16:59:55 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, 10 July 2017
16:59:55 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jul 10 16:59:55 2017 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:55 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:57 <nickm> Hi all!
17:00:24 <nickm> Pad is at http://5jp7xtmox6jyoqd5.onion/p/qC5rG66LhZNr and http://pad.riseup.net/p/qC5rG66LhZNr as noted above
17:00:29 <nickm> (thanks, pastly. thanks, teor)
17:00:34 <ahf> hello, hello
17:00:36 <nickm> isis, isabela: any updates this week?
17:01:45 <haxxpop> hello !
17:01:48 <nickm> hihi
17:02:13 <nickm> asn, dgoulet, ahf, catalyst, pastly, isis, isabela, Yawning: also hello!
17:02:18 <dgoulet> hello
17:02:30 <pastly> bloop
17:03:12 <ahf> is PETS talks recorded and made available online?
17:03:31 <nickm> They have been trying; I don't know if they plan to try this year or not.
17:03:37 <ahf> ok
17:03:38 <nickm> the papers are all free online
17:03:52 <ahf> yep
17:03:59 <nickm> I usually try to livetweet the ones I understand so that I pay attention to the presentations
17:04:10 <ahf> oh, cool.  are you going there?
17:04:16 <nickm> yep!
17:04:21 <ahf> cool, cool
17:04:34 * isabela here
17:04:36 <nickm> that's one of the announcements: PETS is next week and a bunch of people (including me) will be there, so expect distractions!
17:04:37 <isabela> sorry for being late
17:04:41 <nickm> np
17:04:56 <isis> o/
17:05:32 <isis> good morning, i am still booting up
17:06:08 <dgoulet> oh wow armadev's talk at Defcon is July 28th! oh dear, 18 days for a "workable prop224" branch :)
17:06:50 <nickm> dgoulet: probably best to remind him to emphasize "first draft, please help review and find bugs"
17:06:59 <dgoulet> indeed
17:07:21 <dgoulet> still much work client side... I might do this strategy where I go offline for a couple of days at some point..
17:07:31 <dgoulet> probably next week with PETS is ideal eheh
17:08:29 <nickm> isabela, hiro: In trac, is there a way to add more sponsors? We really ought to start tagging 032 tickets correctly
17:08:45 <hiro> I think it is in the trac config
17:08:51 <hiro> nickm
17:08:56 <dgoulet> it is yeah trac.ini
17:08:57 <nickm> ok. I don't know how to access that
17:09:06 <hiro> I can do that
17:09:15 <nickm> Cool
17:09:23 <hiro> how is this sponsor called?
17:09:38 <nickm> We need to make sure we have M, Q, V, 2, 3, 4, R, and 8.
17:09:43 <nickm> Some of those are already in; some are not.
17:09:46 <hiro> ok
17:09:49 <hiro> let me have a look
17:09:52 <nickm> thanks!
17:10:10 <nickm> I think we've been doing well with code review and stuff over the last week or two
17:10:27 <isabela> nickm: yes is on config
17:10:54 <nickm> hiro: also, we should have sponsorFoo-must and sponsorFoo-can, I believe.  Unless isabela disagrees
17:10:58 <nickm> for all foo in the list above
17:11:05 <nickm> but the must/can distinction has been important
17:11:36 <isabela> nickm: if you still want to use that is ok with me
17:11:47 <nickm> ok.  hiro ^
17:13:29 <nickm> pastly: tried to answer your question about what to base things on
17:14:02 <pastly> nickm: thanks. and thanks for the gentle RTFM
17:14:11 <nickm> well, it's "read or fix" :)
17:14:18 <nickm> I can't guarantee it's in there... only that it _should be_
17:14:33 <nickm> Perhaps the R stands for "read"; perhaps it stands for "revise" :)
17:14:40 <pastly> ;) I'll look
17:14:56 <catalyst> GettingStarted.md, but it could use some more explanation, e.g., "release-* will have ChangeLog conflicts galore"
17:15:18 <nickm> "and tor-x.y.z is based on the release branch, so you will have the same issues."
17:16:00 <pastly> I'll open a ticket and use my shiny new gitweb branch again
17:16:13 <pastly> ^branch^repo
17:18:15 <nickm> isis: you ask about priorities. I don't have anything that takes precedence over the moat/hyphae stuff, but I have a suggestion that you try to keep your hand in core-tor dev too by writing little patches, reviewing stuff, etc
17:18:29 <nickm> how long do you expect to be focused on those?
17:18:52 <nickm> ahf: wrt making data presentable, maybe just send isabela what you have and ask her what cleaning it needs if any?
17:19:17 <nickm> reports don't usually need to be super beautiful; the spreadsheet you have right now may be perfectly fine.
17:19:39 <isis> nickm: my tentative plan was to spend ~50% time on it over the next 6 weeks or so (probably shorter though)
17:19:45 <ahf> nickm: yep, that is probably easiest - it was more the different bugs really. usually a lot of bugs are solved when land a patch to a repo. where should this data go for me to close the tickets, etc. ?
17:19:48 <nickm> isis: sounds fine
17:19:52 <isis> and then use the rest of my time on core tor
17:20:03 <ahf> just in a repo and a link on the ticket and let you/someone else review it and say OK and we can close the ticket if things looks good?
17:20:14 <nickm> ahf: put it online anywhere permanent with a link from the ticket?
17:20:16 <nickm> that should be fine
17:20:17 <isabela> isis: the priority i have is the moat api for tor browser people to be able to use it in august
17:20:21 <ahf> ack, i'll do that
17:20:22 <ahf> thanks
17:21:24 <nickm> catalyst: would you like collab on any of the stuff you've listed for this week?  And what's your plan for when & how to do a #20532 fix?
17:21:38 <isis> isabela: okay, that is totally doable
17:21:51 <isabela> great
17:21:56 <isabela> tx
17:22:16 <nickm> asn, dgoulet: I think your highest priority for me to review is #21979. Is that correct?
17:22:24 <nickm> Or should I prioritize #22810?
17:22:25 <nickm> or both?
17:23:04 <catalyst> nickm: i'll try to get both a unit test and a chutney-based integration test for the bug. it'll also be useful to do experiments on the "PT bridge published in consensus" possible bypass if we can find a relay op who's able and willing
17:23:29 <nickm> sounds good; and what's the plan for the fix?
17:23:40 <nickm> that is, which approach do you think we should take, targetting which release series?
17:24:20 <dgoulet> nickm: #21979 is *the* priority in terms of review
17:24:27 <dgoulet> nickm: #22810 can wait
17:24:27 <nickm> ack; ty
17:25:24 <hiro> nickm done
17:25:32 <nickm> (and does anyone else have questions for anyone else or should we move on to discussion?
17:25:53 <nickm> hiro: thank you!!
17:26:50 <catalyst> nickm: long-term fix is probably along the lines of #22739. shorter term it's tricky to think of a safe relatively non-invasive fix (targeted at 0.3.1 and earlier supported releases?) but i'm still looking into it
17:27:00 <nickm> ok, makes sense
17:27:10 <nickm> please keep me posted and feel free to think aloud here
17:27:28 <nickm> So, who's going to PETS this year?
17:27:40 <nickm> I am; armadev is; anyone else?
17:27:52 <mikeperry> I am
17:27:58 <nickm> cool
17:27:59 <isabela> me too
17:28:18 <nickm> nifty!
17:28:20 <pastly> I'm not :/
17:28:23 <nickm> :(
17:28:43 <dawuud> i'm going to PETS!
17:28:53 <nickm> dawuud: wooooo!
17:29:03 <dawuud> so exciting
17:29:08 <nickm> so wrt discussion stuff in the pad -- I'm going to try to sort in roughly order of "how easy I think the discussion will be
17:29:40 <isis> isabela: #22871
17:29:45 <isabela> cool
17:29:45 <nickm> the first two listed topics are ones where somebody says "i don't think we actually need to talk about it this time"
17:30:15 <isis> i am not going to PETS :'(
17:30:25 <nickm> awww
17:30:35 <isabela> (me just added a talking point sorry I almost forgot it!!)
17:30:45 <nickm> isabela: I moved it up since I think it's easier than some other stuff
17:30:59 <isabela> hehe ok
17:31:08 <nickm> One easy question I have is about putting sponsorX-Can and sponsorX-must on some of the tickets for 0.3.2.x
17:31:18 <nickm> My first thought was to try to do it all myself, tag-assisted
17:31:22 <isabela> X?
17:31:33 <nickm> let X be a variable
17:31:37 <isabela> ok :)
17:31:53 <nickm> but maybe it would make more sense for somebody who's focusing on each area to do that
17:32:05 <nickm> or to collaborate
17:32:10 <nickm> any thoughts here?
17:32:37 <nickm> (I am almost done with triaging "tor: unspecified" but maybe I should take a breather)
17:34:12 <nickm> any thoughts on the right move there?
17:34:21 <nickm> anybody really want to allocate tickets for some particular sponsor?
17:34:29 <nickm> or would everybody rather spend the time programming? :)
17:34:33 <nickm> I can't blame you if so
17:34:55 <catalyst> is it a single-value field?
17:35:02 <nickm> yes
17:35:22 <nickm> Generally we use "SponsorFoo-can" for "if we do this, it is work for sponsorFoo"
17:35:38 <catalyst> what's unadorned "sponsorFoo" mean then?
17:35:42 <nickm> and "SponsorFoo-must" for "We need to do this as a deliverable or part of a deliverable for sponsorfoo"
17:36:00 <nickm> one of two things: either it seems related but we haven't figured it out...
17:36:11 <nickm> ... or it is from a team that doesn't use the must/can distinction as much as we do
17:36:52 <nickm> In the past, we didn't distinguish.  But confusing "can" and "must" led to some pretty stressful situations.
17:38:22 <nickm> ok, it sounds like this one is on me :/
17:38:31 <nickm> next, any questions on the time allocation stuf?
17:38:41 <nickm> or did we sort that all out over email?
17:39:05 <nickm> isabela: what are your questions about NSF reports?
17:39:14 <catalyst> nickm: maybe people who are allocated to a sponsor should incrementally tag the tickets they're working on?
17:39:26 <nickm> that also sounds good
17:39:42 <nickm> and maybe if you're allocated to a sponsor, you can look over tickets and see if there's anything that _should_ be allocated to that sponsor, perhaps?
17:39:58 <isabela> nickm: i need to collect information about work done on each nsf project - can be bullet points and tickets numbers / I have instructions from armadev for this work
17:40:17 <catalyst> nickm: that kind of requires scanning the ticket timeline wholesale (i already do that but probably miss some stuff here and there)
17:40:21 <isabela> nickm: we should be sending this out to the professors of each nsf contract so they can use this info on the anual report
17:40:47 <nickm> catalyst: right; I think that's probably more of a "skim" than a "do it carefully and meticulously"
17:40:48 <isabela> yearly
17:40:51 <isabela> argh
17:40:58 <isabela> anual is PT
17:41:16 <nickm> isabela: ok. Who needs to do what in order to make this happen on our side?
17:41:27 <isabela> i will email the list with that
17:41:29 <isabela> might be easier
17:41:35 <nickm> ok. When do you need this by?
17:41:52 <isabela> just want people to know that this is something i would hope folks prioritize, to help me with it
17:42:03 <nickm> ack
17:42:23 <nickm> so it sounds like  "asap so that we can iterate" is the "when to do this by"?
17:42:26 <isabela> the report deadline is end of august but we need to get this to the professors in time for them to write it, so I would say would be great to do it in a 2 weeks timeframe tops
17:42:35 <isabela> i will initiate the process today
17:42:45 <isabela> cool?
17:42:49 <nickm> ok. let's try to do it on the early side, especially wrt PETS happening nex tweek
17:42:52 <nickm> *next week
17:42:55 <nickm> cool with me
17:43:09 <nickm> last topic is bridge/PT point-of-contact.  David, any thoughts there?
17:43:23 <nickm> I know you sent or were sending another email...
17:43:24 <nickm> dgoulet: ^
17:43:24 <dgoulet> I have yet summarize the thread... it's on my stack!
17:43:38 <dgoulet> I should be able to take time this week about it
17:43:43 <nickm> sounds great
17:43:48 <dgoulet> and maybe let isabela a chance to respond if she wants to
17:44:04 <nickm> dgoulet: I've added it to your "this week" list
17:44:11 <dgoulet> ok
17:44:52 <nickm> isabela: I've also added the thing you talked about above to your this-week list
17:45:03 <isabela> nickm: tx
17:45:04 <nickm> I think that's everything I know about
17:45:16 <nickm> anything else for this meeting?
17:45:17 <isabela> dgoulet: i do have that on my this week
17:45:26 <dgoulet> oki
17:45:39 * dgoulet is good
17:45:49 <nickm> also please remember, ping me or isabela or anybody on the team any time we can be helpful to you, or there's something you're not sure about.  This is a great bunch of folks. :)
17:45:50 <ahf> i might be a bit on/off when it comes to online on friday. i'll be working from .nl there since i'm going to hackon in the weekend
17:45:58 <ahf> i hope they have wifi in .nl!
17:46:02 <isabela> nickm: ha i had 'nsf reports!' on it hehe but is ok i keep yours too
17:46:02 <nickm> ahf: not to worry; enjoy .nl!
17:46:14 * nickm counts to 20 then #endmeetings
17:46:18 <ahf> will do! :-)
17:46:36 <nickm> #endmeeting