16:59:33 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 6 april 2020
16:59:33 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Apr  6 16:59:33 2020 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:33 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:38 <ahf> yoyo network-team folks
16:59:38 <asn> o/
16:59:40 <catalyst> o/
16:59:41 <ahf> o/
16:59:41 <dgoulet> o/
16:59:42 <jnewsome> o/
16:59:46 * asn still writing report
16:59:49 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep
16:59:53 <nickm> hello !
16:59:55 <ahf> let's give some people some time to join in
17:00:02 <nickm> how is everybody holding up?
17:00:08 <anwesha> Hope I find something interesting to work on soon :)
17:00:21 <nickm> this last week was really rough on me, and I think that we're all going to have difficult times coming ahead.
17:00:23 <luana> bye peeps!
17:00:47 <ahf> yep :-( hope this week will be better for you
17:01:30 <ahf> folks, before we begin i have a question on scheduling. last week at the "late" wednesday meeting we were not so many people, and i had a question on timing of the first meeting in a week
17:01:31 <jnewsome> not too bad here. My wife also WFH and no kids, so mostly business as usual for us other than not getting to see our friends face to face
17:01:56 <ahf> we decided to make the 6th of may the first network team meeting in may but i was unsure if it was supposed to be the last wednesday of april
17:02:05 <ahf> i hope everybody is OK with that, otherwise we need to chat about it
17:02:14 <nickm> i'm okay with either plan personally
17:02:29 <ahf> great, we stick with what was chosen last week then
17:02:39 <ahf> and teor updated the wording on the network team page so it should be better in the future
17:02:42 <ahf> great
17:02:45 <ahf> sorry for that #0 item
17:02:47 <ahf> let's go
17:03:08 <ahf> how are folks doing with roadmappy stuff: https://pad.riseup.net/redirect#https%3A//trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam
17:03:12 <ahf> it's in the bottom of this page
17:03:31 <nickm> I'm focused hard on #33527 same as before
17:03:37 <ahf> err...
17:03:40 <ahf> okay, i need to link smarter
17:03:46 <ahf> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam this page
17:03:59 <ahf> nickm: cool!
17:04:05 <nickm> not sure about all the "sponsor: none" stuff. Some of that is very stalled.
17:04:24 <nickm> (I am _not_ planning to working on modularity/style this week.)
17:04:43 <ahf> some of it is also very new
17:05:13 <ahf> #29211 is a long-running task, right?
17:05:24 <nickm> yes, that too.
17:05:24 <ahf> it has already gotten better
17:05:35 <nickm> and we have the machinery to keep making it better too
17:05:37 <ahf> styling stuff is postponed for now i think?
17:05:42 <ahf> jenkins is still bad
17:05:57 <ahf> there is some CI stuff and some DoS stuff
17:06:03 <nickm> also library size
17:06:08 <nickm> (#33291)
17:06:10 <ahf> yes
17:06:23 <ahf> hm, that list should ideally be shorter
17:06:41 <dgoulet> there is a bunch of things I could remove from that list about the scheduler... some in there are huge.. :S
17:07:03 <ahf> i guess this is something that is up for our roadmap session
17:07:05 <ahf> dgoulet: yeah
17:07:08 <ahf> there is also a kist item there
17:07:17 <ahf> #29427
17:07:25 <dgoulet> oh that one... yeah hmmm
17:07:44 <ahf> nickm: would it make sense for things we don't have a sponsor for to cluster somehow smarter than just a list of non-sponsored tickets here?
17:08:03 <ahf> we never have a sponsor for CI, but we *always* have CI tickets
17:08:36 <catalyst> ahf: we've been using keywords for CI failures, i think. would a "sponsor" work better?
17:08:37 <nickm> yeah. I think that would be a good idea.  maybe we could different sub-sections of our "non-sponsor" works
17:08:46 <nickm> Maybe it's time to allocate "unsponsors" :)
17:08:55 <ahf> catalyst: it's just for "non-sponsored items, do more clustering"
17:09:03 <ahf> so the list isn't just a linear list of "Sponsor: None"
17:09:26 <ahf> but is Sponsor None, CI => [1, 2, 3], Sponsor None, Scheduler => [...], etc.
17:09:28 <catalyst> hm, the sponsor custom is single-valued right now, right?
17:09:33 <nickm> yeah
17:09:34 <ahf> yeah
17:09:43 <ahf> i can look at that. we need to prep for some roadmapping anyway
17:09:50 <nickm> another possibility is not to sweat this too hard if we think that the gitlab transition is coming down the road within a month or two
17:10:11 <ahf> i don't think it will be for us in a month. it might be for us in two months
17:10:18 <ahf> but we have the meeting on wednesday
17:10:28 <ahf> so maybe we can look at that there. we are one of the big ticket holders
17:10:52 <Jukana> hey Team where is the Community team work meeting pad?
17:11:14 <ahf> Jukana: 2 sec (this is not the community team meeting but i might be able to find it)
17:11:24 <ahf> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-community-team-2020-keep
17:11:30 <Jukana> alright
17:11:38 <ahf> ok
17:11:39 <Jukana> thank you +ahf
17:11:45 <ahf> network-team, we good with roadmap item for now?
17:11:50 <nickm> dgoulet: btw are you blocking on anything from me about dos analysis, library size, or similar?
17:11:52 <Jukana> was exactly 2 secs
17:12:24 <dgoulet> nickm: library size is in ahf's court unless I'm very confused (which could be the case), DoS is on the email thread but we haven't done the final OnionBalance experiement
17:12:37 <dgoulet> nickm: and tracing review can be delayed for now if you are overworked, no rush there
17:12:38 <nickm> ack
17:12:39 <ahf> you're right
17:12:43 <nickm> ty
17:13:30 <ahf> dgoulet, asn: we good with assignments?
17:13:47 <asn> yes
17:13:52 <asn> there is a new trove for review
17:13:53 <ahf> coolio
17:13:56 <asn> and we assigned lots of people there
17:14:04 <asn> trove-001 i mean
17:14:04 <ahf> thanks
17:14:07 <ahf> yep
17:14:14 <ahf> awesome
17:14:29 <ahf> 0.4.3 status: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/043Status
17:14:31 <gaba> oops. Sorry I forgot to mention that I'm in a meeting with a funder now.
17:14:52 <nickm> asn: not a ticket review, but i saw that you sent a proposal draft to tor-dev.  Should I look at this version? if so how soon would you like feedback?
17:14:53 <ahf> gaba: cool cool!
17:15:04 <asn> nickm: o/
17:15:31 <nickm> This is a week to look HARD at the 043 list: is there anything there that we really really want in the RC?
17:15:38 <nickm> I'm planning to do an RC on friday or monday
17:15:38 <asn> nickm:  i did send a proposal draft, and it would definitely benefit from you looking. that said, it depends on how busy you are. if you are ultra-busy it can wait until the proposal gets more stable during reviews with mike and dgoulet.
17:15:47 <nickm> ack
17:16:13 <asn> so yeah i leave it up to you, based on how busy you are these days.
17:16:23 <asn> but there will be plenty of chances to reply
17:16:37 <asn> and i will try to setup another jitsi meeting when the propoasl gets more stable, if people think that's worth doing
17:16:39 <dgoulet> nickm: #33804 _must_ go in 043 ... it is on *top* of my prio list
17:16:54 <nickm> ok
17:17:53 <ahf> ok
17:17:59 <ahf> let's go to discussions?
17:18:25 <nickm> dgoulet: ok, I marked it "very high".
17:18:40 <nickm> everybody else please check if there are any 043 tickets that are possibly "must" IYO
17:18:46 <nickm> I can look into them more if you're not sure
17:18:53 <dgoulet> nickm: awesome, thanks
17:20:18 <ahf> ok
17:20:46 <ahf> we have the jenkins CI failures from last week that i kept on since we are more people now
17:21:02 <ahf> is that something we can safely ignore and everyhting is alright or is it something we should prioritize?
17:21:36 <ahf> mikeperry, asn: there is a vanguards + meek question on the pad that i think you two are the right people to look at
17:21:46 <ahf> #33811 and #33815
17:22:22 <nickm> we'd better put a link to those questions on mike's pad
17:22:30 <ahf> good idea
17:22:32 <asn> yeah these are for mike i think
17:22:33 <ahf> let me do that
17:22:36 <asn> thx
17:22:47 * ahf finds the email with the MP pad
17:23:35 <ahf> ok, added
17:23:49 <ahf> teor asks:
17:23:49 <ahf> How do we balance technical debt, testing, and new features?
17:23:50 <ahf> It's taking a long time to test all the old relay extend code for the IPv6 project.
17:23:59 <ahf> to me that sounds a bit like something we need to look at during roadmapping?
17:24:22 <nickm> +1 on that.
17:24:35 <nickm> my quick initial thought here is that we are balancing the near-term and the long-term
17:24:41 <nickm> both are important
17:25:31 <ahf> yes
17:25:40 <ahf> i see nothing in bold
17:25:45 <nickm> generally I'd say we should try our best to never _increase_ technical debt.
17:25:56 <nickm> And we should decrease it when and as we can
17:26:05 <ahf> does anybody have anything else we need to look at during this meeting?
17:26:09 <nickm> though there will be times when we have to leave a messy thing only slightly less messy than we found it
17:27:24 <nickm> i have nothing else :)
17:27:39 <ahf> ok
17:27:45 <ahf> i will call it then
17:27:47 <ahf> #endmeeting