17:58:44 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, 12 Feb 2018
17:58:44 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Feb 12 17:58:44 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:58:44 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:58:46 <nickm> hi everybody!
17:58:51 <isabela> hello
17:58:51 <dgoulet> hello
17:58:57 <nickm> The pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/EnY0SmPlSweq this week
17:59:00 <asn> hello people :)
17:59:09 <mikeperry> hi all
17:59:24 <nickm> I'm typing to you from a comfy couch in the MIT student center
17:59:35 <dgoulet> aha
17:59:45 <teor4> I have well-timed insomnia
17:59:49 <isabela> !
17:59:51 <nickm> teor4: gosh!
17:59:52 <catalyst> nickm: comfy but how clean? ;-)
18:00:04 <ahf> hey
18:00:05 <dgoulet> wild teor4 , love it
18:00:07 <nickm> catalyst: well, I wouldn't lick it.
18:00:31 <ahf> lol
18:00:37 * asn reads reports
18:01:15 <nickm> (If you're done with your report, please read everyone else's.  If you're not, please write your updates!)
18:01:54 <isis> oh awesome, teor4 is here!
18:04:03 <nickm> isis: mind if I remove your trailing whitespace
18:05:58 <isis> thanks
18:06:20 * isis reads
18:06:58 <nickm> ok! another minute or two,  then let's start discussing stuff!  I'd like my stuff to go last, since it's open-ended
18:07:05 <nickm> remember to put discussion stuff in boldface
18:08:38 <nickm> let's start with isabela
18:08:52 <nickm> isabela: you sent out that plan about doing both short-term and long-term planning in Rome.
18:09:01 <nickm> Anything you want to say or discuss about that?
18:09:44 <isabela> (reminds that friday feb 16 is deadline for us to finalize the list of 'areas of work')
18:10:04 <nickm> put a link in the pad?
18:10:06 <isis> so the hackfest is now over the memorial day weekend? or no, it starts the wednesday after memorial day, and goes over the next weekend?
18:10:13 <isabela> yes is there
18:10:20 <isabela> nickm: is on discussion part
18:10:57 <teor4> isis: Wednesday 30th, after memorial day, to Sunday 3rd
18:11:43 <teor4> accommodation and travel are expensive otherwise, and we'd have to get someone to open the office
18:11:48 <ahf> isabela: can we just add things we find relevant there with our nick to it? i'd like to "shove" some mobile things into it
18:11:51 <isis> teor4: cool thanks
18:11:56 <isabela> teor4: i have the keys
18:11:59 <isis> teor4: oh, it's also in the office?
18:12:48 <isabela> ahf: yes sure (undercore or mark like [ahf: xxxxxx] just some visual way to know is an add/edit
18:13:05 <isabela> ahf: for folks w collors off
18:13:16 <ahf> yep, cool
18:14:00 <teor4> isabela: cool
18:14:06 <isabela> i will do a mid week check on this pad
18:14:16 <isabela> and try to close the deal by friday :)
18:14:23 <teor4> Do we need to find places for crypto, ipv6, and dirauths?
18:14:42 <nickm> isabela: this is looking like a list of stuff that is current medium-term focus, more so than long-term focus?
18:14:43 <isabela> teor4: armadev thinks of crypto more of a how
18:14:49 <isabela> that is why is not under anywhere
18:14:56 <isabela> but the others are kind of open still to be placed
18:15:20 <isabela> nickm: sure, i think we need to look at areas of focus that works all the time
18:15:24 <isabela> not just now or future
18:15:30 <isabela> that we should care all the time
18:15:41 <isabela> if they exist now we list them anyways
18:15:45 <isabela> it means our work is to build them
18:16:05 <nickm> ok
18:16:17 <teor4> ok, so TLS 1.3 and ipv6 both fit in as "standards upgrades"
18:16:25 <nickm> so let's talk some time then: I think a lot of these things only matter for "next year or two"
18:16:28 <teor4> not sure about dirauths
18:16:47 <isabela> nickm: is ok, we will review it periodically too
18:17:17 <nickm> yeah, we should note that some things are not this team's job.  We don't oversee dirauths for instance.
18:17:28 <ahf> is this document going to be encoded into what? future grant proposals? the roadmap? something third?
18:17:42 <asn> nickm: but we responsible for dirauths code
18:17:53 <nickm> yes, but not for actually running them
18:17:55 <isabela> yes, folks needs to think of this as an area of work where we would set a goal and have tasks under it for the team
18:18:02 <isabela> so if your topic can't have that
18:18:05 <isabela> maybe is not for this list
18:18:47 <isabela> nickm: do we build featuers for dirauth ppl tho?
18:18:54 <nickm> sometimes!
18:18:57 <isabela> or do we need to set goals to have features
18:19:13 <nickm> hm, ok
18:19:20 <nickm> so it's "areas where we will build features sometimes"
18:19:28 <isabela> so maybe that stays and we do what we think should be done now or whenever in the future there is something to be done
18:20:18 <isabela> is ok if we are just on maintainance for an area for a while to focus on others if there is nothing urgent to be done there, you know what i am saying? is a map of things we should think of when planning
18:20:22 <isabela> plans will change over time
18:20:34 <isabela> but this should be the things we think when doing those
18:20:51 <isabela> i can see for instance
18:21:06 <isabela> areas here where we will have a lot of work for the 6 months roadmap and some where there wont be none
18:21:18 <teor4> I merged the leftover and unsorted sections
18:21:23 <isabela> and some where we will have more stuff for the 2019/2021 planning
18:22:20 <nickm> more discussion on this?
18:22:38 <nickm> isis -- you wanted to discuss something about the meeting later on, or just make sure folks know about it?
18:22:51 <isis> just make sure people knew it existed :)
18:23:42 <ahf> happy to see UTF-8 more places, i remember seeing weird encoding issues when i used my surname in the contact info of my old relay :'(
18:23:52 <isis> nickm: cool! you are taking a class on coq, sounds rad
18:24:23 <nickm> catalyst: got a patch for the check-changes issue?
18:24:29 <nickm> if not i can write one quick
18:24:38 <catalyst> nickm: sorry, i don't have one handy
18:26:11 <nickm> ok, more topics: 0.3.3 is now wrapping up.  We're hoping to have it stable soon -- scheduled date is Apr 15, but it would be great to finish ahead of time for once
18:26:28 <nickm> this means we need to identify the must-fix stuff ASAP, and fix it together...
18:26:41 <nickm> I can try, but my sense of must-fix is pretty loose
18:26:47 <nickm> and I am likely to miss stuff
18:26:51 <nickm> any suggestions how we should do this?
18:26:57 <dgoulet> keyword?
18:27:27 <asn> should we do a meeting? or each person for themselves?
18:27:33 <asn> how have we done this best historically?
18:27:43 <nickm> we've never done it terribly well historically :(
18:28:07 <nickm> Maybe we should all do individual markup this week, with plan for a meeting about it next week?
18:28:26 <asn> it's basically a triaging job. i remember we did a good one in real life in seattle?
18:28:39 <ahf> individual markup with a keyword? :-) or in a google docs sheet or something?
18:28:41 <asn> also the spreadsheet approach worked
18:28:45 <nickm> If there's something you think needs to get fixed for 0.3.3, please tag it with must-fix-before-033-stable
18:28:53 <ahf> ok
18:29:00 <nickm> unless you'd rather do spreadsheet?
18:29:11 * catalyst prefers shorter tag names
18:29:17 <catalyst> how about 033-must ?
18:29:22 <nickm> I do too, but people are apparently using that one already...
18:29:37 <nickm> I'm fine with 033-must, but if you use that, please make sure the must-fix-before-033-stable ones change to 033-must
18:29:41 <dgoulet> +1 "033-must"
18:29:52 <dgoulet> follows our "033-backport" kind of pattern
18:30:08 <nickm> And finally, let's use "033-must" sparingly, especially if it is something that you yourself will not fix. :)
18:30:20 <nickm> next topic: 0.3.4 merge window opens soon! Woo!
18:30:33 <dgoulet> nickm: +1 and we should "Owner" as much as possible as well
18:30:37 <catalyst> nickm: i.e., if we're already assigned it's our own job to keep track of?
18:30:38 <nickm> how can we make sure that this release goes well?
18:30:56 <dgoulet> I consider the "New" ticket often like orphans so this is the pile I look to for fixing things
18:31:11 <asn> so the idea is that after this week, anything that is not 033-must can be pushed to 034?
18:31:16 <nickm> catalyst: more like, "If you are saying 'I must do this' that is a lighter matter than saying 'You must do this'."
18:31:46 <nickm> asn: can be, but might not be for a little while.  I'll still take typo fixes even if they aren't "must"  for instane.
18:31:49 <nickm> *instance
18:32:51 <teor4> isabela: I tried to add areas to the uncategorised topics on the pad
18:33:07 <isabela> teor4: thank you
18:33:10 <nickm> for 0.3.4 -- what can we do better this time?  What should we make sure to do again?
18:33:12 <teor4> can you check and move them if you like them?
18:33:19 <isabela> yes
18:33:58 <dgoulet> nickm: if we can have a list of features we want tin 034 that is "A, B and C" are the big blocks going in, we can focus on those while in merge window
18:34:28 <dgoulet> if we know what is expected to go in 034 (as enhancement), it is much easier to do follow up on them
18:34:41 <dgoulet> my two cents ^
18:34:50 <teor4> if you want to do a ticket in 0.3.4, go for it, but if you want someone else to do a ticket, put it in 0.3.5?
18:34:54 <isabela> teor4: i will wait for more feedback before saying what is what / since everyone here knows better then me so i am hoping we think this through together. thanks for the suggestions and i will make sure to remind folks to also look at them and think about it
18:34:57 <nickm> dgoulet: okay. Do we have such a list?
18:35:02 <dgoulet> teor4: +1
18:35:17 <teor4> (or unspecified?)
18:35:32 <dgoulet> nickm: not that I know of :S ... we did for 032, then 033 we did not and 034 I have no idea what we plan as enhancement that is non trivial patch set
18:35:50 <teor4> privcount in tor
18:35:54 <dgoulet> that is oen ^
18:35:59 <nickm> that's a big one :)
18:36:02 <isis> i would like to get the large create cells in, and also the changes to ntor
18:36:05 <dgoulet> we could do an email thread about this
18:36:16 <nickm> let's try that
18:36:22 <dgoulet> or pad or what not but we should flag those tickets and try as much as possible an early merge
18:36:26 <nickm> I hope I get to code this time :)
18:36:44 <nickm> I feel like I've been release-engineering for ages :/
18:36:58 <teor4> nickm: do you want others to do some release engineering?
18:36:59 <catalyst> nickm: that's how it often is
18:37:15 <teor4> in 034?
18:37:19 <isis> nickm: is there any way for us to help with releases? did ahf and i doing alphas help?
18:37:22 <dgoulet> Linus world with the kernel, no coding, just mergin... :(
18:37:23 <ahf> nickm: what can we do to help with this?
18:37:35 <ahf> we tried the thing where isis and i did a release and i don't think we have done that afterwards?
18:38:08 <isis> yeah that was not so hard, we could do maybe alpha rotations?
18:38:13 <nickm> that could be fun, but it's not just doing the releases.  It's reviewing all the patches, staring at the bugtracker, prioritizing everything, etc
18:38:34 <nickm> maybe we can brainstorm stuff and come up with ideas?
18:38:40 <nickm> I'd love to have more folks making alphas
18:39:04 <ahf> yeah
18:39:05 <dgoulet> I think there is an argument to be made that review group could be done in rotation or just some other people
18:39:13 <dgoulet> by some*
18:39:26 <teor4> how can we get more reviews in 034? Or better reviews?
18:39:44 <isis> dgoulet: +1
18:40:20 <nickm> So, first thing I do each day is check for code reviews to do and patches to merge.
18:40:35 <nickm> I could back off from that and let others give it a try?
18:40:51 <teor4> dgoulet: rotation is good: "review all the tickets, call in help if you need it"
18:40:52 <nickm> We could make expectations that everybody should look at tickets in every review-group, barring exceptional circumstances?
18:41:31 <dgoulet> so yes that ^ I think we should try as much as possible to pick tickets to review in a review group as part of our weekly meeting for instance
18:41:55 <dgoulet> teor4: yes, which as a bonus makes us each more aware of what is going on
18:41:59 <ahf> nickm: if it would help you, i think it could be worth it - we obviously cannot merge the patches though
18:42:01 <catalyst> we have a "reviewer" field; do we not use it for assignment purposes?
18:42:06 <dgoulet> we do
18:42:28 <catalyst> i try to remember to use it if i'm reviewing a ticket and i'll be taking more than a few minutes to do so
18:42:32 <nickm> okay.  so, review-group-32 is open.  I'll take whatever tickets nobody else takes.  There are 17 needs_review tickets and 8 of us here (minus isa).
18:42:42 <nickm> everybody take two tickets, and please don't just take the very easiest?
18:42:53 <nickm> I'll take whatever nobody else wants.
18:42:59 <dgoulet> (and maybe prioritize 033 tickest since the merge window is not opened yet?)
18:43:09 <teor4> that's a rough job
18:43:11 <dgoulet> for 034*
18:43:12 <nickm> Maybe when I make a new review group, I should say how many each person should take to do it fairly?
18:43:24 <nickm> teor4: what is?
18:43:32 <teor4> the tickets no-one else wants
18:43:47 <nickm> yeah
18:43:52 <nickm> but it's what I've been doing anyway
18:44:06 <nickm> and
18:44:23 <catalyst> how about if a ticket goes without a reviewer for X number of weeks, we make a point to talk about that explicitly?
18:44:30 <nickm> and "the 2-3 tickets nobody else wants" is much easier than "80% of the tickets I did not write myself."
18:44:45 <nickm> catalyst: we should do that; I've been trying to explicitly hunt down reviewers for stuff too
18:45:13 <nickm> And the "review-group" fifo is kind of an attempt to make it everybody's business: while there is unreviewed stuff from RG32, don't expect other stuff to get merged.
18:45:23 <catalyst> e.g., maybe the reason nobody wants to review it is it's horribly complicated and not suitable for a single person to review
18:45:47 <isis> i took #24658 #25150 and #25071, lmk if anybody else really wanted those since i'm happy to take whatever
18:45:49 <dgoulet> thus the important of having a owner on the ticket ^ on which you can seay that
18:46:08 <dgoulet> catalyst: it happens actually ofen that we do explicitly mention on the ticket "to complicated, can you split this and this"
18:46:10 <nickm> I am 100% happy with folks teaming up, yeah
18:46:25 <isis> i can actually take more tickets too, those are all likely quick to review
18:46:56 <nickm> isis: cool; maybe circle back once you're through the moat stuff that's due on the 15th?
18:47:06 <nickm> I don't want to pull you away from stuff you're committed to
18:47:39 <isis> ah yeah, good point
18:48:03 <nickm> I'll take #25171
18:48:16 <nickm> and whatever else :)
18:48:17 <isis> oh also apparently the bridgeauth is not able to find its key again, *sigh*
18:48:32 <nickm> We're running short on time -- any more discussion for this week, awesome haxxorz?
18:48:51 <dgoulet> 034 features, who starts that thread?
18:48:56 <dgoulet> (or pad)
18:49:04 <isis> also the bridgeauth appears to have intermittent hardware failures and a failing RAID1 drive :(
18:49:06 <nickm> dgoulet: if you did, I would be grateful
18:49:11 <teor4> I did the keyword switch to 033-must
18:49:23 <nickm> teor4: thank you!
18:49:33 <dgoulet> nickm: ok so I'll start the tor-dev thread, lets try to also have ticket for each so we can track them and not over commit ahha
18:49:44 <nickm> great
18:50:24 <asn> in my experience ,most of the review group tickets that go without reviewer is not because they are complicated but because they belong to a subsystem that no one feels comfortable with
18:50:52 <asn> and we have many subsystems with no "maintainers" except from nick
18:51:17 <nickm> maybe we need to explicitly change that
18:51:25 <nickm> like, just stick people onto systems
18:51:27 <asn> yes
18:51:31 <asn> i think so
18:51:31 <catalyst> maybe we should arrange for nick to cluedump about those
18:51:41 <nickm> the code can be hairy, but everybody here has learned stuff that they didn't know before by diving in
18:51:57 <nickm> I'm always glad to hear the sound of my own voice, either literally or metaphorically :)
18:52:00 <nickm> just ask!
18:52:27 <dgoulet> +1 on the subsystem
18:52:37 <asn> the networking stuff (conns/channels/circs) is one of those unmanaged subsystems
18:52:42 <asn> which basically fall into nick
18:52:51 <isis> speaking for myself, the reason i don't review some tickets (even after reading the entire ticket and patch) is because i'm not 100% confident in my knowledge of that area of the codebase
18:53:15 <dgoulet> for instance, I expect to get all the HS/SR/DoS stuff dumped on me and I can "un-owner" if I have no time but at least it falls under me to do the proper triage at that point
18:53:23 <dgoulet> (of HS/SR is shared with asn :P)
18:53:39 <nickm> asn: actually I think dgoulet understands it pretty well thanks to all the kist stuff
18:53:45 <isis> didn't we have a pad or document somewhere trying to asssign owners to subsystems?
18:53:53 <dgoulet> yeah the chan/sched/conns is something I do understand quite a bit now
18:54:04 <nickm> isis: yeah, but there's a little imposter syndrome talking there:
18:54:08 <dgoulet> so I'm happy to get all tickets related to that and then I'll do triage if needed
18:54:21 <nickm> isis: _nobody_ should be 100% confident in their knowledge of any of this wacky codebase
18:54:22 <catalyst> i think we should aim for n > 1 for number of owners of each subsystem
18:54:33 <nickm> isis: I sure am not!
18:54:38 <isis> catalyst: +1
18:54:39 <dgoulet> (which would facilitate quite a bit the triage and "oh shit 033 has 300 tickets" imo)
18:54:50 <asn> that's a lot of tickets! i did some homework for the roadmapping exercise, and I found that networking tickets was most of the stuff in the review-groups.
18:55:00 <nickm> as for assigning people to areas : I think we failed in the past because we didn't follow through
18:55:29 <asn> catalyst: problem is that we dont even have n == 1 for many of them
18:55:51 <isis> catalyst: the doc we had before aimed to have at least two people per area and it asked us to rank our perceived familiarity with the part of the code
18:55:57 <nickm> maybe if we just automatically assign tickets for review to the people who know the area, that could help build their knowledge.
18:56:05 <catalyst> isis: that seems not too bad an idea
18:56:16 <isis> but yeah, there were iirc a lot of areas that had two people who were both like
18:56:19 <isis> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
18:56:58 <ahf> everyone should be very free to randomly assign me as reviewer for things as well, i think it's very interesting to review things in unknown parts of the code that is unknown to me (as long as it's C/build system things) :o
18:57:08 <ahf> i don't feel comfortable enough in rust yet
18:57:27 <nickm> (2 min left)
18:57:29 <isabela> i have that doc
18:57:48 <nickm> isabela: cool! Send it to the network-team list and maybe we can take another pass at it?
18:58:04 <asn> we should think of a better approach to fill it in
18:58:21 <nickm> yeah
18:58:24 <asn> because last one was "eh how good you are with each subsystem" with no specific goal
18:58:31 <asn> but we should do it with the goal to fill in the blanks
18:58:35 <nickm> ok, time for the TB people to have a meeting
18:58:37 <asn> yeah
18:58:40 <isis> feel free to assign stuff to me, esp rust/crypto/circ stuff
18:58:40 <isabela> https://storm.torproject.org/shared/snpgGmzZ1hVGYcD9J9MK50T0PLr6Es1iLx9ydUJcrpo
18:58:44 <nickm> thanks,everybody! Let's work towards answers here
18:58:45 <isabela> nickm: will send
18:58:46 <isis> yay :)
18:58:50 <nickm> #endmeeting