15:58:57 #startmeeting metrics team 15:58:57 Meeting started Thu Feb 21 15:58:57 2019 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:58:57 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:59:28 let's start. 15:59:37 Roadmap: ​https://storm.torproject.org/shared/TsgBadLSfM8uh_aftPjxmR_rm0a8E-4UQ2HEa_l0DHv 15:59:56 irl: gaba and I moved around some things last week. 16:00:22 ok 16:00:34 and we found these meetings to be a good time for moving things and then not touching them until the week after. 16:00:41 like a plan for the week. 16:00:46 sounds good 16:00:53 we created a column with issues we didn't recognize 16:00:56 to discuss 16:01:00 in this meeting 16:01:06 right, and that. 16:01:23 should we start with in progress? 16:01:31 yes 16:01:45 ok. so the first is what I have been working on. 16:01:54 I'd like to discuss that in more detail later today. 16:02:03 for now it's still in progress. 16:02:16 the next is irl's. 16:02:20 we estimated 3 points for yours karsten 16:02:24 how many points has it been so far? 16:02:39 3 points == 1.5 weeks, right? 16:02:47 1-1.5 weeks ish 16:02:47 3 points are 3 days 16:02:49 1 week 16:03:24 6 points so far? 16:03:34 oh dear 16:03:35 which is why we'll have to talk about doing more. 16:03:39 ok 16:03:40 ok 16:04:11 but let's talk about that in a bit. 16:04:18 if that's okay? 16:04:22 yeah 16:04:37 ok. so your item has the last remaining report in it. 16:04:43 yes 16:04:48 the collector prototype already has a report. 16:04:59 it is the codebase overviews and comparison to ooni 16:05:03 right. 16:05:21 i think this has about 2-3 points left on the overviews 16:05:32 did we have any more input from ooni on the comparison? 16:05:39 I didn't hear anything. 16:05:48 I could try again. 16:05:56 sounds good 16:05:58 were you talking with arturo? 16:06:12 I did send him email, but I think leonid responded. 16:06:19 ok 16:06:24 I'll just ask once more. 16:06:36 yes 16:07:12 so, how many points if they respond? how many if not? 16:07:28 if they respond probably 2 points, if not then 4-5 16:07:55 so, should we assign something now? 16:08:05 8 points, in the hope to get it down to 5? 16:08:15 sounds good 16:08:20 great. 16:08:33 yes, we need to be pesimist when estimating 16:08:35 we will not have more than 5 points done before the next meeting so it doesn't affect planning 16:08:48 ok. 16:09:15 that concludes in progress items. 16:09:43 do you want to look at the "to discuss"? 16:09:47 yep. 16:09:56 what's the first about? 16:10:05 #28465 is that i need to write a proposal to remove that line from the consensus 16:10:20 this will either trigger the dirauths to start using it so we keep it, or we just remove it 16:10:32 i need to start a discussion but don't necessarily need to participate in it 16:11:06 does this need to happen now? as in, is there a deadline of some sort, so that it makes sense to do it soon? 16:11:35 it was something uncovered during the collector rewrite work, that we have this thing we have code in core tor for that is not used ever 16:11:49 it is probably a 15 minute task that can happen whenever 16:12:13 we can have it in the backlog for the next month? or is this something for march? 16:12:26 if it's 15 minutes, does it really belong on the roadmap? 16:12:30 right 16:12:37 probably doesn't need to be on the roadmap 16:12:43 15 min is very low, i do not believe you irl :P 16:12:46 haha 16:13:00 I mean, there's a ticket for it, it won't get lost. 16:13:05 yes 16:13:13 it'll be in good company... 16:13:20 i might just do it this evening to be rid of it 16:13:24 ok 16:13:25 heh, okay. 16:13:35 moving it to in progress 16:13:43 ok 16:13:53 the next one is yours, too. 16:14:07 this is filling out a template that antonela has given me 16:14:18 in the process that 21 point ticket gets broken down into lots of smaller tickets 16:14:33 ah, #24422? 16:14:35 yeah 16:14:50 i will also share the google doc with you when i start working on this 16:14:53 but it won't be this week 16:14:57 okay. should we move it to in progress or icebox or backlog? 16:15:07 i think backlog 16:15:09 (what was the difference again?) 16:15:23 backlog first, then icebox? 16:15:37 backlog is sort out for priority and is what we do next 16:15:46 icebox are issues that need to happen but no necessary next 16:15:50 okay. 16:16:02 sure, backlog sounds fine. 16:16:05 there is 24422 in backlog already 16:16:05 antonela needs the prd before the end of the month 16:16:12 oh. 16:16:35 so, then backlog makes even more sense. 16:16:48 hey o/ -- that is what i say to simply secure, if is not doable, i can talk with them to think about it the next month 16:16:53 moving it to the top of backlog then 16:16:55 s/say/said 16:17:05 antonela: if i struggle i'll let you know 16:17:13 irl, sounds fine, thanks! 16:18:00 hmm, now it's gone? 16:18:16 it is part of 24422 16:18:24 it doesn't make sense to have two things 16:18:33 ah! 16:18:34 ok. 16:18:41 great! 16:18:52 then we have a few things we put under On Review. 16:19:09 these are things that are, in theory, in progress but that are currently blocked by review. 16:19:24 the number seems to add up with the number i see in my trac query 16:19:33 i can have a reviews day tomorrow to catch up on these 16:19:50 that would be cool! 16:20:00 should we move these tickets to In Progress? 16:20:08 i think leave them there for now 16:20:13 so we remember to make sure they are unblocked 16:20:14 we're not going to move them tomorrow anyway. 16:20:51 I wonder how this works for the network team. 16:20:57 do you change teh state of the ticket in trac to in review? 16:21:02 yep. 16:21:04 ok 16:21:24 do you really have just 1 item per person in the In Progress column there? 16:22:04 right now there are 2 for irl and 1 for you 16:22:30 or should we move some of the ones in On Review to In Progress, assuming that I'm going to continue working on them as soon as they're unblocked? 16:22:44 ah ok, that's a good point 16:23:11 mmm, i would move them once you are working on them 16:23:22 okay. 16:23:38 in that case I might start working on them tomorrow and have them done by next week. 16:23:44 in which case we'd close them, not move them. 16:23:50 ok 16:24:00 works for me, too. 16:24:12 we're fine tuning this thing as we go. 16:24:36 okay, I think that's all for the roadmap. 16:24:42 I guess. 16:24:54 yep 16:25:05 or are there urgent things in the backlog/icebox that should be In Progress? 16:25:26 even if there were i don't think we could do anything about it 16:25:34 not much, that's true. 16:25:39 okay, good. 16:25:53 karsten: sorry, I was at IFF Glitter Meetup and missed a highlight. Thanks for reminder, I'll try to reply today (the aforementioned incident was finally resolved recently). 16:26:08 ah, perfect! 16:26:13 thank you. :) 16:26:22 not yet :-) 16:26:27 heh ok. 16:26:28 ;) 16:26:46 shall we move on to the next agenda item? 16:27:17 ok 16:27:18 yes 16:27:29 Rejected proposal and next steps (karsten) 16:27:40 as you hear, our proposal was not accepted. 16:27:54 we should briefly talk about next steps. 16:28:04 yes 16:28:15 Al is looking for other funding oportunities for it 16:28:16 like: modify and try again, try elsewhere, try something different. 16:28:37 as I wrote in that email, we'll have to do some of the work anyway. 16:28:53 Yes. We can identify what needs to be done and still do it. 16:29:30 so, should we wait for al to come up with other funding opportunities? 16:29:41 and then decide how much we have to/want to change the proposal? 16:30:08 yes, Al and the grants team is taking care of that part 16:30:10 and in the meantime start the urgent part of the work anyway? 16:30:19 the problem here that we need to avoid is only doing enough to fix the current emergency and not enough to make it sustainable going forward 16:30:41 well, we'd still do a rewrite. 16:31:02 we'd just leave out the fancy parts at the end. 16:31:41 should we discuss that plan in more detail next week? 16:31:50 ok 16:31:50 it seems that this week is already quite full. 16:31:51 ok yes, sounds good 16:32:52 gaba: do I need to tell the grant team about this plan, or is it enough that you now know our plan? :) 16:32:56 grants* 16:33:23 I can talk with them about this plan. We do weekly meetings where I participate. 16:33:32 okay, sounds good! 16:34:25 next topic? 16:34:35 ok 16:34:42 We are presenting projects for outreachy 16:34:46 let me add this to the list 16:34:50 yes, sorry, next topic 16:35:01 outreachy? 16:35:23 ok, on the agenda now. 16:35:35 I might have to leave at 16:45 utc today. :/ 16:35:37 Pili is coordinating. You get an intern for 3 months for a specific project 16:35:43 https://www.outreachy.org/ 16:35:46 focus on diversity 16:35:48 Hi! 16:35:57 hi pili! 16:36:14 but let's move on with the next topic, okay? 16:36:18 I do not think we need to discuss anything today, right pili? 16:36:19 yes 16:36:20 You have to commit 5h per week as a mentor I think 16:36:26 please, sorry to interrupt in the middle of the agenda 16:36:30 I’ll let you move on 16:36:43 can we discuss that next week? would that work for you? 16:36:58 yes 16:37:09 ok/sorry! 16:37:10 I need to go soon too. 16:37:13 tor-scaling@ discussion and next steps (karsten) 16:37:20 gaba: ok. 16:37:27 irl: did you follow that thread? 16:37:34 the one thread on that mailing list. 16:37:41 yes, not in huge detail though 16:37:51 ok. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that. 16:38:06 also, we need to decide how much more to do. 16:38:16 so far I looked at the failure/timeout/really slow cases. 16:38:30 mostly because I think they affect user-perceived performance a lot. 16:38:35 i think i will have to read it in more detail, but then i can write up some thoughts 16:38:45 what I didn't look into much is the slow cases. 16:38:56 slow but not failure-slow cases. 16:39:20 I could stop at this point and let the network team look into the failure cases first. 16:39:40 I could do an initial analysis of the slow cases in the hope find obvious low-hanging fruit. 16:39:51 or I could do a more thorough analysis of the slow cases. 16:39:56 i think for now we should see if the network team find what we have done useful 16:40:04 as discussed earlier, we're at 6/3 points now. 16:40:24 if the network team thinks more analysis could be useful then we could target specifically what they want 16:40:36 but performing more analysis without that understanding could not be a good use of time 16:40:59 I think we would be finding different issues than we found so far. 16:41:21 example: I did find cases where tor sits there doing nothing for 15 or 35 minutes, and then bursts to completion. 16:41:52 the slow cases are slow all the time, and the question is if we can do something about that. like avoiding relays that are slow or overloaded. 16:42:03 I think the network team could do something with these results. 16:42:12 but maybe they have enough to start with already. 16:42:33 another aspect is whether we should start new measurements with existing onionperf right now. 16:42:47 so that we have more data the next time we do an analysis. 16:42:52 but I'm running out of time here. 16:43:01 we should discuss this in more detail next week. 16:43:15 for now, I'll focus on the things coming out of review tomorrow. 16:43:20 yes, let's discuss more next week 16:43:36 ok. 16:43:49 the rest can happen next week, too. 16:44:07 should we end the meeting at this point and talk more next week? 16:44:17 yes 16:44:20 it sounds good 16:44:30 I'm going to move the things we need to talk enxt week to an agenda next week 16:44:31 okay! 16:44:36 already did that. 16:44:38 I think. 16:44:38 oh, you did 16:44:39 :) 16:44:40 good 16:44:43 alright, thanks, everyone! 16:44:48 talk to you next week. bye! :) 16:44:51 bye! 16:44:53 bye! 16:44:57 #endmeeting