16:58:30 #startmeeting network team meeting september 21 16:58:30 Meeting started Mon Sep 21 16:58:30 2020 UTC. The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:58:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:58:32 yoyo 16:58:43 our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep 16:58:44 hihi 16:59:19 dgoulet said he might miss first part and asn said brb 16:59:21 o/ 16:59:22 o/ nickm 16:59:24 o/ jnewsome 16:59:55 let's start with our board: https://gitlab.torproject.org/groups/tpo/core/-/boards 17:00:28 lgtm 17:00:33 at least for my stuff 17:00:48 probably going to rearrange next/backlog as the week develops 17:01:09 * ahf moved an item from next to backlog 17:01:11 ye 17:01:26 o/ 17:01:31 hi gaba 17:01:38 nickm: re tor#40114 you were cool with the solution we made there for now? 17:01:48 and don't think we should spend time on importing the glob() to android? 17:01:55 at some point we'll get glob() there when we bump the NDK version 17:01:56 the solution is "just don't have glob on android" ? Yes, I agree. 17:02:04 ok, i will jigsaw that then and close it 17:02:06 back! 17:02:06 thanks 17:02:12 woo 17:02:21 * asn reads backlog 17:02:24 asn: wb 17:02:29 we at first step, looking at our board 17:02:33 o/ gaba 17:03:33 ok 17:03:49 board is good with me 17:03:58 we good with reviewer assignments? 17:04:15 yes 17:04:16 did them today 17:04:17 hm, is annoying the pad don't make [] clickable in URLs 17:04:34 very nice, i also see torspec stuff. cool! 17:05:14 hm 17:05:15 ok 17:05:27 so do we want to start doing 0.4.5 statuses now? or do we wanna skip this for now? 17:05:49 you mean the small proposals? 17:06:00 no, we ususally now talk about the 0.4.4 status 17:06:16 but last week we talked shortly about continuying to do that or moving to next release status 17:06:17 let's clear out the 044 list this week, and start looking at 045 next week? 17:06:23 ok! 17:06:30 asn: ahf means the part that says "let's check out 0.4.4 release status and open tickets!" 17:06:34 ack 17:06:57 we only have tor#27194 there 17:07:26 that is unassigned 17:08:18 we have assigned ones that maybe we should look at , but we can do so over the course of the week, I hop. 17:08:21 *hope 17:08:24 o/ 17:08:40 let's try to make sure all the 044 stuff on that list is in the right place by next monday? 17:08:51 yep 17:09:45 ok 17:10:40 i guess there isn't much to update for the tor releases part today? 17:11:41 ok, let's move to discussion items then 17:11:53 we always take a look at https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/team/-/issues 17:12:02 not 17:12:06 nothing new there, I think 17:12:56 doesn't look like it no, and we spoke a bit about that thursday 17:13:05 ok 17:13:11 next item is: Let's schedule a set of meetings for revising and discussing open design proposals. [for 9/21] 17:13:37 who added that? should we doodle a good time that works well for each week for a period of time or what do we want to get here? 17:13:57 i checked the open design proposals 17:14:04 i did; i think that idea would be fine, though for some of them (316, 324) we need to make sure somebody in particular can be there 17:14:06 i'm interested in working on the utf-8 proposal 17:14:22 (We're looking at the list of proposals to discuss and revise now) 17:14:32 ah sorry 17:14:33 what is the timeframe for these proposals right now? until the DRL project begins? 17:14:34 got confused 17:14:48 ahf: you mean, for revising and discussing? 17:14:49 oh,yeah, we are mixing two items now, sorry 17:14:58 It depends 17:15:00 no, i was in the next item 17:15:46 does somebody have time to do all this scheduling? I think "one per week" would be a good plan, with 324 and 316 getting priority since they are most urgent 17:15:59 who is needed for which? mike is needed for the RTT one. dgoulet and/or asn is needed for onion naming. flashflow i guess we might want pastly at the meeting but the rest of us to hvae read it? 17:16:22 i can do the scheduling if i know who needs to be scheduled for which 17:17:04 that is _many_ proposals, may I propose that we do those revising meeting for the ones we which to implement or consider high prio? 17:17:05 i should probably be at all of them 17:17:35 yeah, the list is a bit big, especially if we also mix in the conversations that will happen for the next item too 17:17:46 I think the two that are marked with stars are highest priority 17:18:15 agree 17:18:15 ok, the two with highest priority is also the ones that needs other folks in 17:18:47 could it make sense to do this as part of our thursday video chat if we extend that with ~30 min? or will that be too much/be at a bad time? 17:18:55 every time this is suggested we end with a doodle anyway :-) 17:19:00 we could yes 17:19:03 we could yes thursday for that 17:19:10 s/yes/use 17:19:18 I like the Thur. idea yeah , better than IRC at least 17:19:25 (as in voice++) 17:19:35 we usually have around 30-40 min of tasks when we don't do the big gitlab tasks or something like that during that meeting 17:19:50 what do you think about the above nickm ? 17:20:41 Thu is good if it works; we should be more flexible for the ones where we need others 17:20:48 yes, for sure 17:21:37 i will try to hear mike then if he is up for joining us on thursday the 1st? 17:21:44 then people have a week to read up on that 17:21:57 +1, though that's a bit early for pacific time 17:21:58 and then try to see if we can do the flashflow one the 8th 17:21:59 but we'll see 17:22:07 ok w me 17:22:09 ahf: +1 17:22:17 ok, i will prod people 17:22:20 cool! 17:22:28 then once those two meetings are over, we can look at the list again 17:22:40 A suggestion for each meeting, that has worked well before: 17:22:43 _1 17:22:46 +1* 17:22:58 somebody _other_ than the proposer should plan to explain and summarize the proposal. 17:23:16 it helps make sure that someone has understood it, and helps them learn from the proposer whether they understood correctly 17:23:32 sounds smart, yeah 17:23:41 and not too complicated 17:24:13 ok 17:24:18 next item is: Who is interested in which "little" proposals for 045? [for 9/21] 17:24:24 wait sec 17:24:27 ok 17:24:37 considering that algo, we should get someone to do that 17:24:43 i liked the utf-8 proposal 17:24:49 i would like to look more into that 17:24:51 because they are _big_ proposals and will at least require me many days to assimilate 17:24:53 dgoulet: like pick someone? 17:24:56 how about everyboy write their name next to what they're interested in? 17:25:02 nickm: sounds good 17:25:17 we should probably plan to all understand these proposals at least a little before discussion. 17:25:35 i've already done a pass over flashflow; anybody else volunteer for summarizing that? If not, I could. 17:25:38 I put my name on one and by that I'm willing to be the one explaining the proposal at the meeting 17:25:45 ack 17:25:59 ok 17:26:50 hm, ah 17:27:13 so one is name for what people are interested in and one is name for who wants to explaining their understanding of the proposal 17:27:29 yes 17:27:38 like, interested in working on 17:28:03 yes 17:29:01 ok. looks like there's interest in 275 from ahf and 285 from asn, leaving the others for me :) 17:29:08 dgoulet: unless you're interested in something there? 17:29:16 prop#318, prop#315, prop#321 17:29:50 not "really" lol ... I'm just mostly thinking about the time I have to invest on this since I have a set of s28 tickets :S 17:29:55 ok 17:30:13 then how about we assign 275 to ahf, 285 to asn, and I'll look into taking the others if i can 17:30:14 my timeframe on this is also first october 17:30:35 I'll create tickets for these if folks would like? 17:30:55 yes please! 17:31:47 will do 17:31:51 okay 17:32:08 i see nothing in bold elsewhere on the pad 17:32:13 does anybody else have any 17:32:31 maybe one question here 17:32:39 I missed the first 10 minutes so might have been answered 17:32:53 ok 17:33:02 but there is a _stack_ of Backport, we do have someone in charge of merging those right or I remember incorrectly? 17:33:35 last time we did a round with nick and i merging some where we sat together and did it in a batch 17:33:40 and went over them 17:33:43 ah ok ok! 17:33:52 maybe we want to do something like that again at some point when the pile is at some size? 17:34:19 maybe we should plan a periodic time to do that 17:34:27 like, once or twice a month 17:34:38 and we can evaluate if more stable releases are justified 17:35:13 how about we poke at the list on the 1st monday meeting on a month? so that will be the one in 2 weeks ? 17:35:24 sounds good 17:35:30 adding it to the list on the pad 17:36:09 ok 17:36:10 added 17:36:16 anything else for today? 17:36:46 not from me! 17:37:03 * ahf good too 17:37:09 asn, gaba, dgoulet: you all good? 17:37:12 * dgoulet good 17:37:48 yep 17:37:50 all good 17:38:05 ok! 17:38:16 let's go back to our other things 17:38:18 happy hacking o/ 17:38:20 #endmeeting