18:00:35 <GeKo> #startmeeting network health
18:00:35 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu Jan 23 18:00:35 2020 UTC.  The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:35 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:44 <GeKo> okay
18:00:44 <dgoulet> O/
18:00:45 <GeKo> dgoulet: ping
18:00:48 <GeKo> aha
18:00:49 <GeKo> nice
18:00:51 <ggus> hey!
18:00:57 <GeKo> let's get started
18:01:07 <gaba> pad here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-networkhealth-2020.1-keep
18:01:21 <GeKo> thanks, i was looking for the link :)
18:01:25 <ahf> hey
18:01:29 <GeKo> o/
18:01:36 <gaba> the first item is to review the vision for the work of the team
18:01:48 <GeKo> so, this is the kickoff meeting for the new team
18:01:59 <GeKo> time to bring the big pieces on the table :)
18:02:12 <GeKo> yeah "vision" might be too much here
18:02:16 <ahf> nice that roger added gamification. a friend brought that up at the cccamp realy operators meetup
18:02:43 <GeKo> but i thought about writing down the long lines we orient our work on might be worth it
18:02:50 <gaba> yes
18:02:56 <gaba> should we start with (1) in line 32?
18:03:07 <GeKo> we could!
18:03:10 <gaba> it would be great to sort out this list by priority
18:03:45 <gaba> track community standards about what makes a good relay
18:04:06 <arma> i've been thinking that because it's just one person for now, there should be a big focus on automation, because automation will be the only way the one person can tackle a growing set of topics.
18:04:11 <ggus> at the moment we don't have any of these items connected with deliverables for sponsors, right?
18:04:30 <GeKo> ggus: right
18:04:31 <gaba> ggus: we do not
18:04:44 <GeKo> maybe the performance/scalability related pieces
18:04:48 <GeKo> but others, no
18:04:50 <ahf> automation and scoping i think, even with automation there will be a bit more of maintaining the automated processes over time, so they accumulate
18:04:53 <GeKo> arma: i am a fan
18:04:59 <arma> ahf: yep
18:05:05 <ahf> so also wearing the "no hat" is good to keep focus 8)
18:05:18 <arma> ggus has a good point, which is "and writing funding proposals to keep this going" goes next to every line
18:05:40 <gaba> so the priority of that list should be "(5) maintain the components of the network "
18:05:45 <gaba> and writing funding proposals :)
18:06:18 <gaba> as automation goes in that bucket
18:06:26 <GeKo> i think we should be more granular than, say, point to (5)
18:06:31 <arma> geko: agreed
18:06:41 <GeKo> there are pieces in each of the big items that are more or less important
18:07:03 * arma puts an X on the pieces that seem high priority
18:07:04 <gaba> yes, that will guide the creation of the roadmap for this year
18:07:43 <arma> there, i placed my four X's.
18:08:38 <ahf> everybody gets to vote on GeKo's todo list? :-P
18:08:44 <gaba> i'm integrating geko stuff into the list
18:08:46 <GeKo> one thing that might be worthwile to think about right from the beginning is where to draw the line between network health work and community work in the relay community related things
18:09:04 <gaba> the list is where it says 'vision for network health', it was a list that arma started some time ago
18:09:04 <GeKo> because that's one of the pieces that are less clear to me
18:09:14 <gaba> yes
18:09:22 <arma> geko: yep. to start that, we should ask ggus how the relay advocacy thing is going from his side. because maybe he is happy to have help or maybe he is happy to help you.
18:09:33 <GeKo> exactly
18:09:38 <gaba> I added some info on who I think the network health team should be working with in each item but drawing the line is a good idea
18:09:59 <arma> i've always assumed that the relay advocacy thing fell into the community team's list accidentally and they never knew quite why it was there
18:09:59 <ggus> i have added to my 2020 roadmap to start reaching out relays orgs
18:10:18 <GeKo> nice
18:10:33 <GeKo> is that somethong for Q1 or Q2, or...?
18:10:38 <GeKo> *something
18:11:15 <gaba> are we jumping into the roadmap?
18:11:21 <GeKo> no
18:11:32 <GeKo> i was just wondering about ggus' planning here
18:11:41 <ggus> we didn't finish the roadmap yet, but we have some ideas about a relay operator meetup in US and Europe
18:12:03 <GeKo> okay
18:12:10 <ggus> since i'm going to fosdem next week, i want to talk with some folks from the orgs about these ideas
18:12:26 <GeKo> sounds good
18:12:29 <gaba> Any other thing in the 'vision' list that should be priority?
18:12:30 <ggus> but first, i want to introduce myself
18:12:34 <gaba> (other than arma's Xs)
18:12:53 <arma> geko: feel free to disagree with me about my X's. i just put them there to start.
18:13:30 <GeKo> yeah, i think i'd wait with the relationship strengthening to see where ggus is going
18:13:41 <GeKo> but the other three sound important to me
18:14:14 <arma> for the relationship one, figuring out everything we want to learn/get/offer from the relay orgs is a worthwhile thing
18:14:17 <GeKo> i am not sure about the state of our performance/scalability work
18:14:25 <gaba> where in that list is the stuff on scalability/performance?
18:14:32 <arma> like, how would the network health team benefit from having a good line of communication with relay operators
18:14:34 <GeKo> but depending on where we are (3) the first bullet could be important, too
18:14:40 <arma> and making sure ggus includes that. or doing it yourself alongside hi.
18:14:41 <arma> m
18:15:05 <gaba> geko: let's add an X in that one too then
18:15:13 <GeKo> arma: yes
18:15:26 <GeKo> i think if ggus would include that for now i am fine
18:15:31 <GeKo> and see how that goes
18:15:44 <arma> ok
18:16:13 * ahf has put 3 X'es
18:16:37 <GeKo> thanks
18:16:51 <GeKo> i think those are all good starting points
18:16:57 <gaba> anything else there? I'm going to copy those Xs into priorities for this year
18:17:08 <GeKo> and i am fine starting with them as our items to focus on for now
18:17:31 <dgoulet> so hmmm
18:17:45 <dgoulet> there is no X about "network disruption or problems"
18:17:49 <dgoulet> which is sorta of a big piece tbh
18:18:00 <arma> dgoulet: this is why i put an X next to baselines, for Q1.
18:18:11 <arma> step one, automate as much as possible knowing what is normal
18:18:15 <arma> step two can come later
18:18:31 <arma> otherwise you find yourself into the rat's nest wondering how you get there and which way is up
18:18:57 <GeKo> yeah
18:18:57 <dgoulet> that point is confusing to me one how you'll get action items out of it...
18:19:11 <dgoulet> like Metrics graph right now are pretty much our "baseline" and when it spikes, we look at it
18:19:31 <arma> it's also why, in my wishlist items for Q1, i wrote "- build a roadmap / brainstorm for all the future things we might automate measuring"
18:19:33 <dgoulet> dunno, maybe others have a clear idea with this :)
18:20:08 <arma> i think looking at current and past network anomalies, to think of items we ought to measure, is a good way to start
18:20:14 <gaba> maybe we need to be more specific on this and indlcude dgoulet's point
18:20:29 <arma> makes sense
18:20:35 <GeKo> well, i mean if that what metrics gives us today are the baselines for expected behavior fine with me
18:20:40 <GeKo> but i am not sure about it
18:20:46 <arma> another angle might be "enumerate and track network disruptions", so it is explicitly there
18:21:15 <arma> but the plan is not to fix every one of them by himself, but rather to use it as motivation for what to automate looking at
18:21:17 <dgoulet> yeah out of this you'll have a big action item which is what arma mentions: "items we ought to measure" (and how)
18:21:19 <gaba> ok, I was adding 'monitor network disruption or problems'
18:21:52 <arma> in an ideal world, when we're doing Q2 roadmapping, we have that menu to choose from.
18:22:09 <gaba> yes
18:22:10 <arma> if Q2 arrives and we still only know "hm maybe we should measure something, wonder what" we have done it wrong
18:22:17 <dgoulet> agree
18:22:22 <gaba> let's move into roadmap for Q1, ok?
18:22:31 <GeKo> yes
18:22:48 <GeKo> that's important for the performance stuff too
18:22:50 <gaba> there is a bunch of things there from roger's list to geko's tickets to the ask from the network team to help with sbws
18:22:53 <GeKo> as a preparation
18:23:40 <GeKo> i am fine helping with sbws
18:23:52 <dgoulet> sbws is in theory maintained by net team but not really in reality :S
18:23:54 <GeKo> it's an important thing
18:24:05 <dgoulet> outstanding bugs get some eyes though
18:24:08 <arma> yea, sbws needs leadership from the network team side, and also it needs somebody from the network health side telling folks how it's working.
18:24:31 <GeKo> that could be some kind of role division here, yes
18:24:56 <ahf> i think sbws needs a funded juga as the big thing if we want it to fly
18:25:09 <GeKo> hrm, ideally yes
18:25:21 <gaba> ahf and me are going to meet with juga next week
18:25:22 <GeKo> but we should try making plans to get it to fly without that, too
18:25:25 <arma> "ideally yes and what are we going to do in the meantime"
18:25:34 <gaba> and we can go over a plan and help them with proposal for funding
18:25:54 <GeKo> yes, but we should not wait for funding to arrive here i think
18:25:59 <arma> +1
18:26:12 <arma> this is the #1 issue with the tor network right now i think
18:26:16 <ahf> is sbws holding anything back with the network?
18:26:19 <ahf> really
18:26:30 <GeKo> so some way of splitting work up in the meantime seems to be smart
18:26:33 <ahf> i had the impression that it was on the very nice to have list.
18:26:34 <GeKo> to move this forward
18:27:09 <arma> when people set up relays they get wildly weird weights, and often their weights never go up even though they have capacity, and they stop their relays and move on with their life
18:27:39 <arma> this is just an impression though. we should tie it into "talk to relay orgs" to get real data, and data over time.
18:27:58 <ahf> is this actually the case? like do we know people says that and turns off their relay?
18:28:03 <arma> yes
18:28:12 <ahf> okay
18:28:25 <arma> a recent tor-relays mail from quintex was him saying "why do i get so little traffic, this is making me sad, nothing changed, what's wrong"
18:28:50 <gaba> ok, for the roadmap i think we should get the priorities we have and write down issues/tickets that we have or we need to have
18:28:53 <ggus> yeah, i read that email
18:29:22 <GeKo> ahf: gaba: so it might be smart while talking to juga to think about ways to move this forward without funding arriving immediately
18:29:50 <GeKo> i am happy to help with work here in some capacity, as said
18:29:58 <ahf> yeah, i think i need to understand the blockers too with current sbws
18:30:17 <GeKo> before doing what gaba said
18:30:35 <GeKo> are we good with the big pieces for say the next 2-3 months?
18:30:46 <arma> (if i had to pick a #2 issue with the tor network today, it would be that some relays can't handle their traffic well. but that issue might come down to appropriate weighting too.)
18:31:03 <ahf> sbws work is not incorporated into the current "q1" network team roadmap i think, and it goes "until costa rica"
18:31:29 <gaba> ahf: there are some deployement blockers that teor mentioned
18:31:31 <gaba> ahf: for sbws
18:31:42 <ahf> ah
18:31:44 <gaba> ahf: i added yesterday to the network team roadmap in the temporal spreadsheet
18:31:45 <ahf> maybe that is enough
18:31:56 <gaba> they are around 7 tickets
18:32:07 <gaba> here: https://nc.torproject.net/s/TGeW5CX4GqaagMN
18:32:22 <gaba> look at everything marked as performance+scalability
18:32:27 <gaba> in green
18:32:31 <arma> it would be awesome for the network team to prioritize getting sbws to the point that the network health team can provide proper feedback on what else is missing
18:32:48 <arma> (and in the mean time, for the network health team to figure out what they need, in order to provide proper feedback)
18:33:07 <gaba> arma: yes, the issue is that so far we have other projects going on. I need to understand if this should be more important than the other ones or not OR to see how to squize them in.
18:33:12 <gaba> squeeze*
18:33:39 <dgoulet> yeah and if not teor doing it, we need someonelse to ramp up to sbws
18:33:40 <arma> yep. not saying we have to drop everything else. just saying it would be awesome. :) good thing we have project managers, roadmaps etc
18:33:59 <gaba> yes
18:34:03 <gaba> teor can not take them right now
18:34:41 <gaba> dgoulet, ahf: let's try to check with other people in the team to see who else can take it.
18:35:02 <dgoulet> wonderful net team email? :)
18:35:06 <ahf> gaba: yes
18:35:07 <gaba> hehe
18:35:10 <dgoulet> nobody will volunteer in a public IRC setup :P
18:35:21 <arma> and maybe the network health team's first role there would be to help figure out a minimum set of critical path things
18:35:24 <gaba> i was mostly thinkg about 1:1s syncs :)
18:35:32 <GeKo> dgoulet: why not?
18:35:39 <ahf> ignorant question: sbws is deployed 3 places now and the problem is we want 100% deployment, but can't right now?
18:35:40 <dgoulet> GeKo: just the net team group dynamic in some ways :P
18:35:47 <GeKo> huh
18:35:52 <GeKo> okay
18:36:05 <dgoulet> _since_ Montreal we tried to get someone from the net team to help maintain swbs
18:36:08 <dgoulet> and here we are so ....
18:36:17 <dgoulet> sorta thing it needs to be _pushed_ on someone ;)
18:36:20 <dgoulet> think*
18:36:24 <gaba> catalyst was going to help with it a little. Maybe then can do it. We need to check.
18:36:27 <GeKo> ahf: yes
18:36:50 <dgoulet> yeah and sbws is off by like 1000 relays from the old bwauth iirc ?
18:36:59 <dgoulet> http://tgnv2pssfumdedyw.onion/#bwauthstatus
18:37:22 <dgoulet> could be also due to geo location as in one is in Hong Kong so
18:38:00 <arma> i don't know what the sbws blockers are, but at a high level, i vote 'simple simple simple'. like, measure relays, produce number. then it should be more possible to figure out bugs like 'why are half the numbers missing'.
18:38:16 <GeKo> okay, let's move on here
18:38:30 <arma> great
18:38:45 <GeKo> i think we won't finish the roadmapping thing
18:39:00 <GeKo> so let's squeeze in our regular meeting time discussion
18:39:21 <GeKo> do we have a potential day/time that could work for like most of us?
18:39:32 <GeKo> what about the proposed 1900 utc on mondays?
18:39:47 <dgoulet> fine by me, just after net team meeting
18:39:49 <arma> plausible! who is the 'most of us'?
18:39:56 <GeKo> we'll see!
18:40:00 <arma> ha
18:40:04 <ahf> i think i can do that, but i might also have 1:1's there with netteam folks
18:40:11 <ahf> i have moved all my 1:1 to monday now
18:40:15 <gaba> Monday 19:00 UTC was the time that worked from the doodle
18:40:19 <GeKo> aha
18:40:43 <GeKo> ggus: what about you?
18:40:46 <ggus> Next Monday I might be 30 minutes late
18:40:56 <GeKo> just in general
18:41:02 <ggus> but only that monday, in general works
18:41:17 <GeKo> okay, then let's try that one?
18:41:32 <GeKo> starting with 2/3
18:41:49 <gaba> ok
18:41:52 <gaba> february 2nd
18:41:55 <gaba> not this monday then
18:42:04 <ggus> ok!
18:42:05 <GeKo> no, i'll be in berlin at all hands
18:42:40 <GeKo> good. so let's got back to the roadmapping exercie for the remaining minutes, i guess
18:42:45 <GeKo> *go
18:43:10 <arma> feb 2 is a sunday. let's call it feb 3 monday.
18:43:16 <gaba> feb 3rd, yes
18:43:30 <gaba> anyway, roadmap
18:43:39 <gaba> we can continue looking at the roadmap between meetings
18:43:46 <GeKo> yep
18:43:54 <gaba> I think we should add the priorities and add issues/tickets to each
18:44:05 <gaba> with a must to the ones that needs to be done
18:44:05 <GeKo> in particular as other teams have not finished their roadmap
18:44:24 <GeKo> or sbws related parts show up etc.
18:46:12 <gaba> are people ok with this process on how we add priorities and tickets?
18:47:00 <ggus> yep
18:47:01 <GeKo> i am fine with it fwiw
18:47:51 <arma> sounds great. i will look forward to seeing how it goes. let me know if there are specific tickets i am the best person to file.
18:48:05 <GeKo> will do, thanks
18:48:38 <arma> i would suggest not getting too distracted by the mishmash of existing tickets. instead, figure out some organization and do things in an organized way. :)
18:49:00 <GeKo> yeah
18:49:27 <ggus> are we using network-health tag in trac tickets?
18:49:35 <arma> though 'do triage on existing tickets' might be a fun periodic exercise
18:49:37 <GeKo> for now as keyword, yes
18:51:13 <ggus> ok, and how long are you staying in berlin?
18:51:35 <GeKo> the whole week until saturday morning (assuming i am meant) :)
18:52:55 <gaba> geko: until jan 31st?
18:53:24 <GeKo> well, yes, my train back leaves on feb 1 in the morning
18:53:51 <GeKo> so i expect to be the whole next week kind of distracted
18:54:05 <GeKo> but hope to sync at least with mike regarding network health stuff
18:54:33 <GeKo> in particular how it related to performance and scalability work under way
18:54:39 <GeKo> *relates
18:55:04 <GeKo> okay, i think i have all the items that come to mind right now for the bad relay part
18:55:27 <gaba> ok, it seems we may be ok for the meeting today?
18:55:39 <gaba> we can continue on the roadmap after and sync again in next meeting
18:55:52 <GeKo> yeah, i think so
18:56:03 <arma> geko: what would be helpful for me, at the end of your roadmapping process, is to hear a handful of goal statements, and put them on the network health team trac page,
18:56:09 <GeKo> do we have any last words/thoughts/ideas/complaints?
18:56:10 <arma> and then at the end of q1 we can ask how those goals are going,
18:56:18 <GeKo> yes, i agree
18:56:23 <arma> and while we are filing and working on tickets we can ask ourselves if this ticket works towards one of those goals
18:56:31 <gaba> yes
18:56:36 <gaba> we need to update the wiki page
18:56:40 <gaba> and trac..
18:56:48 <GeKo> and everything... :)
18:57:12 <gaba> geko: do you send the notes to tor-project@ ?
18:57:20 <GeKo> yes, i can do that
18:57:53 <GeKo> i guess we are good for now. thanks everyone for this productive meeting. very nice to see things moving here!
18:57:59 <GeKo> #endmeeting