23:00:55 #startmeeting s31 October 8th 2019 23:00:55 Meeting started Tue Oct 8 23:00:55 2019 UTC. The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:00:55 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 23:01:07 the pad for the meeting is here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IRjuGtQkWNKZLc7qskDb 23:02:22 i wonder if we will have teor at the meeting today 23:02:39 catalyst: you around? 23:02:42 o/ 23:02:49 \o 23:03:57 ok. I added an agenda with the items from last week 23:04:03 s/week/meeting 23:04:39 Anything to add there? 23:05:24 I think that's all correct. 23:05:43 Did teor say they'd be away? 23:06:13 they said the are going to be half away this week 23:06:18 so not sure if they can make this meeting or not 23:06:21 ok 23:06:33 Let's start with the documentation. Catalyst: do you have any news there? 23:07:04 looking at the "s31-doc" keyword 23:07:31 i still see only 2 of those tickets that are sponsor31-must? 23:08:00 in last meeting we said that you are going to take #29215 and we need an owner for #29214. Those are the 2 must tickets 23:08:17 IIUC I'm on #29214, at least in part. 23:08:28 IIUC catalyst, you wanted to run #29215? 23:08:40 nickm: yes, i'll actually take that in Trac 23:09:33 okay. Do you have a plan for that? Ideally this should be something that pulls in the rest of the team too. 23:11:55 catalyst? 23:12:00 in terms of "new stuff" we have pubsub and decentralization of control.c and config.c, right? or were there other pieces you think should be in there? 23:12:26 I think that the "subsystems" design matters. Also ... 23:12:37 ... I think we should document how we want the modules that we hve to interact 23:12:48 like, what modules should use which other modules, and how 23:13:37 catalyst: this one is the next issue you are working on from the roadmap, right? there is nothing before that? 23:14:01 i think that will tend to evolve dynamically. i guess we can make guidelines about how modules should interact through "plumbing" APIs like the what we've been working on in s31 23:14:27 gaba: looking at roadmap 23:16:22 gaba: other than the control.c key-value stuff that is already in progress, no 23:17:20 #29210 ? 23:17:48 or #30984 ? Both are in progress? 23:17:49 stand by, having login troubles 23:18:12 ok 23:18:44 I can talk a bit about modularization status while catalyst is logging in? 23:18:59 ok 23:19:13 gaba: yes #30984 is the one 23:19:24 #29210 is the parent of #30984 23:19:35 What I know is that we have decided our best thing to do on modularization is to make relay.c optional, and to improve the modularity of its code in the process 23:19:46 ok catalyst: you have those 3 in the queue in roadmap 23:20:01 #31851 23:20:52 Teor has a plan there, and I think they plan to start on it soon 23:21:16 ok. I'm adding it to the roadmap 23:21:40 I'm planning to help once they divide up the work; it's very big for one person 23:21:47 I'm also doing #29211 stuff in the background 23:22:39 ok 23:23:16 And the new C style is on the way as you are sending the poll soon. 23:23:38 Anything else? Anything we are missing? 23:24:03 anything related to issues you are working on s31 that needs to be discussed? 23:24:38 catalyst: quick question; your suggestions on the poll conflicted with teor's. They suggested IIUC that we remove specific lengths from question ; you suggested different specific lengths. 23:24:55 Okay if I go with the version as I revised it after their feedback? 23:25:13 (see pad at https://pad.riseup.net/p/netteam-c-poll-DRAFT for current version) 23:25:57 nickm: looking (wasn't sure whether the version on the pad was revised) 23:27:17 i think we should consider the C99 limits when actually setting numbers 23:28:18 not sure if we should give those in the poll for reference now that specific numbers have been removed 23:29:15 * gaba needs to step out for 5 min (brb) 23:30:12 nickm: are you planning to put this in some sort of survey software? or will you be accepting more free-form replies in case we have conditional opinions on some of these? 23:30:47 I think if our goal is to get the team to agree to a shorter limit, agreement-in-principle is likelier to be achievable than agreement-on-specific-number as a first step, maybe. 23:31:25 I was thinking of doing some kind of survey software, maybe with freeform answers after each section? 23:32:53 kind of wondering what your motivation for using survey software is. is this list longer than you're willing to tabulate manually? 23:33:36 * gaba is back 23:34:16 could it just be a pad where people add +1 or something? Or is mostly so people do not get influence by other people's votes? 23:34:19 I'm more worried that it's too complex for everybody to answer in the same way. 23:34:44 unless there is software to encourage it 23:34:49 a spreadsheet might work? 23:35:35 hm, spreadsheet might encourage anchoring effects though 23:35:41 true 23:36:02 it could be just a google form :P 23:36:29 anyway, it seems that we are done with the meeting today. Anything else? 23:37:16 note i'll try to focus on GSoD stuff this week before other stuff 23:37:21 I'm ok for this week; I'll check in with teor the next time we see them? 23:37:23 catalyst: +1 23:37:44 sounds good 23:38:04 * catalyst has nothing else for this meeting 23:38:09 #endmeeting