16:59:02 #startmeeting network team meeting, 9 march 2020 16:59:02 Meeting started Mon Mar 9 16:59:02 2020 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:59:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:59:06 hello network-team 16:59:10 hi ahf! 16:59:11 hi 16:59:17 yello 16:59:18 our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep 16:59:31 o/ 16:59:36 * nickm 's home internet is down again; i'm on borrowed wifi 16:59:41 we skipped a lot of last weeks meeting so let's get going right away 17:00:01 are folks doing alright with roadmap? 17:00:46 yes 17:01:16 hi! 17:01:21 hey gaba 17:01:22 i think so. wondering if we can call #31851 and #31943 done now? 17:01:32 asn: how more time you think you will have with s27? 17:01:50 gaba: i think onionbalance can be called done in two weeks or so 17:01:55 i need to write the blog post 17:01:57 and do packages 17:02:12 nickm: hmmm, the first one still have open tickets, but in a roadmap context we might be able to call it closed for now 17:02:18 that is more like an iterative ticket 17:02:22 ok. thanks 17:03:23 ack 17:03:38 oki 17:03:47 asn, dgoulet: are we OK with reviewers this week? 17:03:51 yes i mdoing them right now 17:04:01 yah 17:04:08 ah, cool, just seeing two free ones there 17:04:10 coolio 17:04:11 catalyst: are you starting any s28 or s30 ticket this week? we can talk in a dm later 17:04:22 are people alright with what they have had assigned to them? 17:04:27 done 17:04:34 gaba: will need to check 17:05:28 all the tickets from s30 and s28 are in the trac with keyword network-team-roadmap and related sponsor. They are also in the gitlab board by s30 and s28 organized in 'next' column. 17:07:02 #30477 is the one from s30 17:07:32 should we dive into 0.4.3 status? 17:07:42 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/043Status 17:07:42 ok w me 17:09:04 are people doing OK here? 17:09:07 * ahf is a bit behind 17:09:20 dgoulet: one of us should take #31669 17:09:28 asn: yeah I was exactly looking at taht 17:09:59 asn: I can take it so you can focus on OBv3 17:10:03 seems like a case of log_warn -> log_protocol_warn thing 17:10:04 so not very hard 17:10:06 #33469 is a windows thing we should figure out 17:10:24 and #33545 looks important too 17:10:41 nickm: i think #33545 is a dup 17:10:44 yeah dup 17:10:49 of #33069 17:10:51 which is a dup of .... 17:10:58 though it may tie in with #33069 17:10:59 yeah 17:11:07 #33458 ? 17:11:16 err 17:11:16 nvm 17:11:28 oh that went nowhere 17:11:35 dgoulet: this is importantino 17:11:56 dgoulet: wanna focus on #33458 and i take the easier #31669? 17:12:00 asn: yes it is on my plate 17:12:12 asn: ok, go 17:12:14 kk! 17:12:17 #33469 is windows server 2003 :o 17:12:17 taking ownership 17:12:25 that i don't think is supported anymore 17:12:37 people are running windows server 2016 these days 17:12:56 unless our OS name detection on windows gets this one wrong 17:13:00 nickm: we got a diagnostic patch in for #32564 ... so not sure we should keep it in 043 ? 17:13:57 okay with me 17:14:17 nickm: ack 17:14:19 ahf: yeowch. okay, it would be worthwhile double-checking that, and seeing whether the issue is a one-line fix or what 17:14:36 yeah 17:14:46 you are asking for the specifics of the version of the os on the ticket already 17:14:51 would be interesting what the person says 17:15:02 windows server 2003 is equivalent to windows xp kernel-wise and system api wise 17:15:18 just without the bubble gum theme 8) 17:15:28 it is also EOL 17:15:31 yeah 17:17:01 okay 17:17:16 let's move to discussions 17:17:19 teor has some from last week 17:17:26 first one is about doing post-trove retrospectives 17:18:00 i think it sounds like a good idea. i think i'd place it together with our normal retrospectives though, but others might have different ideas here 17:19:14 i hear no yays nor nays, which means i think we should take it in as part of our retrospective workflow 17:19:20 yay 17:19:59 teor is trying to focus on a lot of s55 and have dropped some things they do usually to focus a bit more, i don't think we can pin-point individual folks to do each of these things, but we should all be more aware of teor not doing them and try to help out where we can 17:20:19 teor is especially good at going over all incoming tickets and reviews in our queues and look there 17:20:45 unless anybody have anything to add here i move to the next item 17:20:58 which is #24857 which i have taken after talking with nick 17:21:07 and then finally we have: 17:21:10 Followup from our retrospective: should we have a way to table/queue discussion topics for a whole-team voice meeting? -nickm 17:21:18 you wanna run this one, nickm? 17:21:25 sure 17:21:45 so the main quesiton i had was this: 17:22:01 often topics come up in these meetings that seem big or important and we want to do it with everybody present 17:22:06 or similar over the course of the week 17:22:24 yeah 17:22:36 we could add it at the top of the meeting pad and vote on which one should go to a voice meeting 17:22:42 at our last retrospective we talked about grabbing some regular timeslot to do a teleconferencing session, beyond what we have for our retrospectives, so that we do followup on important topics there 17:23:16 * ahf would love to have some team meetings being voice instead of irc 17:23:18 we should also have a vector for less public stuff to go to voice, and some kind of a queue? 17:23:21 let's work out a process 17:23:40 we should also for voice have some notes that can go public. this we get almost for free with irc 17:24:18 maybe a spreadsheet in the teams folder in nextcloud would be fine 17:24:33 to add stuff and then add who wants to get involved in the discussion 17:24:56 that or just keeping it in our weekly meeeting pad? 17:25:04 just have a list of items there 17:25:08 we all look at it once a week 17:25:28 wrt to the "less public stuff to go to voice" 17:25:38 oh, right 17:25:50 yeah, maybe something on nextcloud could work there 17:26:00 we could send email to network-team@ to remind people 17:26:05 yep 17:26:10 ok 17:27:50 let's do that. keep track of who wants to participate on NC, we should have reminders to the team list 17:28:08 i don't see anything else in bold on the pad right now - does anybody else have something we need to chat about? 17:28:27 just 2 quick notes: 17:28:44 if you think i might be making a terrible mistake by using CBOR as a metaformat for walking onions, please let me know soon 17:28:50 (that's note one) 17:29:14 note two is that i'm not going to make much progress on a few things that I've been roadmapped on, and i noted them at the end of my section 17:29:17 that's all 17:30:41 #1 is cool, i only have tried CBOR with erlang and it worked fine. we picked msgpack because it had a faster lib back then, but i dont think that is a concern for us 17:30:49 coolio 17:31:18 okay i am going to close the meeting now then 17:31:21 thanks all o/ 17:31:23 #endmeeting