17:59:22 #startmeeting anti-censorship team meeting 17:59:22 Meeting started Thu Dec 19 17:59:22 2019 UTC. The chair is phw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:22 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:59:24 hi everyone! 17:59:27 hi 17:59:44 here's our meeting pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-censorship-2019-keep 17:59:59 cohosh is on vacation and hiro won't be here, so i guess it's just the two of us, dcf1! 18:00:25 * dcf1 putting the "one" in "everyone" 18:00:28 (and hopefully antonela, to coordinate the iff bridgedb session) 18:00:33 :) 18:00:43 hello! 18:00:49 yes im here :) 18:00:55 hi dcf1 o/ 18:01:09 antonela's got a "one" too, great 18:01:38 are there multiple dcf's ghost around? 18:01:47 hello, i'm here for iff sessions 18:01:53 hi ggus! 18:02:11 ok, let me briefly summarise what we need 18:02:22 hi! 18:02:43 as part of sponsor 30, we want to do a user study, to better understand the kind of problems people have when using bridgedb 18:03:04 phw: I also added an item on s30 to discuss with antonela 18:03:14 O3 18:03:33 "problem" is a deliberately vague term. maybe some people struggle with the web interface; others with all the terms we're using (obfs4 vs vanilla, etc.); others may struggle with adding bridges to tor browser 18:03:37 yes, we have this pad that gaba opened > https://pad.riseup.net/p/iff-bridgedb-usability-2020-keep 18:03:54 yes yes, i think we don't need to be super specific with the details on the proposal 18:04:14 i also think that a table where people can join us 1 by 1 is better than an entire session, but not sure 18:04:23 right. ideally, we would sample a bunch of people from iff and ask them to interact with bridgedb, and see how that goes 18:04:32 antonela: yes, agreed 18:05:15 phw: exactly, that'd be ideal -- im very ambitious thinking about a tor browser version but we can do it with paper prototyping too 18:05:30 what im thinking is: do we want to test improved flows? new ideas? or the current version? 18:05:48 i think the former is quite fun, we already have some kind of ideas about where we fail in the flow 18:05:55 if i would do it, i would hand them a laptop (or better, have them use their own one), ask them to add a bridge to tor browser, and also to verbalise their thought process 18:05:59 but you're the expert, antonela 18:06:08 we can do that too, yes 18:06:32 anyways, we agree that 1.1.1 is better than a session with a lot of people 18:06:45 1. user 1. facilitator 1. observer 18:06:59 nah will be there as well, so we can run it together 18:07:28 could it be like something where people work in pairs and observe each other? and then write down in sticky notes and get info from there? 18:07:54 antonela: i was thinking about the current flow. do you have new ideas that you would like to test? 18:07:57 or otherwise have several times during IFF where people come up so you two observe them :) 18:08:29 phw: yes, i do 18:09:01 gaba: we can do in pairs, i did not thought about it 18:09:53 Hi folks! I'm here too. I'll add a status to the pad. 18:10:14 o/ 18:10:35 * gaba will make comments in the pad for IFF session 18:10:50 hi cjb! 18:11:03 oki, yes if y'all can comment at the pad will be great -- i will send it tomorrow at the end of the day 18:11:08 are you going to be in valencia phw? 18:11:19 antonela: no :( 18:11:22 oh :( 18:11:51 no worries, maybe some questions you would like to get answered is a good starting point to plan it -- for the session no worries, i'll write something generic and then we can do what we consider better 18:12:38 antonela: yes, good idea. i'll add some questions to the pad, and we can iterate on how to best answer them until iff starts 18:12:47 perfect, thank you! 18:13:09 thanks to you too 18:13:19 ggus is going to participate in that session too, right? 18:13:30 ggus will be around doing ggus magic, yes 18:13:55 :) 18:14:25 The other item I have for sponsor 30 and UX is Objective 3. 18:14:26 gaba: yes, but i was thinking in another idea 18:14:48 gaba: right, i wasn't entirely sure what we'd like to do as part of activity 1 & 2 18:15:32 phw: we need to check with antonela on how we are going to move forward with those 18:15:35 A1 - Develop Tor user personas as a tool to understand users’ contexts and mental models. 18:15:38 A2 - Define which censorship scenarios we are going to address. 18:17:29 for A1 - we have two parts, one of them is: i'm working with babatunde on his research on information controls to extend our user personas to specific censored personas 18:18:04 antonela: do you have any trac ticket for that? 18:18:16 nope, we are working in nextcloud 18:18:31 (the questions, the people's list, etc) 18:19:14 ok. Let's create a trac ticket to do the tracking of that if this is what we are including on developing the Tor user personas. 18:19:19 for this 18:19:26 antonela: oh, cool. can the anti-censorship team help with this? 18:19:29 it will take some time, tunde is traveling for interviews during january and february; we will consolidate the reporting on march 18:20:00 phw: yes, could be ideal -- i'll ask him to put you in the loop when the first reporting are ready 18:21:01 i think roya and nat reviewed the questionnaire and made a good comments 18:21:12 The idea is to do A1 from January to June next year. 18:22:27 yes, a1 and a2 overlaps at some point but i think is a good timeframe 18:22:47 antonela: you said that for A1 there are two parts :) 18:22:52 i hope to finish s27 in january so i can go full with s30 after that 18:22:57 what is the second part? 18:22:58 ok 18:23:15 mmm, i forgot 18:23:21 :) 18:23:22 * antonela will remember 18:23:35 second part to A1, right? not A2? 18:23:42 yes, AHH 18:23:43 right 18:23:56 if we go with the group during IFF, we can map personas there as well 18:24:07 (i'll add it to the proposal, is nice) 18:24:56 ok 18:25:09 do we also have a plan for A2? 18:27:03 * phw interprets it as "given the personas from A1, which scenarios should be address in our tech?" 18:27:12 yes 18:27:39 Not sure why we planned A2 before A1 but it should be the opposite. 18:28:08 yes, they overlap 18:28:10 let's decide what we should do with our tech, and then come up with personas to justify our decision ;) 18:28:15 we can work on it in january i think 18:28:19 antonela: #32811 for A1 18:28:20 phw: good move yes 18:28:30 nice, thank you! 18:29:28 * phw adds #31282 as a parent ticket 18:29:29 for A2 then we can meet once there is a report out with personas 18:29:34 oh yes, thanks! 18:30:13 sounds like a plan 18:30:14 cool! 18:30:19 \o/ 18:30:22 are we reporting this sponsor monthly? or? 18:30:57 i think it's quarterly, no? 18:30:58 we need to do the report at the end of January 18:31:02 it is quarterly, yes 18:31:07 oh nice 18:31:10 good to know 18:31:15 the report is an item on our January meeting :) 18:31:33 on our January meeting's agenda* 18:32:24 ok, anything else related to s30? 18:32:39 it seems we are fine with s30 18:32:45 im groot 18:32:54 :) 18:33:02 next item is summer of code 18:33:38 yep, the question is if anybody here wants to mentor a student 18:33:49 pili will apply for Tor but we need mentors for that. 18:33:56 i'm a bit hesitant. i had two students in the past and neither one finished. one dropped out after a few weeks and the other one vanished. 18:34:25 but that is mostly on their side 18:34:40 not all of them drop out :) 18:35:01 we would need to see which kind of projects they could help with 18:35:10 yes, but it made me extra careful when deciding if it's worth my time 18:35:32 I see 18:35:41 we certainly have plenty of projects that may be a good fit for a student dev 18:35:50 cohosh may be interested 18:35:57 We will be able to decide who we accept 18:36:11 ok. Let's review again in January when cohosh is back 18:36:28 sounds good 18:37:26 cjb: thanks for your interest in #31011, by the way 18:39:30 cjb: and yes, #31009 seems basically finished 18:41:59 looks like we covered all our discussion items and nobody has a 'needs help with' section. anything else? 18:42:02 * phw waits for a minute 18:43:04 yes 18:43:09 it seems we are fine 18:43:20 #endmeeting