19:58:46 #startmeeting anti-censorship checkin 2019/02/07 19:58:46 Meeting started Thu Feb 7 19:58:46 2019 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:58:46 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:58:49 hello everyone! 19:58:51 o/ 19:59:00 our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-censorship-2019-keep 19:59:18 let's do updates from what we have been into last week and what we are doing this week and if we need help with anything from other people/teams :-) 19:59:33 oh crap didn't fill that one :S 19:59:48 and everybody should say hi to cohosh if they haven't already! she recently joined our new anti-censorship team \o/ 19:59:56 * cohosh waves 20:00:02 dgoulet: it's okay, we are not like the network team yet with filling it out pre-meeting 20:01:22 dgoulet: yay with the bridgedb stuff! 20:01:36 Hi cohosh! 20:01:56 Hi kat5! 20:02:46 dgoulet: thanks for doing the documentation for that 20:03:14 dcf1, _hc: are you two joining us today? 20:03:28 i'm here 20:03:46 i updated the pad already for me 20:03:51 cool! 20:05:42 okay, we have two discussion points today on the list today, feel free to put more content on 20:05:54 the first one is a status update from our meeting in brussels last week 20:06:15 hey 20:06:19 hi! 20:06:23 we spend a day or so trying to come up with an initial roadmap for tor's anti-censorship team. we looked at both some new tickets and some tickets already in the tracker 20:06:27 o/ gaba! 20:06:42 and we have created quite a few tickets, all added under the sponsor 'sponsor19' 20:06:50 * Samdney lurks .... 20:07:06 some of the descriptions might be a big vague, so feel free to add a comment to them if you are confused, or think this might be duplicate work or something entirely different 20:08:00 we have tried to do estimations on how much time some of the tickets are going to take using tor's "normal" point-system where 1 point = developer day of work =~ 8 hours 20:08:10 and 0.n points is n hours of work 20:08:32 we have historically managed to hit these values sometimes with the network team and sometimes not, but i guess we'll learn as we move forward :-) 20:09:01 one of the big topics we had in brussels was also around how we are going to start the team workflow now that we actually have team members, but let's take that afterwards 20:09:16 and also how we can help other PT's with the problems they are having, for example help out if there is problems with obfs4 20:09:47 gaba, cohosh: anything missed out in the above wall of text? or anything we should add? 20:10:20 that's a good summary 20:10:25 it seems fine to me. I'm mentioning in my update that I will be digitalizing all the stuff from last week into its own roadmaps. 20:10:52 cool, that is probably something we should walk over next week then, and maybe try to get dcf1's snowflake work onto our roadmap too so we can keep track of that too? 20:10:54 i'd just add that in the beginning there will be some investigations into what is currently working and the result of those might change the roadmap a bit 20:11:00 thanks ahf! 20:11:09 yes 20:11:15 cohosh: yeah, good point 20:12:05 kat5: anything around the above where we can help you with your tasks or does it even impact your current tasks? 20:12:09 anybody has something to ask about this? 20:12:52 ahf: I've been going through the new tickets to see what can be integrated into report 2. 20:12:59 That will continue this week. 20:13:17 cool, please ask away if we have forgotten something or are being vague :-) 20:13:19 I think I've already helped with clarifying some things, linking to other tickets, etc. 20:13:29 cool! 20:13:43 great! 20:13:48 I have broader q about report 2. 20:14:03 When should we consider reviewing it and sending it off to the sponsor? 20:14:21 that's a good question. do we have a date from the sponsor? 20:14:30 We still need to look at the plans for each part of the reports. We do not have a date for the sponsor 20:14:31 No, it's pretty loose. 20:14:31 i don't know the answer to that :-/ 20:14:52 okay, so whenever there is something we should review i think we should prioritize that 20:14:54 Okay, well lets keep it in mind. 20:15:52 oh, yeah, another thing about the brussels meeting: dgoulet is going to be working on shining up bridgedb and solve some of the many bugs that have piled up over the years and catalyst will continue their work from sponsor 8 with bootstrap enhancements in little-t-tor 20:15:55 I'm away Feb 16-23, so maybe getting it out for review before I go would be good. 20:16:00 sorry if this is a redundant question: what is the general theme for report 2? 20:16:05 kat5: yeah, good idea 20:16:22 kat5: is there already content in the git repository? 20:16:25 It's a summary of all of the things we plan to do. 20:16:32 ok thanks! 20:16:38 ahf: Yes. 20:16:46 cool, gonna check that out tonight 20:16:54 Up to the stuff I added just before the BRU meeting. 20:17:16 neat 20:17:49 gaba: we should probably make sure cohosh have access to that repo if she doesn't have it already 20:18:01 i guess roger can help with that 20:18:45 should we move to the snowflake workflow discussion or does anybody have more things to talk about regarding the brussels week? 20:19:50 okay, i take that as we are safe to move on 20:20:41 yes, sorry my connection stopped 20:20:49 i was going to say to wait for phillip to the final review 20:21:04 we have talked a bit about what we should do with regards to snowflake workflow. right now the plan is to let dcf1 review things we do and that will probably be fine in the beginning, but i think we should aim at moving to a model where we over time makes it such that more people can do reviews for each other 20:21:08 and yes to cohosh to have access to the repo 20:21:17 and we all working on it. i need to make some comments on it 20:21:27 we were waiting for brussels to happen to add some plans 20:21:29 such that cohosh, phw, and i can also do reviews when we have a better feeling with the code there 20:21:36 kat5: i can talk with you later about it 20:21:42 yes ahf! +1 20:22:19 what is your thoughts on this, dcf1? 20:22:35 gaba: we should wait with report until phw starts? 20:22:43 it sounds all right to me. 20:22:45 for the final review and to send to sponsor 20:22:54 that seems to be far into the future though if we are currently thinking of a deadline of before 16th of february? 20:23:04 mmm, february 16th? 20:23:12 070219 21:17:44 + kat5: I'm away Feb 16-23, so maybe getting it out for review before I go would be good. 20:23:23 ah 20:23:27 I would love to have other people engaged in reviewing code, and I can look at others' contributions. 20:23:40 great dcf11! 20:23:54 dcf1: another thing: the tor sysadmin team is currently expanding and one of the things they'd like to try out is to have a gitlab instance for tor related projects on because a lot of people are tired of trac 20:24:02 let's add your stuff to the roadmap and see how to collaborate with code reviews 20:24:03 and a lot of people also understand some of the problems with just putting everything on github 20:24:45 do you think snowflake would be OK as a project to try out with using a more gitlab-centric workflow for? or do you think we should stick with trac/git.tpo ? the timeframe for this is more than a month into the future, i think 20:24:47 I don't have an objection to moving repos around, if it helps people work together. 20:24:53 awesome 20:25:03 okay, very cool 20:25:04 +1 20:25:13 we might do the same with other "smaller" tpo projects 20:25:25 to build up some experience with this in the org 20:25:47 gaba, cohosh: anything to add here? my list is empty now :-) 20:25:47 I'm okay with Tor Project taking the lead on decisions like this and building a roadmap, though of course it's nice to be consulted. 20:25:48 do you know the timeline for the sysadmin team's work on that? 20:26:11 i don't have anything else 20:26:13 dcf1: we are going to consult you a lot with this, you have so much knowledge in this space :-) 20:26:29 yes absolutely, and thank you for all the input so far 20:26:33 this meetings can be a place to check on the roadmap when we have it on the way 20:27:05 we are going to try to be a bit more product oriented with our roadmap around snowflake (which is different from the network team where we are more roadmapping for the entire team) so we should be able to handle other people's work in that roadmap too IMO 20:27:11 gaba: yep 20:27:43 cool. i don't think i have anything else for this meeting 20:27:49 anybody else? 20:27:49 yes, anybody else? 20:27:54 hehe :) 20:27:56 :-D 20:28:14 I'm looking for quick review on #29308 and hopefully somewhat detailed review on #29077. 20:28:34 cohosh: should we take one of these each? 20:28:43 dgoulet: is there any possiblity of including dcf1 on reviews for anti-censorship? 20:28:45 #29308 is snowflake-related, I don't think it will cause problems, I just want there to be awareness from other devs. 20:28:59 sure sounds good 20:29:00 gaba: sure 20:29:04 otherwise we can just talk about code reviews in this weekly meetings and coordiante here 20:29:07 ahh, ok 20:29:13 cohosh: which one of them do you want? i'm fine with either 20:29:32 Well, these aren't exactly 50/50 tasks :) 20:29:34 i've been poking at the snowflake infra so i'll take #29308 20:29:40 but yeah as dcf said 20:29:45 #29308 is 2 minutes for "yes okay" 20:29:48 cool, i'll look at the uTLS one, that looked interesting 20:29:52 yeah 20:30:09 Okay I appreciate it. 20:30:10 i'm also okay with either if it's long or you want another review 20:30:52 i've marked us as reviewers on trac 20:31:11 cool! anything else? 20:31:32 ok people, thanks! o/ 20:31:38 Byeee! 20:31:40 \o/ 20:31:41 bye! 20:31:44 #29077 is slightly tricky code integrating uTLS, plus new proxy code. I'm mainly looking for someone to ask questions like "why did you do it this way?" because that's potentially a sign of bugs. 20:31:57 thanks people 20:32:10 yeah, i'm probably going to ask a ton of questions. gonna try to look at it tomorrow morning 20:32:15 danish time 20:32:37 cool, i'll end the meeting. thanks everyone! 20:32:47 see you all on irc and otherwise next meeting in a week :-) 20:32:50 #endmeeting