily implemented, but is, I think Sean, you brought one case in one of those issues about participants. So those lists here, right? The lists here and then the lists here should include participants at the top because I think that's somewhere in our code for one of those two cases. So there's that crazy issue. So there's these two areas. And then the third area that I've identified, which is also related, at least from a UX perspective, is this area, right? So this is like, it's also autocomplete dropdown. And so like, how does this work? So I just wanted to get that all written down. And so I mentioned, and there was one really interesting issue, a side issue that I'll bring up, which is when somebody leaves GitLab, I don't know if any of you noticed when somebody leaves GitLab, sort of what managers like to do is just assign all those issues back to themself. And so like, Sarah wasn't able to do this because she was trying to do this. And then like, oh my God, it doesn't work, right? But then it does, right? So like, there's an issue somewhere here that addresses that. But basically, there's like three confounding weirdness things here. Number one is that this person is no longer a project member or no longer a member of either the group or the project. So this person doesn't show up in this dropdown, right? But that person can still be assigned to an issue because you can use the quick action. And the fact that that person was previously assigned to the issue, so they're still assigned to the issue. So it seems that the backend and the API above that can still take any assignee, that's fine. But the front end UI doesn't pop that person up. So then that's confusing, right? So then there's like some gap there. So my comment in those issue and the big issue that I just put here, or wherever I put it, says that in the ideal perfect world, whatever updates here should just be like a union of all the assignees of all the issues that can be here. And my guess is that's like super impossible to build because you have to keep track of assignees coming in enough for every single issue in all projects inside that group, which is impossible, right? I think it's, yeah, I don't know if it would be too bad. I think it would be a very long list as part of the problem, especially for the author one, not so much for the assignee one, but for a public project. Authors tend to grow quicker than assignees, right? Because like- Right, right, exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then so- Because only project members can assign issues that anybody can create one. Right, right, right, exactly, you're totally right, Sean. And so, but like I haven't heard anybody complain about this because like this is clear, this is the edge case. But no, that brings up- I'm sure I've seen like an issue somewhere before that mentioned this, but I don't remember it being like a thing people have been like clamoring for, so. Right. Yeah, I was- I think it's definitely come up before, but it's not been like a thing where people have been like, oh my God, how come the labs doesn't have this? Right, right. So that's why I was saying like, oh, we don't have to worry about that right now. But that's like a super nice to have in the future. But I didn't even think about your case, which is more compelling, Sean. Like the case that I just cited is a very rare case, but this is the sort of the open source cases is really obvious because I can't search on anybody else. Like say I have like five friends that we are contributing to Gillette, but we're not members of the group. So then how I can't search on them as an author, but I guess this hasn't come up so far. So, but anyways, so that puts another wrinkle in it. So that's why that issue is attempting to organize those ideas, so which I'll try to finish later. Victor, for that case that you mentioned of Sarah and I being able to get the issues you wanted, do we have any particular issue or thought on improving the removal of a member from a group? Because at that moment we can see that they have stuff assigned and we can propose an action. I don't know, I've never seen that screen and I've never removed someone from a group. So I don't know exactly how it works. I'm pretty sure we already unassigned people when they lose access to a group. So what I mean here is the distinction. So if this was a private group, I am pretty sure Hazel would have been unassigned when she was removed from the group because she would no longer be able to see those issues because Gillette's projects are public and Hazel still can't get lab.com. She can still technically be assigned to those issues. She could just be like a community contributor, right? So that's the distinction there. And I think it would be nice to have an affordance, like some kind of option to unassign those issues at that point, although maybe that belongs more to manage. Or to assign to someone else. But yeah. Yeah, exactly. But the basic feature kind of is there, but it doesn't work for us basically, right? Yeah, but I really like how you're approaching the problem, Andre. Like solving that use case specifically, I don't know if we'll ever build it or if it's our priority, but it totally makes sense. That's when you address the problem. Yeah. Yeah. Like when you're making that action, you should- The both ends are the same problem, but maybe we can improve that. Right. Yeah. But like you said, in terms of priority-wise, it's such an edge case. Yeah, like how, I don't know how many companies prioritize off-boarding flows. Well, unless you're like a high turnover company in which you have probably have other problems already. Yeah. It's like a bunch of contractors or consultants. Okay. It's not super common, but it is a thing that happens, right? Okay. And you are basically- Go ahead. No, I'm just thinking about that. The opposite problem is onboarding, right? So like, I would think most companies in use cases, they're so like, if we have a business, then we're probably gonna have the onboarding people. So let's optimize for that. Let's not optimize for us going out of business, right? Here's the thing that I find interesting is that the onboarding is slow, right? It's a slow uptick of assignments. That's true. But the off-boarding is abrupt and you have like a whole workload to pass. And in terms of experience, you're delighting the existing users, which is the admin. You're not delighting the people that are leaving the group or whatever. You're delighting the ones that are managing that part. There's a lot more. Yeah. No, there's a lot more nuances. New ones. Yeah. That's a good point. And then there's, yeah. And then like, whether it's the consulting thing and then there's that. I know in like really hardcore companies, there's like ridiculous scripts that like you fire somebody essentially, right? In the worst case. And then boom, suddenly they have, they like, I remember like, I've never, have I been fired? Not enough for something that I did bad. I've been let go. But then I remember when I quit companies and like the moment I leave the building, like my phone says like, you no longer have access to the email. Like it's like immediate. Like they flip a switch and then there's probably a script that like Google accounts is like disabled and it's scary. So like I maybe get that from you that awesome one day. So we'll get there. But anyway, so that's that issue. But yeah, feel free to create an issue there, Andre. But that's a really good point. I think managers would appreciate that. So I'll jump into resolvable discussion with 20 minutes left. And so I started creating these issues here and I probably will need to redo them a bit. But my original strategy was to take our existing discussions. So right now when we do discussions we have, we do law and then we can start a discussion. My original thought was that we, the first iteration does not change that functionality and just restyles it in a way that it will look in the future and then introduce this feature and then introduce the resolvability. But it might change a little bit. So I'm just going to start talking and Pedro- What do you mean by the restyling? Restyling as in getting it to look like this here as Tori designed it. Like this before we actually, so still have the ability. Right now, so. That will happen as part of the redesign that is scheduled for the crimp milestone. Right now we're not doing anything for the current milestone. Yeah, it's a really large issue that restyles all of the system notes and comments and discussions. Oh, right, right, right, right. I think, yeah. It already includes this. No, it won't include specifically this case where you have a, so this is what I was going back and forth with you yesterday, Pedro. The case where not, do I want to make hijack this issue and this off Dimitri and confuse him? No, I'd, yeah, let's not do that. No, I'll just create a, I just have dummy issues here. Oh, this is new and a status, that looks nice. So I'll go to one of my issues. I like that, Victor, when you're just walking through the interface here, it's kind of a usability test. You're talking a lot about what you're seeing. I like that. So you can see this is my, obviously, my dummy issues, but you can, right now you can do this. And so this is relevant for everybody else because, oops. So, did I break something? Oh, okay, yeah, so this is fine, right? So this is a one comment discussion, which is a thing in GitLab right now. So inside GitLab, there are standalone comments and one comment discussions, and there's obviously two comment discussions, three comment discussions and so on and so forth. So this is a thing. At a high level, we want to introduce the concept of resolvable discussions and that discussion that you can turn a comment into a discussion thread. So those are the two goals we want to achieve. And so I'm going to start talking and Pedro, just interrupt me because I'm, I think what you're saying is that you want, the difference would be to encourage people to reply by having the reply thingy there, right? Or just an icon that you click if you want to reply. That's the difference, right? Not necessarily, so I'll approach it from a use case perspective first, which is we want to take an existing comment right now and have a discussion thread on it. So that's use case number one, that's the Slack use case really obvious. The other use case is really what Dawey is asking for and saying how we're different from Slack, which I agree, which I really like, which is a directed conversation and then the terminology we're saying is that it needs to be resolved, right? So we're saying that as you have a crazy conversation on a thread, we're saying like, instead of just having general comments and you don't know whether something are done on because you can jump into one of these issues and it goes on forever and then you're like, WTF. So instead of that, let's have directed conversations and then a good UI would be like if it's a resolved conversation, a discussion, then by default, probably it will be collapsed and then for people later on, they don't have to look at it or because the fact that it's collapsed, then you can say, let's move on to the next task. So the structure imposes a best practice and I think that's a good thing. So that's the two high level use cases, right? Like taking a comment and then just breaking into conversation and having a directed conversation. And so then there's more like sub use cases there. So within the having a directed conversation, I can see at least two sub use cases, right? One sub use cases, right? Like Victor says hello one and then Sean says like, that's a great idea, Victor. Let's have a directed conversation on hello one. And then he starts a conversation and says like, now this has to be resolvable and let's talk about it. So that's use case one where Sean takes something I have and latches on to it and turns into a directed conversation. That's sub use case one, sub use case two is I'm inviting somebody to have a directed conversation. So right off the bat, I'm gonna do that. And then there's like sub use case number three, which is something that I think we don't wanna support, but like, you know, we haven't designed this yet, which is can we have a conversation that will not be resolved or can we have a discussion that is not resolvable? And so right now I'm personally not wanting to do that. I think Dawei doesn't wanna do that either, but you know, you have to read through his comments since it's so long ago. He left a comment this morning as well, Mike of mine this morning. But I don't wanna do that because to me that just adds more complexity because you have to have more toggles and you have to change things. So my thinking and design would be you have to make a discussion, all discussions have to be resolvable. So there are during only one of two states either unresolved or resolved and you can't have a third state, which is like it doesn't need resolving. And then if given the case that it can be unresolved and resolved, then there's yet another wrinkle, which is when do you make the discussion or no, no, actually then it becomes the case that if all discussions by default have to be resolved, then you have the moment something, the moment the discussion comes to life, then it must be resolvable, right? And so that's why, so this is where I'm not thinking very top down from a user perspective, just from mechanically from like the components wise. And so from what I think of that perspective, then if you have a standalone comment, it doesn't need to be resolvable, but the moment the standalone comment becomes a discussion, it must be resolvable right away. That's why I was trying to jump through hoops, trying to have all these weird designs, which I think you had definitely better ones, but that was on me, yeah. So everything you said is already considered and is already designed. So that's why I don't. Okay, so I just wanted, yeah, so did every, so do you still agree with, not still do you agree? Yeah, I agree with everything you said. And that's exactly what we've been thinking about doing okay, so months ago. So if that's the case, what's not clear to me, so, but what I was trying to nail down, and so we were having conversations I think on the long issue, well, not really. Yeah, I don't know which issue it was. Yeah, it was this one, it was this one. Okay. So, so first of all, this mockup is incorrect then given, well, it might be correct. So, so if we go with this mockup, then this is a, this second row here. When you first load the, so ignore this dropdown, my interpretation of this mockup would be then, this is a standalone comment and then this is a one comment discussion. Is that your interpretation? This is one comment. Yeah, this is one comment where the author has said that this needs a resolution. Like they've been invited to address this. And we're encouraging, and this is why we display the reply area and like those buttons and everything like that. And on the other one, we don't. Exactly, exactly. So, and I think that's what you were saying, right? Exactly. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to confirm that because it wasn't clear in the mockup, particularly. No, you're correct. Yeah, it's not very clear because it's the same image and you don't understand it. And I don't know if this is like the, like a front end state or the state that when you. Yeah, I see how that can be confusing. And then so if we take these two mockups, which I think the design is perfect, then the subsequent use case is, you have a standalone comment, right? So let me talk about the easy use case. You have a one comment discussion and it's already resolvable. So anybody participating, they cannot change the, they cannot go back in time. They cannot turn it into a standalone comment. So that's why they can only move forward in time, which is they can just keep replying and it just becomes a resolvable or it continues to be a resolvable discussion. The second use case is that you have a standalone comment and if you have a standalone comment, then the original person who created it or anybody else can turn it into a one comment discussion. So can they transition to this stage or are they forced to transition to a two comment discussion? So if I interpret this thing to say make resolvable, if I click that button, then it becomes this thing here. Yes, so if I'm Tim Smith and I just posted the first comment. And I changed my mind. And I change my mind and say, well, actually this is something that I need someone to address. Yeah, I'm the, this is the way I perceive it, that Tim would be the only person that can like click and say make resolvable to show that reply field. But if you're Victor and you look at Tim's comment and you say, well, this is something that we need to discuss. You can click on that little icon to reply. Yep. The speech bubble, yeah. Yeah. And it will turn into the third view there. So if in this case you'd be Aaron. Yeah, it would be Aaron, but then you would get this UI here, right? Which is also Aaron, I think. Yep, you would get this UI minus these two rows, right? So there's some use cases there. So I'm not, yeah, so all I wanted to do, so we should have just chatted instead of me going back and forth on issues. I wanted to clarify that because there's like, there's a couple of edge cases. And for one example, one edge case that I just got from you is that you don't even wanna make this, make resolvable available for everybody. You just wanna make it available for the author of the standalone comments. That's not, yeah, that's not clear exactly. That was something that for me it was implicit and I didn't have the chance to go in and make. Okay, no, no, no, no, no, not a problem. Okay, so yeah, no, what's important is like, what I'm thinking is exactly what everybody's been thinking about the whole time. And then so I'll just put up more issues, I'll take those as existing issues and put together the mockups too. The only thing I wanted to say is that for, so in this issue that I linked in the chat right now, which is scheduled for the current milestone, we would be already changing the design of discussions to be in line with this future resolvability thing. So there, you already see the replies and you can collapse replies and all of that. Okay, no, no, that's good. I didn't see that. Sorry, I have two to run, but Victor, if you comment on the issue, I will see it and we can continue this discussion. But thank you for raising those. Can I just add something like in five seconds, Pedro? So you're here. So the make resolvable to me sounds weird. I think make a discussion, I think it's much better copy. And for the non-author, if you could show that on a hover or whatever, on the actual comment without having to go to the dropdown, just like start a discussion. And that the start of the discussion would basically open the comment box. And if they submit the comment, then it would turn into a discussion. I can see that process being more like straightforward for the people commenting, because they see a comment and they wanna start a thread there. They will do it directly, not go to the dropdown, but like straight up, but not show the complete text area as we showed there. But for the author, definitely it's more of a netted thing. It's more of a transform into a discussion. So Andre, if you look at the comment I linked now in the chat, see what I suggested there, and like the flow, and maybe that could be in line with what you're saying. All right, I'll read it and I'll come up there. Thanks, man. Thank you. See you. All right, that's all I had. I'm comfortable there. Anything else from the remaining four people here? I just wanted to share, Victor, that the front-end team has now started working with boards more, and like each front-end group now has their own boards and they're like a full-grown global front-end board. So it's more of appreciation and thank you for all the effort that we're doing on the board side, because it's... Well, your team is making it not me, right? I don't know, but I mean, because we're recognizing the value of the boards. Yeah, no, that's good feedback. Appreciate it. It's spreading, it's spreading. We'll get there, we'll get there, yeah. That's it, I don't have anything else. That's good feedback, thank you. All right, I will let you folks go and talk to you next time.