15:00:43 #startmeeting metrics team 15:00:43 Meeting started Thu Aug 1 15:00:43 2019 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:47 https://storm.torproject.org/shared/5h1Goax5eNusxjXJ_Ty5Wl7hFR1uqCReUiN8xdlBG8T <- agenda pad 15:00:56 hi 15:01:02 o/ 15:01:11 hi acute and gaba! 15:01:40 please add topics to the agenda. 15:01:45 sorry that I'm just going back to Tor life this week. hope you all are doing fine 15:01:55 welcome back! :) 15:02:00 welcome back! 15:03:03 shall we start with what's on the agenda? 15:03:26 ah, gaba is adding more. 15:03:33 yes 15:03:36 i'm fine 15:03:50 ok. 15:03:59 let's start then. 15:04:04 Update on dependency management (karsten) 15:04:23 this is an update to our discussion about depenency management last week. 15:04:45 I looked at ant ivy, and I'm aware that maven and gradle exist. 15:05:11 I think that in our current situation the quickest solution would be to just add ant ivy to our build processes. 15:05:21 * irl has no idea what this is 15:05:37 "Using an alternative build system for Metrics Java codebases" 15:05:40 it fetches jar files from the maven repository and provides them in a local lib/ directory in the code repository. 15:05:50 ah ok 15:05:59 it doesn't require changes to our project structure, for example. 15:06:15 this sounds ok for an intermediate step to solve the urgent problem 15:06:26 we should still plan to switch over to maven or gradle at some point, but that will take more time. 15:06:28 it doesn't look like a very active project though 15:06:33 which is a little scary 15:06:37 1 release in 15 years 15:06:42 oh, 5 years 15:06:46 still that's not very active 15:06:56 well, the good thing is that we don't need to rely on them for dependencies themselves. 15:07:00 heh, and it's a release candidate 15:07:01 that's all in maven. 15:07:04 right 15:07:11 which should make the switch to maven easier later 15:07:30 I have read good things about gradle, so I think I'd want to look into that as time permits. 15:07:37 but probably not in the next months. 15:07:56 ok cool 15:08:30 yes, or look at maven, too. 15:08:33 have you already tried adding ivy to any codebases 15:08:39 yes. 15:09:15 it's not many lines of code to add to our build.xml, plus a new ivy.xml. 15:09:28 that sounds easy enough then 15:09:35 I stopped at the point where I got jar files in the local lib/ directory, so I did not *successfully* try it out yet. 15:09:46 heh 15:09:58 okay, I'd continue with ivy then. 15:10:11 and create a ticket for looking at gradle and maven later. 15:10:19 sounds good to me 15:11:07 okay, great! 15:11:23 gaba: what did you mean with that quote above? 15:11:48 is this already on a roadmap somewhere? 15:11:49 I was refering to this discussion last week 15:11:50 for irl... 15:11:54 ah! 15:11:59 okay. 15:12:16 not many progresses on bug fixing https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/IVY/issues/IVY-1586?filter=allopenissues 15:13:10 well, 15:13:23 what we could also do is stick to the libs we have at the moment. 15:13:43 and kill the buster and stretch jenkins builds of metrics-lib. 15:13:49 you both make the decision on this. I was just looking at their issues 15:13:58 and then look into gradle and maven a bit earlier. 15:14:05 well, you have a point. 15:14:12 and irl. 15:14:34 we don't *have* to do anything here now. 15:15:11 this is also a plausible way forward for me. 15:15:14 it is a lot of work to do gradle and maven? I understand that this is the preference 15:15:49 i think that doing ivy is worthwhile 15:16:05 not just for CI but also to see how the latest versions of libs actually work together 15:16:06 hard to say how much time it would take to do gradle or maven. 15:16:53 okay. 15:16:58 ok 15:17:35 I'll give that a try with a time limit for all the servlet+JSP stuff that I ran into last time. 15:18:24 alright. moving on to the next topic? 15:18:38 ok 15:18:41 ok 15:18:46 Plan for hosting BGP updates from Counter-RAPTOR paper (karsten) 15:18:58 a while ago we said we'd host contributed data on tor metrics. 15:19:04 well, collector, to be precise. 15:19:23 last week or so we have been asked how this is going, for something that we committed to in the past. 15:19:43 this isn't on my list at the moment. 15:19:57 and I'm considering to say that we might not get to that in the near future. 15:20:16 this would go in the data portal 15:20:21 ^ 15:20:31 although perhaps it wouldn't even go anywhere if we're running low on disk space 15:20:44 I was going to say that this could be something for the data portal 15:20:51 how much data is it? 15:20:57 hmmmm. 15:21:10 a fine question. 15:21:23 do you want to ask them? 15:21:49 i don't think it would change the answer from "we're not going to do this soon" 15:22:06 what's the rough time frame there? 15:22:09 karsten: is this in a ticket? 15:22:44 maybe? the part I refer to is an email thread. 15:22:46 it may even be that it is not in this year, until after july next year 15:23:08 we ideally want some reliable, backed up, high availability storage 15:23:48 still, even if this still takes a while, this is a more solid plan than "we're thinking about adding it to tor metrics somewhere, sometime". 15:23:57 yep 15:24:20 do you want to reply to them, or should I do that? (and cc gaba) 15:24:24 ok, well the plan would be that we store it in a web-accessible location and index the metadata in our dataset catalog 15:24:33 but so far neither the storage location nor catalog exist 15:24:48 i'll reply to them after the meeting 15:25:01 okay, thanks! 15:25:42 speaking of emails: 15:25:46 Gaba's Tor metrics data portal email (karsten) 15:25:49 :) 15:26:07 this is what they are presenting for funding. It is not for us 15:26:26 Everything seems fine to me in that proposal (I made only a few comments/changes) 15:26:43 but was wondering if you could just read it and flag anything that may not what you were thinking about 15:26:58 what is wrong with publishing tor's financial records? 15:27:13 https://www.torproject.org/about/reports/ 15:27:14 I think they are already published somewhere else 15:27:28 they are data 15:27:31 there is nothing wrong about publishing them. I was not thinking this data portal could be the place for that 15:27:38 mmm 15:27:47 the portal is more an index than it is storage 15:27:47 so you are thinking that anything data related could go there? 15:27:50 yeah 15:27:59 even if it doesn't live there it can reference it somewhere else 15:28:35 we also don't just link to the pdfs that are published but the IRS publishes electronic versions as open data that we can link to also 15:28:54 well, I guess it could. I didn't think it would be all data related to Tor 15:29:35 i think the scope includes anything that a journalist might want to know about Tor in order to represent it accurately in stories they write 15:29:40 which would include financials 15:29:57 if there is some management decision that it doesn't though, then i'll go along with it 15:29:57 oh, ok. In this case it is not only a metrics data portal but a data portal for Tor 15:30:01 yeah! 15:30:08 no, no decision so far 15:30:15 just like the research portal is also about ux and usability 15:30:22 Looks good to me if the scope is for a "data portal for Tor" 15:30:36 karsten: any thoughts on this? 15:30:49 sounds good to me. 15:30:54 ok 15:31:09 I will rollback my changes on their proposal then :) 15:31:34 I mean, we'll see how much financial records stand out from the rest as soon as the data portal exists. 15:32:16 the PDF vs. electronic version argument is a very good one, though. 15:32:44 irl had a diagram somewhere explaining how well a file can be processed, from PDF to CSV to etc. 15:33:01 the onion of open data 15:33:10 it's even an onion! 15:33:12 nice :) 15:33:15 :) 15:33:36 * gaba in her previous life worked on a system to OCR pdfs into csvs... 15:33:49 nice! 15:34:35 we can move on, right? 15:34:41 I'm wondering: 15:34:42 yes 15:34:53 do you need more input on that document you sent in your email? 15:34:58 gaba: ^ 15:35:08 karsten: only if there is anything there that is not right 15:35:21 i have not yet looked at it at all 15:35:24 how long do i have? 15:35:34 * karsten just requested access. 15:35:44 ah, ok. Let me reply to them and cc you 15:35:51 i have to request access 15:35:57 so i can't actually see it just yet 15:36:20 ah, should I not have requested access? 15:36:25 if so, oops. 15:37:48 They will give you access 15:38:06 okay, great. 15:38:32 I think we can move on now. 15:39:05 ok 15:39:13 Last roadmap - how are we doing? (gaba) 15:39:22 yay, we're using trello! 15:39:35 I made quite a few changes to the trello roadmap. 15:39:48 thanks irl for setting up trello. 15:40:57 and there's a trac query that I didn't see before. 15:41:11 Yes. Right after the Tor meeting I digitalized the roadmap 15:41:26 what is the canonical place for our current roadmap? 15:41:27 I sent you both a mail with the spreadsheet, right? 15:41:46 i'm making progress on debian#932901 and should be finished within 1 point, then i'll be moving on to #28322 15:41:47 yes, I saw a spreadsheet. 15:41:52 that is what I want to agree with you all. Clearly storm didn't work. 15:42:11 so the roadmap does accurately reflect what i'm doing 15:42:20 I'm setting up gitlab for the network team to try. 15:42:24 ok 15:42:33 and irl was suggesting to use trello for metrics 15:42:46 works well with ipad 15:42:49 trello works very well for me. 15:42:50 It is still having to be manually sync with trac 15:42:56 same here 15:42:57 but for sure it works better than storm 15:43:02 yes, it does. 15:43:05 ok 15:43:09 let's do trello then 15:43:16 so, are we going to use trello as central point for now? 15:43:19 and we sync it in every meeting 15:43:27 sounds good 15:43:34 to get the big picture of what metrics is doing 15:43:49 acute: are you working on the onionperf ansible scripts? 15:43:58 yes 15:44:07 ok moved that to in progress 15:44:26 there are also a bunch of fixes/small improvements that are not documented in the roadmap 15:44:33 added the ivy thing for me. 15:44:35 are they in gitlab tickets? 15:44:42 that I would like to add to onionperf 15:44:55 or did we not move the tickets yet? 15:45:04 they will be 15:45:10 and we can see how that works out 15:45:18 ok cool 15:45:40 acute: you can probably fix this one easily https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/metrics/onionperf/issues/1 15:45:47 Let's still create tickets in a public place where people can make comments to it (trac or gitlab depending on the project) 15:45:53 haha 15:45:58 gaba: yes, agreed. 15:46:09 yes, sounds good to me 15:46:17 yes, sounds good 15:46:27 how is this related to our earlier plan to do sprints? 15:46:48 looks like currently we are doing 1 week sprints 15:46:51 if we review each week 15:47:04 yes. 15:47:07 i'd have to read a book on agile or something to know if i'm talking nonsense 15:47:10 with the goal to finish everything that's under In Progress? 15:47:33 if so, I wonder if we need to phrase things more clearly regarding when we can consider something done. 15:47:34 the goal of sprints is at the beginning add things to your sprint that you will do it all 15:47:51 in the past we have had cards stuck in In Progress for weeks. 15:47:54 or get smaller ticket/issues that are part of a story 15:47:58 and we did work on them for weeks, so that was correct. 15:47:59 yes 15:48:02 that is not so good 15:48:14 right, it doesn't work so well for sprints, is my understanding. 15:48:23 we could divide them up to what's doable in 1 week. 15:48:32 agreed 15:48:37 agree 15:48:59 * irl swapped a ticket for a smaller set of tickets 15:49:10 (and also more specific) 15:50:03 and is there a way to see all progress since last week? 15:50:03 If we have a trac/gitlab ticket that is too big getting smaller ticket as children and then do them one at a time per week may be a good idea. 15:50:21 karsten: what do you mean? 15:50:48 gaba: I mean, how do we see what has changed since last week on trello? 15:51:05 or are we mainly interested in whether In Progress is empty by thursday? 15:51:12 we are using trello as a kanban board 15:51:13 (and everything has moved to Done?) 15:51:20 done or review 15:51:30 ah, okay. 15:51:35 if we think that 1 week is too short we can do 2 weeks 15:51:44 and review the roadmap every two weeks 15:51:56 review the kanban board* 15:52:07 okay, in that case I'd want to add something else to In Progress. 15:52:28 ok 15:52:35 how about we add things until the end of today, if we want to, for the current 2 weeks period? 15:53:05 oh, you want to do 2 weeks instead of 1 15:53:19 ah, I thought you just suggested that. 15:53:23 we can also start with 1. 15:53:40 I said that if 1 week is not good for us then we can do 2 weeks. I think is ok to start with 1 15:53:44 great! 15:53:51 works for me. 15:54:08 works for me too 15:54:35 alright. 15:54:58 the last item on the roadmap is an update by djackson who says he's offline today. 15:55:16 sounds like we'll get an update from him next week. 15:55:25 do we know how well tor works from gcp? 15:55:51 * karsten doesn't know. 15:56:12 and if this is going to generate substaintial load on the network, was there some safety considerations thinking done? 15:56:30 the second question is more important, but the first is is also important 15:57:07 hmm, do you think such a measurement could do harm to the network? 15:57:08 i just remember setting up a study to test for tcp explicit congestion notification support from azure to 2 million webservers but didn't realise until afterwards that azure bleaches the ecn bits out the header and the whole thing was a waste of time 15:57:23 i think that spinning up 2 million tor clients wouldn't be great 15:57:41 I really hope that he has a different order of magnitude in mind. 15:58:06 if tor is started fresh each time, you get a new consensus each time, that's a lot of directory bandwidth 15:58:41 i don't think it needs to go to the safety board but some envelope calculations on how much bandwidth would be used 15:58:50 just to make sure that it's around what you expected 15:59:05 do you want to drop him a quick email about that? 15:59:15 ok yes 15:59:32 okay! 15:59:39 60 minutes mark reached. 15:59:44 let's talk more next week! 15:59:49 we got access to the SOW document, so that and two emails i'll do after dinner 15:59:55 :) 16:00:06 o/ 16:00:14 thanks, everyone. bye! o/ 16:00:17 bye! 16:00:18 bye! 16:00:21 #endmeeting