17:59:27 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, 26 Nov
17:59:27 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Nov 26 17:59:27 2018 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:27 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:29 <nickm> Hi all!
17:59:42 <nickm> pad is still at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2018.1-keep
17:59:46 <asn> hello
17:59:54 <dgoulet> hello
18:00:00 <nickm> it's almost december!  How are folks doing?
18:00:51 <nickm> gaba is still on thanksgiving time, so let's hope she is taking it easy
18:00:56 <nickm> wrt roadmap -- I saw a bunch of bootstrap progress last week. Looks cool!
18:01:05 <nickm> any blockers on roadmapped things?
18:01:34 <nickm> everybody have something roadmapped to work on?
18:01:49 <ahf> yep
18:01:58 <asn> still working on wtf-pad. crunching through the todo list.
18:02:08 <asn> i managed to integrate riastradh's probability distribution code into wtf-pad branch.
18:02:26 <asn> it was lots of work, but i think the code is more mature, accurate and well tested.
18:02:46 <asn> this week i will continue crunching the todo list by writing tests. hopefully mike will also come back and help me.
18:02:48 <nickm> asn, mikeperry: do you two want another round of review from me there? I realized that there were some things in the previous branch that I don't remember, so maybe I didn't read closely enough
18:03:20 <asn> maybe. possibly at the end of the week?
18:03:22 <nickm> ah, no mikeperry today either
18:03:38 <asn> i will let you know. i still need to squash riastradh's stuff pending his review.
18:03:41 <nickm> asn: okay. Make a note to remind me on thu/fri?  I will be at mozilla meeting next week, so preparing in advance will help
18:03:49 <asn> ack
18:03:51 <nickm> asn: also I'll have a couple of questions for you after this meeting about the branch
18:03:53 <ahf> nickm: will you have time to give #28179 a look this week when david is done with his review? i'd very much like a review from you especially on the windows code
18:03:59 <ahf> i think right now i'm the only one who has run that code
18:04:11 <nickm> ahf: ack
18:04:22 <asn> nickm: i have to bounce after this meeting. perhaps write it on trac, or send email, or write on irc and will reply later.
18:04:28 <nickm> asn: ok
18:04:37 <asn> nickm: hope that works for you.
18:04:43 <nickm> asn: no problem
18:05:00 <nickm> should I take an early look at any other stuff?
18:05:11 <nickm> catalyst: I see that you have some preliminary branches; want comment on them?
18:05:23 <catalyst> nickm: sure! it's still kind of rough
18:05:53 <nickm> ok, what should I look at?
18:06:29 <catalyst> the stuff i've pushed to my orconn-tracker branch is some preliminary refactoring work. please let me know if anything seems awkward or horrible to you
18:06:58 <nickm> will do
18:07:10 <catalyst> thanks!
18:07:24 <nickm> let's see, that leaves dgoulet?
18:07:35 <dgoulet> ?
18:07:43 <dgoulet> #28179 is my world
18:07:48 <nickm> ah, ok
18:07:52 <nickm> Sounds like that's roadmap
18:08:06 <nickm> on to review assignments....
18:08:44 <nickm> looks like I've got no reviews assigned this weel?
18:08:56 <asn> yep
18:09:06 <asn> it was basically one per person, max two.
18:09:11 <nickm> anybody want to offload anything to me?
18:09:14 <asn> and we opted for not putting you nickm
18:09:17 <nickm> ok
18:09:49 <nickm> but if anybody is going to block sponsor8 stuff on reviews, I'd prefer that you consider offloading the reviews to me if you want.
18:09:58 <nickm> everybody okay with their current load?
18:10:16 <ahf> yes
18:11:05 <nickm> ok. please ping me or the rest of the team if you want to offload, or if you have any reviews that are at risk of distracting you from s8
18:11:14 <nickm> rotations!
18:11:26 <nickm> I see nickm on triage, ahf on ci+coverity
18:11:30 <ahf> ack
18:12:36 <nickm> wrt announcements: There's the snowflake kickoff meeting tomorrow, in about 29 hours.
18:12:59 <nickm> let's all stop by if we have the time, so that it isn't just ahf telling me about snowflake :)
18:13:15 <ahf> :-)
18:13:57 <nickm> on to discussion issues?
18:14:17 <nickm> let's sort in rough order of how long this stuff will take...
18:14:38 <nickm> Ahf reminds us about the snowflake meeting and wants folks to read a  page on the wiki first
18:15:00 <nickm> asn: mikeperry wants you and me to figure out his must-do items for this week. Want to talk about that tomorrow, since he won't be back till weds?
18:15:42 <asn> nickm: i think that was from last week fwiw
18:15:54 <asn> but yes we can talk about it tomorrow
18:16:03 <nickm> asn: ok
18:16:07 <asn> figure out the remaining steps for the branch
18:16:09 <nickm> i'll doublecheck
18:17:00 <nickm> Here's another fast-ish one: I need people to tag any tickets that should block an 035-rc with "035-rc-blocker".
18:17:22 <nickm> I think i had them all identified last week, and I'll look for new ones, but it's kinda important to know what they are
18:17:40 <nickm> Anybody want to discuss any of those?
18:18:06 <nickm> Also, gaba asks whether anybody wants any bootstrap reporting help.  I think we already covered that, but please jump in if not
18:19:14 <nickm> Nothing on those items? If so, let's move on to the review document thing.  Does that maek sense to everybody right now?
18:19:20 <nickm> Could somebody summarize what we're voting on?
18:20:12 <asn> i was not aware there is some sort of voting situation going on in that doc
18:20:25 <nickm> it's on the discussion section -- there's a question with 2 options right now
18:20:30 <catalyst> someone (gaba?) asked us to vote
18:20:56 <nickm> I think that's gaba's color on the pad
18:21:34 <catalyst> ok for (2) does assigned reviewer following the ticket until it's done mean the reviewer should update the review assignments sheet too?
18:21:53 <nickm> I don't know. Any thoughts, anyone?
18:21:57 <dgoulet> no
18:22:21 <nickm> no thoughts or no it doesn't mean that?
18:22:23 <dgoulet> the review assignements sheet is just there for pretty printing and helping anyone that wants to use it has a checklist
18:22:34 <dgoulet> but Trac is the ground thruth
18:23:28 <catalyst> the spreadsheet is a better visualization of who's reviewed how much than you can get from trac though
18:24:30 <nickm> can anybody summarize what we're voting on, or does only gaba understand?
18:24:58 <dgoulet> that pad is _not_ in a state to vote on I think, I don't see a concrete proposition but rather more comments and brainstorm
18:25:24 <catalyst> i see two options to vote on. are other people not seeing those?
18:25:25 <nickm> There's a pair of options under "TO DISCUSS AND VOTE" on that pad -- I think that's maybe what gaba had in mind?
18:25:43 <dgoulet> oh the 1) and 2) in the second section?
18:26:31 <nickm> I think?
18:26:41 <ahf> my impression is that we follow 2 right now?
18:26:43 <dgoulet> yeah ok
18:26:47 <catalyst> those are the only things labeled as needing a vote
18:26:56 <ahf> when i get assigned i either need to ask someone to take over it but otherwise it's mine until it's approved/rejected?
18:26:57 <catalyst> there was some confusion last week
18:27:01 <nickm> I think we do a mixture
18:28:10 <nickm> I added a #3 that I think is more like what we do now?
18:28:17 <nickm> (is this indeed more like what we do now)?)
18:28:41 <dgoulet> not sure no
18:29:03 <dgoulet> nickm: if the author dissapear while the ticket in needs_revision, then it is anybody to pick it off for fixes or new branch
18:29:27 <dgoulet> but the Reviewer still stays assigned so is 3) about "then the Reviewer can be removed" ?
18:29:34 <nickm> right, but  I'm asking A: if the author gets back to it 3 months later, does it get the same reviewer?
18:29:35 <dgoulet> for anyone to become the new reviewer*
18:29:52 <nickm> B: if somebody else takes over writing the ticket, does it get the same reviewer?
18:30:36 * catalyst would be ok with (2) only if (a) review assignments account for the additional load and (b) reviewer updates the review assignments spreadsheet when changing a ticket back to needs_review
18:30:37 <asn> yes i can also see how tracking the ticket after N months might be hard. i think i remember tickets that I have been reviewer on, but sometimes maybe i forget myself.
18:31:46 <nickm> I have a request for the review assignment spreadsheet.  Could/should we have a column for estimated/actual review points?
18:31:58 <nickm> ideally, to be filled in by the reviewer
18:32:01 <dgoulet> ok wait a sec, I want to take a step back here
18:32:08 <catalyst> basically i see (2) as asking reviewers to periodically review their assignments to change the ticket state accordingly if needed (because dgoulet and asn don't want to do that?)
18:32:50 <dgoulet> the spreadsheet is _not_ what should be looked at after our weekly meeting as in Trac is where the real status of everything is at... if a ticket changes 3 times Reviewer on Tues. and then on Friday you look at the spreadsheet, it is the wrong idea imo
18:33:00 <dgoulet> it makes _no_ sense to track the same thing in two different places
18:33:27 <dgoulet> sooo if we want the spreadsheet to be the *main* thing then we need to take a very different approach
18:33:40 <catalyst> that makes sense in theory. in practice, the review spreadsheet is laid out to function as a shared scorecard
18:33:41 <nickm> I think the spreadsheet tracks something that trac doesn't
18:34:03 <nickm> the spreadsheet doesn't track reviews other than those assigned at start-of-week
18:34:08 <nickm> err, arg
18:34:18 <catalyst> the spreadsheet has the affordance of being easily used as a scorecard, so whether we intend it to or not, people will do so
18:34:19 <nickm> the spreadsheet tracks which reviews are assigned at start-of-week
18:34:40 <nickm> which we don't have otherwise
18:35:28 <dgoulet> right so this is why we do it :)
18:36:03 <dgoulet> but then _after_ that, the spreadsheet is really about a way for everyone to either use it as a nice todo list, update it, do whatever but ultimately Trac is where everything is modified
18:36:17 <dgoulet> so if we modify the spreadsheet as we go over the week then we loose what you said nickm
18:36:46 <nickm> hmmm
18:37:17 <nickm> it sounds like we want a different set of things from this review / review-assignment process
18:37:51 <nickm> maybe we should focus the "reviewer role" document for now on the parts we agree, and enumerate additional desired things separately, and try to get those somehow
18:37:55 <nickm> how would that be?
18:38:24 <dgoulet> yeah I do see those _very_ different but seems we keep circuling back to the spreadsheet in the discussion above ^ :S
18:38:31 <dgoulet> so I'm thinking it is kind of related for some?
18:38:42 <catalyst> it's related for me, because it affects my choice
18:39:42 <nickm> We have 20 min left in this meeting, and more things to talk about.  How do we feel about my proposal for moving forward with discussing this via a summary of what we agree on, plus work on answering the harder questions, as independent things?
18:40:17 <dgoulet> catalyst: I'm not sure I understand what affects your choices ? :S
18:41:11 <catalyst> for me, (2) means doing additional work. i wasn't regularly rechecking my assigned-review tickets if they weren't in the spreadsheet
18:43:08 <catalyst> and this additional work isn't visualized the way the review assignment spreadsheet is, so it's kind of invisible
18:43:35 <catalyst> there are choices involved about how we make work visible
18:43:46 * nickm is trying to answer teor's questions in the discussion question, but if anybody else has thoughts there, it would probably be helpful to them.
18:43:54 <dgoulet> I'm very confused, you can't see the ticket that you are a Reviewer for ?
18:44:12 <dgoulet> catalyst: as in over the week goes?
18:44:20 <dgoulet> err during the week*
18:44:45 <catalyst> i'm saying people are going to look at the spreadsheet as a scorecard, and if i'm not updating it, i'm possibly doing work reviewing tickets that doesn't get visualized there
18:46:05 <dgoulet> catalyst: ok so it is about tracking the work that sheet?
18:47:27 <catalyst> i might be ok with flipping a ticket back to needs_review when needed and then deferring it until the next round of review assignments come around if it's not urgent
18:48:47 <dgoulet> ooook we are clearly in a different place about reviews within this team so yeah this needs much clarification :) :)
18:50:08 <nickm> dgoulet, catalyst: do you think it would help if we summarize what we agree on and what we don't, in order to move forward?
18:51:16 <dgoulet> thing is that the Reviewer role and then the process of reviewing over a week (that is a reviewer assignement period) seems very different between us all ... so seems *both* needs to be defined somehow where the pad for me is about the role only for now
18:51:26 <dgoulet> but we have 8 min left so we can move on...
18:51:38 <dgoulet> (as in try to address this later)
18:52:03 <nickm> ok. What other discussion things do we have?
18:52:38 <nickm> Let's think about teor's "Should we add more testing time to our funding applications"
18:53:44 <nickm> When I work on the timelines I usually try to add a bunch of testing time...
18:53:56 <nickm> ... but we usually start development later than planned, because we're busy with other stuff
18:54:04 <ahf> is that something we can do usually?
18:54:04 <nickm> I wonder if we need even more testing time, or something else
18:54:13 <nickm> ahf: I don't know
18:54:23 <nickm> maybe we should talk about this with gaba when she's back too
18:54:24 <catalyst> we might not account enough for maintenance overhead when writing grants, maybe?
18:54:32 <nickm> that's possible!
18:56:43 <nickm> okay, I think we're out of time.  Let's keep talking about this stuff more, on IRC and the ML and etcc.
18:57:05 <nickm> last thing in case anybody didn't see: I'm not here next week, I'll be at the mozilla thing
18:57:18 <nickm> See you online everybody!
18:57:23 <ahf> o/
18:57:32 <nickm> #endmeeting