23:00:30 #startmeeting network team meeting, 3 July 2019 23:00:30 Meeting started Wed Jul 3 23:00:30 2019 UTC. The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:00:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 23:00:32 hello 23:01:19 our meeting pad is https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep 23:01:32 how are we all doing? Who is here? 23:01:39 * catalyst is here 23:01:50 * teor4 is here 23:02:19 hi ahf, catalyst, teor4 ! 23:02:36 Let's get started. 23:02:41 good good 23:03:22 First, since we've started catalyst and teor4 as long-term CI role.. how are we doing with the "how are we managing CI failures?" item? Do we need to keep doing this on a weekly basis? 23:04:32 Second is 041 stuff; let's all have a look at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/041Status if we're not looking at the first thing :) 23:06:20 yep 23:07:02 on 041, I'm especially wondering if there are any 041-must items that are not marked as such. To get 041 out on time, I want to make sure we're seeing and acting on any last-minute bugs here, so we get a workable rc out after Stockholm. 23:07:57 I think we can report on CI by exception: at the moment, we have tor stem job, chutney CI, and sbws CI failures in needs_review or later 23:08:12 nice 23:08:26 And we're still working on the tor stem job failure, I think I know what I need to do there 23:08:31 ok. So let's remove this from the "every week" section, and bring it up when there's something to work on? 23:09:43 we can try to update the CI wiki page on a weekly basis, and not talk about it explicitly in the meeting unless there's something exceptional? 23:09:52 That sounds reasonable to me. 23:10:45 also maybe we should update the rotations page to delete the CI rotation? 23:10:46 on 041: if there's nothing that is missing 041-must, let's move on to the roadmap and the reviewer assignments. Anything to change there? any surprises? 23:10:55 catalyst: yes , I think we should. 23:11:15 since there's only a week before stockholm, maybe let's take a decision there on CI too, and postpone the wiki update till then? 23:11:50 what kind of decision on CI? 23:12:01 err, not ci 23:12:02 sorry 23:12:13 a decision on triage, whether to put that as a long-term role too 23:12:48 oh, i'm not sure i remember us talking about that? 23:13:23 right, I don't think we've talked about that, but I think we should at Stockholm 23:14:22 it migt also be worth considering Coverity as a long-term role 23:14:49 yeah 23:14:52 as a separate long-term role? possibly useful 23:15:11 do we have people formally assigned to triage HackerOne as well? 23:16:03 I think we do, but I don't know how formally. 23:16:08 (asn has been doing that) 23:17:05 i kind of did some of that for a while, but have fallen out of the habit of checking it 23:17:05 anything on reviews or roadmaps? if not, let's more to discussion? 23:17:06 i think asn have taken a lot of it and asks for other people's help on-demand 23:17:13 We should make a list of extra roles. "sbws maintainer" should be one of them, because I'm not sure how much time juga will habe for that role. 23:17:57 also i suggest we try to stick with N>=2 for long-term roles, to reduce bus factor 23:18:04 yeah; that one cannot rotate, but it is important 23:19:42 ok. on discussion I see a rotation update; I don't see specific topics on the rotations. 23:20:15 so the first thing could be Taylor's question about trac workflow -- whether we could use "accepted" to mean "working on it now" and "assigned" to mean "planning to start soon"? 23:20:23 catalyst: want to say anything about that one? 23:21:02 this is partly me inferring what would be helpful to gaba and other people in terms of greater transparency about what we're working on 23:21:51 i think gaba has been asking people to remove themselves as "owner" of tickets they're not actively working on; i figure the assigned/accepted distinction is a helpful one on top of that 23:21:58 I believe gaba said something to me at some opint about how it would be useful to have a "working on now" vs "planned to work on" distinction 23:22:49 so yeah. I'm cool with this in principle if gaba says she'd like it and if nobody objects. 23:23:16 we could also make this some even more explicit status in the Brave New Future of a gitlab-based tracker 23:23:23 or in a lightly tweaked trac 23:23:52 My only reservation here is that nobody besides us will understand this distinction basd on the names. But that's nonblocking. 23:24:13 we can publicize it more broadly 23:25:09 That's true, but it would be even better IMO to have the "active" status be called "active" and the planned status be "assigned" or something 23:25:20 i think if it gives a better overview for PM's and ourself it could be worth it 23:25:21 like, to have the statuses named what they mean 23:25:32 (like I said, my concern is nonblocking) 23:25:49 ok. Let's plan this for a quick show of hands at stockholm too ? 23:26:08 Next item is feedback on prop#306 -- happy eyeballs 23:26:23 teor4: looks like that's yours; want to say something there? 23:26:27 si 23:26:42 not mine, neal's 23:26:55 I meant, I thought you added it to the pad :/ 23:27:24 oh right. Iain and I have responded. I'm waiting for Iain's response to my response. 23:27:42 If someone else wants to weigh in, that would be great. But it's not essential. 23:27:46 ok 23:28:07 Our draft policy is 2 network team members, and in this context, 23:28:10 I'll try to look before stockholm but my backlog is horrible and I trust you and Iain to say sensible things. If anybody else can look, that will rock. 23:28:17 Iain's expertise is relevant 23:28:45 Anyone with an opinion on feasible changes to tor's network internals would be helpful 23:29:33 anybody in particular you're hoping can look? it might be good to ask them specifically 23:30:44 I don't know who has the most experience with tor's network internals 23:31:03 Maybe we should re-do the subsystems document at some point 23:31:07 I'll check it now 23:31:20 ok 23:31:53 next question for discussion is where we stand for our open topics about how to handle proposals 23:32:12 my sense is that we don't have consensus on the metaproposal, based on dgoulet's message today, and so we need to talk more 23:32:19 is that other people's sense too? 23:33:07 (Looks like dgoulet is the person I want to review prop#306) 23:33:34 makes sense. I don't know if he's free to do so right now, but it would be great to have his feedback 23:34:29 i think the metaproposal is still OK if we are good about taking "hey maybe we need to talk about this some more" as an objection 23:34:33 My sense is that we don't know if we have consensus on the metaproposal, and dgoulet is pointing that out 23:34:56 also where "talk about this more" can also mean "make sure enough people read and understand it"? 23:35:18 I don't know whether dgoulet is blocking or not-blocking, and for me, that means I should block. 23:35:26 i think so too. i haven't commented on it much because i think it sounds reasonable, but i'm also very flexible with how we do this, as long as it gets specced out (which i think it is here) 23:37:08 part of the art of presiding over a deliberative body is to use tools like calling for objections as a way to make forward progress with fewer formalities. you can fall back on more rigourous methods if need be (if people are acting in good faith) 23:37:20 right 23:37:32 i had hoped that we had consensus on this point 23:37:57 but I am also thinking that david's message _is_ an objection. 23:38:46 I'm not sure that acting in good faith is sufficient (although it is necessary) 23:39:17 If people are overloaded, or can't keep up with the pace of process change, then we need to slow things down 23:39:38 i had hoped that people would say "this is too soon for me so I am blocking this till we have time" 23:39:38 i think we might not be able to resolve this here. but we should think about where and when to work on resolving it, maybe? 23:39:43 yeah 23:39:50 If people don't feel comfortable responding, then we need to address the underlying issues to make progress 23:39:51 My immediate thought is that we should block this proposal till we've talked about it more. 23:42:14 i think we might not have all the necessary people in this meeting now, so maybe let's talk more on the mailing list? 23:42:25 makes sense. 23:42:30 any objections there? 23:42:31 wfm 23:42:58 seems fine to me 23:43:09 we should also be prepared to talk in Stockholm 23:43:12 if needed 23:43:36 +1 23:43:39 yes 23:43:56 we are out of listed discussion topics; do we have any more things for today's meeting? 23:44:30 * ahf has none 23:44:58 * catalyst is good for now 23:45:52 ok. I'll stick around for another short while, and see folks online! 23:46:17 Tomorrow is a US holiday and Friday I'm not planning to be around, but I will be checking email, and I'll be glad to drop by if I can help anybody with anything 23:46:18 see you all after i've had some sleep o/ 23:46:24 peace all! 23:46:27 o/ 23:46:28 sleep well ahf 23:46:31 #endmeeting