15:29:19 <nickm> #startmeeting sponsor8 status discussion
15:29:19 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Dec 11 15:29:19 2017 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:29:19 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:29:21 <isabela> thanks everyone
15:29:36 <isabela> i just wanted to do a quick check in on sponsor8 activities
15:29:43 <isabela> for Q4
15:29:54 * ahf nods
15:30:04 <nickm> ack
15:30:10 <isabela> maybe we can ping tickets we have going per activity ?
15:30:18 <isabela> is that easy or
15:30:30 <nickm> not sure
15:30:35 <isabela> ok
15:31:00 <nickm> ahf and I have have been doing a bunch of performance analysis; i'v edone some prelim cpu hacking and work on mobile API improvement
15:31:01 <isabela> i also would like to know if any information from those surveys became tickets
15:31:02 <ahf> i don't have an overview if everything has tickets, but we could start with that?
15:31:22 <ahf> isabela: i haven't created any tickets based on the surveys
15:31:31 <isabela> i know #23684 is a request from OONI and will be helpful for all apps
15:31:50 <ahf> some of them (the ones from the ooni meeting in montreal) had a lot of overlap with the survey info and there was created tickets for that
15:32:03 <ahf> and nickm closed some of them already with patches
15:32:04 <isabela> ok
15:32:24 <catalyst> started tagging some bootstrap/error reporting tickets as s8-errors
15:32:27 <nickm> that stuff is mostly done, except for the hard parts
15:32:32 <nickm> the hard parts being #23847
15:33:19 <ahf> i have one question for some point in the meeting: the sponsor8-can usage on trac and promotion of that to either something else or "sponsor8"
15:34:01 <isabela> ahf: yes
15:34:24 <isabela> (i am organizing queries for the acitivities tickets so we can look at them)
15:35:23 <ahf> ok!
15:35:27 <nickm> isabela: since you only have a little time, please let us know if that's something we should do instead.
15:36:20 <isabela> nickm: i am trying to understand what we have done on Q4 under each activity
15:36:21 <ahf> the "Build plan for improvements to Tor for integration on iOS, Android" item on the roadmap is pretty big and involves a lot of people
15:36:23 <isabela> just a collection of tickets
15:36:39 <isabela> also
15:36:54 <nickm> ok, so you'd like a ticket list for each activity for the things we did, and the things we made progress on?
15:37:31 <isabela> yes, that is what i am looking for as and know how you all feel about tit
15:37:33 <isabela> *it
15:38:02 <isabela> like if you think less work was done under y as you would like to because x
15:38:05 <ahf> do you want that during this meeting or after? i'll look through my meetings.txt file then and structure it somehow
15:38:05 <isabela> any redflags
15:38:44 <isabela> ahf: can be after if ppl prefer
15:39:37 <nickm> so I think we're making fair progress on the performance analysis and on the API improvements
15:39:53 <nickm> I don't know how we're doing on the wakeup-reduction (that's more where ahf has been paying attention)
15:39:56 <ahf> i think right now we have all the tooling in shape for the platform, we have good understanding on some of the performance issues there, one things that is missing there is being able to reproduce the results in a good way. nickm did some patches to #24374 that i haven't managed to prove yet is an enhancement or not
15:40:08 <nickm> and I don't know how we're doing on the better error reporting (where catalyst has been working)
15:40:11 <ahf> that is one thing is that missing that i aim at doing this week since it's rather important
15:41:23 <catalyst> i think the wording we used for the error reporting part of the proposal doesn't make for easy reporting. IMHO the major UX issues related to error conditions have to do with hangs rather than explicit errors
15:41:43 <catalyst> (except the ones where tor doesn't get far enough for Tor Launcher to start capturing logs)
15:42:02 <nickm> I _believe_ we have the freedom to do the right thing on these activities rather than doing the exact letter of the item
15:42:05 <nickm> isabela: ?
15:42:08 <ahf> then i've been looking into the event loop usage (what we call wakeups) and have a semi-working patch that probably should go in so we can start having it run by more people too if they find it useful
15:42:18 <isabela> nickm: more or less
15:42:53 <isabela> nickm: we do have indicators we are using to measure the work and a timeline of work, which we can modify but if we do we need to explain why etc
15:43:05 <ahf> sorry, freedom to do what? :o
15:43:11 <ahf> ohh, never mind
15:43:12 <isabela> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFcnYfHe7puIYzyzVxzftWlDiDixz4cRrZO6pb_XV0U/edit#gid=1655282830
15:43:14 <catalyst> some stuff is catalogued at #23508 but i should make it more complete
15:43:25 <isabela> this is the timeline we organized the work we will do
15:43:45 <isabela> this would be about months 3, 4 and 5
15:43:52 <isabela> rows 10, 11 and 12
15:44:58 <isabela> and we have indicators we picked to reported on
15:45:14 <isabela> for some of them we are just building baseline for now
15:45:21 <isabela> like the network speed tests
15:45:23 <ahf> the network speed test tests with shadow isn't something i've looked much into, that part is missing.  i did get introduced to shadow and how to use it during the montreal meeting, but haven't setup in "experiments" in it
15:47:23 <nickm> catalyst: how are we doing wrt actually making improvements on this stuff?
15:47:29 <isabela> ahf: the fact you learned about it is something to report because is a necessary step since you didn't know much abot it
15:47:58 <ahf> yes, agreed. even submitted some patches to it :-P
15:48:46 <catalyst> nickm: going slowly unfortunately. consensus, nodelist, and guard stuff is really hard to read. if someone has a summary of the large number of tickets being worked on about guard stuff that would be helpful
15:48:56 <ahf> i'm unsure what we want to test here. testing network speed tests with shadow seems a bit odd to me? have we done this historically before with some sponsors, or?
15:49:52 <isabela> ahf: stability and stress testing?
15:50:22 <isabela> rown 11 column D
15:50:24 <ahf> yes, but never for network performance, right?
15:50:25 <isabela> on the timeline
15:50:31 * ahf looks
15:50:45 <isabela> do you want me to get the doc
15:50:53 <isabela> with the description of that activity?
15:50:53 <ahf> no no, have it in front of me
15:51:14 <nickm> catalyst: hm. do you think you have a set of question about "where does X happen" and "where do we decide to Z" and "how do we test if Y" and stuff like that?  I can dig that up pretty easily
15:51:19 <ahf> it's DRL_modularization_new_narrative_doc ?
15:51:29 <ahf> or is it an older version of the doc?
15:51:31 <nickm> the guard changes most recently are described in guard-spec.txt
15:51:38 <nickm> but the pending tickets, less so
15:51:48 <isabela> ahf: oh that is just about modularization not sponsor8
15:51:58 <isabela> ahf: let me get that for you
15:52:01 <ahf> ok, yes please
15:52:02 <catalyst> were the recent tickets due to us not implementing the spec, or side effects of the spec?
15:52:08 <ahf> i see that this document is way shorter than the one i was looking for
15:52:39 <nickm> the ones teor has been working on?  I think those are the results of interactions of that spec with other stuff; I haven't seen any spec violations there yet.
15:53:18 <catalyst> i think it would help to instrument guard state stuff, possibly via control channel
15:54:34 <catalyst> also i'll start cataloguing what things require a reasonably live consensus vs a live one, since it seems we don't really have such a thing
15:56:21 <ahf> isabela: i found it on print now - it's from the time around the wilmington meeting though
15:58:02 <nickm> catalyst: let's make sure we have a plan to have that start producing code changes on a not-too-long timeline though?
15:58:12 <isabela> ahf: sorry my computer is so slow
15:58:14 <ahf> which Ox.y is column d row 11?
15:58:23 <isabela> i got a new one but i didnt had time to set it up for this trip
15:59:43 <catalyst> nickm: probably soonest feasible change is fixing or making progress on #2878
15:59:53 <nickm> catalyst: that would be something
16:00:09 <nickm> isabela: where/how would you like us to collect these tickets?
16:01:00 <isabela> let me get a pad
16:01:56 <isabela> https://storm.torproject.org/shared/nlBIFCxM3P-Lcl_VkFSuyjRA6nY6vmeMoFmC7HMknPL
16:03:16 <isabela> btw
16:03:17 <ahf> do you want sort of the same kind of style that we use for the network team meeting just where we should assume that the person reading it isn't very used to internal tor lingo?
16:03:17 <isabela> this one
16:03:18 <isabela> https://storm.torproject.org/shared/2FBa-H0I6_A1VNy9Jc_RzvdT-PpvlfWNCHsRXrN39GA
16:03:26 <isabela> has the keywords etc
16:03:29 <isabela> we said we will use
16:04:32 <ahf> the only place there where i see stress mentioned is under 2.4.1, which is for orfox?
16:06:24 <isabela> ahf: i guess the writer got a bit confused
16:06:36 <isabela> becasue she was writing about orfox and network work
16:06:55 <isabela> and the example was that crashing an app can drain the battery
16:07:14 <isabela> We will seek to optimize the The Tor Network controller interface, which manages how the network establishes connections and circuits. to reduce both the overhead in browser requests to the Tor network and the amount of time the browser appears to be unresponsive after user actions.
16:07:24 <ahf> ok,which document should we follow though?
16:07:49 <isabela> this is the same text
16:08:43 <ahf> i have not done any work around that :o
16:11:32 * isabela is trying to paste
16:11:41 <isabela> some text from the narrative
16:11:48 <isabela> sorry if that pad is confusing
16:13:04 <isabela> ok
16:13:59 <nickm> okkay.  So we should fill this in with ticket numbers and status info, some time today?
16:14:06 <isabela> ahf: see that shadown is related to 2.3 -to test proposed network circuit changes
16:14:12 <nickm> (not trying to rush, but assuming isabela is about to get on a plane
16:14:13 <nickm> )
16:14:21 <isabela> yes i will have to go now
16:14:26 <ahf> ok!
16:14:28 <isabela> so no need of doing it today
16:14:37 <isabela> i just wanted to bring this to you as a check in
16:14:44 <ahf> i've noted down the following: we need to figure out the situation around stress/testing (2.4.1) and what we want to do with shadow
16:14:50 <ahf> and that we should write in the Q4 work in the pad
16:14:51 <isabela> before the quarter is over and we could assess where things were
16:15:16 <isabela> ahf: look at the text for 2.3 re:shadow
16:15:26 <catalyst> could we clarify which are calendar quarters and which are grant year quarters? they look like they might be different?
16:15:35 <isabela> catalyst
16:15:47 <isabela> just work as normal year quarter
16:15:53 <catalyst> ok thanks
16:16:01 <isabela> like Q42017 == oct,nov,dec
16:16:19 <isabela> that is why i am doing this check in now in december
16:16:31 <isabela> i need to run now
16:16:44 <isabela> sorry folks i wanted to do it today because i will be on mozilla all hands all week
16:16:48 <ahf> the timeline doc we have still uses the relative-to-the-proposal quarter values
16:16:50 <isabela> and next week is the last week of the month
16:16:59 <isabela> ahf: yes
16:16:59 <ahf> it's cool! it was good to do a catch up on this
16:17:05 <ahf> have a safe trip isabela
16:17:36 <isabela> thanks folks write questions you might have related to the proposal etc
16:17:44 <isabela> on that pad and i will catch up with it too
16:17:48 <ahf> cool
16:17:59 <isabela> thanks!
16:18:04 <isabela> i will run now bbl
16:18:10 <isabela> nickm: you an end the bot too :) thanks
16:19:58 <nickm> #endmeeting thanks everybody!