17:59:09 #startmeeting Tor Browser Team Meeting 30 March 2020 17:59:09 Meeting started Mon Mar 30 17:59:09 2020 UTC. The chair is sysrqb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:59:13 Hello everyone 17:59:23 hi 17:59:29 welcome to the last team meeting of March 17:59:39 o/ 17:59:47 o/ 17:59:59 hi 18:00:11 o/ 18:00:17 hello! 18:01:37 https://pad.riseup.net/p/TorBrowserTeamMeetingNotes-keep 18:01:39 is the pad 18:01:52 hi 18:04:44 * mcs is reading the pad 18:07:17 alrighty. 18:07:42 #32418 18:08:08 mcs: do macOS users see a similar problem? 18:08:34 or is firefox smarter about handling the error when it is located in /Applications? 18:08:44 brade: ^ 18:08:51 I don't think it's specific to platform 18:09:33 okay 18:10:05 i heard a rumor the other day that Tor Browser updates on macOS are kinda sad for non-admin users, too 18:10:11 lots of users on the blog are asking for a way to disable updates, so I think having some way to do it is useful 18:10:17 but, regarding https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/32418#comment:9 18:10:48 i see the benefit of both approaches 18:11:43 i did not look at the code 18:12:10 but based on the recommendation, i'm guessing the code changes needed for #2 are relatively small? 18:12:40 it sounds more complex, but that's only based on the descriptions 18:13:13 Either patch should be fairly small. 18:13:34 Gving Tor Browser users access to the policy mechanism in a safe way seems like a win (approach #2) 18:13:51 Yes 18:14:15 is Tails' method the only way we know of disabling it on Linux? 18:15:53 I think yes (not only on Linux) 18:16:07 Tails' methods don't work for end users 18:16:25 Right, sorry, I meant if we go with option #2 18:17:02 is there a sane way for disabling updates on Linux Tor Browser, too? 18:17:13 If we implement option #2, it will work on all platforms via a policies.json file. 18:17:21 At least it should. 18:17:27 ah, okay 18:17:57 Users would be adding a policies.json file but I think the updater will leave it alone. 18:17:59 sorry for my lack of understanding about the policies 18:18:12 okay 18:18:33 i agree #2 seem like a sane way to go with this 18:18:45 *seems 18:19:25 (some info here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-using-policiesjson) 18:19:57 thanks, i saw you linked it in the ticket, too 18:19:58 We can create a patch for #2 and see how it looks / works 18:20:05 sounds good to me 18:20:06 thanks 18:20:12 +1 18:22:48 Jeremy_Rand_Talos: can you take a look at this ticket when you have some time? https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/30334 18:23:41 sysrqb, yes, sure 18:24:07 thanks 18:25:17 okay, i don't see any other items 18:26:07 for discussion, i only have the retrospective 18:26:48 i talked with pili earlier and we decided we should postpone the retrospective meeting by a few weeks 18:27:00 yup :) 18:27:12 due to the current craziness with the virus 18:27:35 and hopefully we'll all be in a more stable place (mentally and physically) in a couple weeks 18:27:38 +1 18:27:58 hopefully 18:28:25 but I was thinking we could experiment with whatever media we want to use for the retrospective 18:28:31 and hold the next team meeting that way 18:28:56 it should support at least text and voice 18:29:02 with optional video 18:29:19 jitsi meet seems like the easy/obvious choice for that 18:29:51 does anyone else have a preference/suggestion/recommendation? 18:30:11 it works, i facilitated my family gathering last weekend and so far so good 18:30:17 :) 18:30:21 :) 18:30:21 sysrqb, I've successfully used qTox for voice calls recently. End to end encrypted unlike Jitsi meet. The Whonix people seem to like it (it supports Tor, though doesn't require it). 18:30:44 hrm 18:30:52 including groups? 18:30:55 That said, since I won't be at the retrospective, my opinion has little to no weight :) 18:31:31 sysrqb, qTox claims to support group calls but I haven't tested it 18:31:53 interesting. 18:32:28 "Audio calls, including group calls" 18:32:36 i don't think i've heard anyone suggest it 18:32:44 i'll ask around and see if anyone has tried it 18:32:50 Jeremy_Rand_Talos: thanks! 18:33:03 Echo suppression isn't quite as good as Chromium, so having decent mics matters more 18:33:33 that's good to know 18:34:20 i'll do some researhc on qTox, and we can always fallback on jitsi meet 18:34:27 sounds good 18:34:35 sounds good 18:35:18 okay, does anyone have any comments/questions/concerns they want to raise before i end this meeting? 18:35:32 all of your priorities for this week look good to me 18:35:35 yes 18:35:40 just a brief note 18:37:33 sysrqb, I've gotten some decent feedback on the Namecoin support by asking on Reddit; I'll post a summary of it on tor-talk soon. At some point we may want to ponder how much feedback we consider to be "enough" (I got 2 fairly detailed reports so far, each of which resulted in one Trac ticket, one of which already has a patch) 18:38:32 great 18:39:25 yes, i need to catch up on the status of that and i'm interested in the feedback you received 18:39:35 oh, I have one quick thing also 18:39:40 :) 18:39:46 Jeremy_Rand_Talos: . 18:39:46 can I go? :D 18:40:28 Jeremy_Rand_Talos: i don't foresee us integrating namecoin into Alpha before we finish the migration to Firefox's Rapid Release 18:40:50 just because that is a pretty big feature release right before a very large browser change 18:41:13 so i don't see us moving forward with this before June or July 18:41:39 sysrqb, yeah the feedback was useful. I can probably get some more feedback by soliciting on Namecoin's Twitter account, will do that this week most likely 18:41:39 at this point, at the earliest, if we decide that is the next step in this process 18:43:21 sysrqb, ok yes, makes sense to wait for Rapid Release before adding to Alpha. Are further improvements to Nightly also blocked by that? (E.g. adding macOS/Windows support, if that's desired?) 18:43:49 (no need to have an answer on that right now, just worth pondering :) ) 18:44:13 Tor is not currently planning on moving namecoin support out of Nightly-only releases in the near future 18:44:40 but i don't think improving support in Nightly is blocked by anything except for reviewer-resources 18:45:02 so, you may run into a similar problem we currently have with RLBox sandboxing 18:45:11 *cough* 18:45:19 we have patches, but we don't have enough time to review them or reviews are...slow :/ 18:45:24 (which is not even in nightly ;)) 18:45:48 :/ 18:46:58 sysrqb, ok. FWIW I'm trying to decide whether macOS/Windows support in Nightly is a good usage of my time in the near future. Funding for me to do Win/macOS support may be available in the next couple months, if you think it's a good use of my time. 18:46:59 (maybe there is an alternative/faster review path for rlbox, i'll look at that) 18:47:58 I'm inclined to start working on it as soon as funding availability happens, but if you think there are other things I should work on instead, I'll defer to you 18:48:19 overall, i think the answer depends on whether you see benefit in adding that support 18:48:59 sysrqb, one of the Reddit test reports included "the hardest part about the instructions was installing Linux", so based on that I think there's a benefit 18:49:39 i don't think namecoin support will be deployed in a stable release anytime in the near future, so this is mostly an excerise in namecoin integration for you, at this point 18:50:18 we're happy to provide a platform for that 18:50:36 but i want to be honest and set expectations accordingly 18:51:16 sysrqb, right, so to a significant extent the question is "what factors are the biggest obstacles to advancing to Alpha", and whether adding Win/macOS support has any benefit for overcoming those obstacles 18:52:56 based on my understanding, no, adding Win and macOS support won't help with this 18:53:40 sysrqb, well, it might help us get more testers. Besides that, I agree that it may not help much. 18:53:41 or, to put it another way, they are not a missing piece 18:53:53 right 18:54:11 more supported platforms will give us more (maybe better) feedback 18:54:18 and that is an important data point 18:55:12 yeah, so for that reason my take is that it's worth my time to add those platforms, as long as it doesn't become a giant time sink (I don't expect it to be one) 18:55:55 but moving integration from nightly into alpha is a decision that involves conversations with Tor's directors 18:56:12 and Tor isn't is a place right now where this is a priority 18:56:32 Jeremy_Rand_Talos: that sounds fine to me 18:56:37 we'll take patches for them 18:57:11 we can continue this conversatoin after the meeting, if needed 18:57:23 we should give pili 1 minute of time before the hour 18:57:29 ok 18:57:35 so my thing is just a reminder to all staff members to make sure you submit your timesheets for March (not just save them...) :) 18:57:37 :D 18:57:43 :) 18:57:50 yes, that is a good reminder 18:58:05 thanks 18:58:33 okay, i think that wraps up this meeting 18:58:38 have a good week everyone! 18:58:46 thanks! 18:58:47 and stay safe and sane 18:58:51 #endmeeting