18:29:31 <GeKo> #startmeeting tor-browser 2/25/2019
18:29:31 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Feb 25 18:29:31 2019 UTC.  The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:29:31 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:29:39 <GeKo> let's see who is here today
18:29:53 <sisbell> hi
18:29:54 <boklm> hi!
18:30:02 <GeKo> i hope you all had a good week despite not having a tor browser meeting :)
18:30:21 <GeKo> please add your status updates to the pad (https://storm.torproject.org/shared/tHoN4Ii7rLSjPE0OP4gydX4cMGadsXmRQNc-6lwru0N)
18:30:30 <GeKo> and mark things you want to talk about bold
18:31:09 * mcs is here
18:31:25 <pospeselr> hello
18:31:28 * brade is here
18:32:13 <pili> hi
18:32:31 <GeKo> okay, let's get started
18:32:51 <GeKo> it seems sysrqb is missing so far but we should not delay the meeting further i think
18:32:58 <antonela> o/
18:33:03 <GeKo> hi!
18:33:23 <GeKo> antonela: while you are here: how did the build for #25658 work?
18:33:31 <GeKo> did we get some nice feedback?
18:33:48 <antonela> yess, pili ran user research in india about it
18:34:07 <GeKo> great!
18:34:14 <antonela> i got some problems on my local comp because i have 1929192 tor browsers installed here and it is taking some prev config, but at pili's computer worked great
18:34:25 <antonela> we had feedback and pospeselr is working on it
18:34:31 <GeKo> awesome!
18:34:47 <antonela> i also have been playing with the latest TBA (!)
18:34:51 <GeKo> do you plan to document that feedback on the bug?
18:34:52 <pospeselr> :)
18:35:01 <GeKo> so that we can see how we iterated?
18:35:26 <GeKo> (might be helpful for future things etc.)
18:35:54 <antonela> yes yes, we are working with caroline sinders on it, she is a researcher and will help us to reporting all this findings
18:36:21 <GeKo> yay
18:36:30 <GeKo> okay.
18:36:47 <GeKo> looking at pospeselr's entry: how did the releasing go?
18:36:51 <sysrqb> o/ sorry i'm late
18:36:59 <GeKo> pospeselr: did you get a proper build on tpo infra?
18:37:04 <GeKo> sysrqb: o/
18:37:20 <pospeselr> yeah i686 linux built just fine (though slowly :p ) on the build server
18:37:53 <pospeselr> i believe boklm filed an issue for verifying the alpha build
18:37:58 <GeKo> okay, and the sha256sums matched?
18:38:11 <pospeselr> everything is matched except for macos mar files for me
18:38:16 <pospeselr> er, mar tools rather
18:38:17 <boklm> #29510
18:38:17 <GeKo> yeah, i closed that already as i got matching builds on the weekend
18:38:26 <GeKo> pospeselr: o_O
18:38:42 <pospeselr> I suspect i just have bits lying around from pili's macos build
18:38:57 <GeKo> hm.
18:39:10 <pospeselr> as i've been playing build roulette over here :p
18:39:23 <GeKo> russian?
18:39:25 <GeKo> ;p
18:39:25 <boklm> only the mar files are not matching?
18:39:30 <pospeselr> so the macos bundles and mar file sall match, just mar tools
18:40:04 <boklm> could you upload the non matching mar tools somewhere, so we can check the diff?
18:40:21 <pospeselr> yeah I'll do that tonight
18:40:26 <pospeselr> in the office today
18:40:48 <GeKo> okay.
18:41:03 <GeKo> pospeselr: we should try that alpha release again if you think that's cool
18:41:05 <boklm> if it was due to pili's build, I think not only the mar tools would not be matching
18:41:17 <GeKo> to have it working in the future
18:41:27 <GeKo> (mit proper signatures etc.)
18:41:34 <pospeselr> yeah
18:41:35 <GeKo> s/mit/with/
18:41:48 <pospeselr> the main issue on my end was that linux i686 build oom'ing
18:42:14 <pospeselr> which meant having to shuffle file around to get the final make alpha-incrementals working
18:42:23 <boklm> I think this one should get solved by #26323
18:42:33 <pospeselr> yeah
18:45:15 <GeKo> okay
18:45:32 <GeKo> i have only the release prep item marked bold as we wanted to the tba-a3 out this week
18:45:45 <GeKo> i still have some hope that we get to it
18:46:04 * sysrqb just moved their update on the pad, it was under the wrong week
18:46:06 * antonela crossed fingers
18:46:12 <GeKo> sisbell: could you address sysrqb's review feedback and fix the remaining bits?
18:46:29 <GeKo> as far as i see that's mainly #29575?
18:46:47 <GeKo> (modulo review feedback)
18:47:00 <sisbell> GeKo: Sure I'll comment on those. I'll likely need to open tickets in TOPL github project if changes are needed
18:47:33 <GeKo> sysrqb: i guess you could meanwhile start testing the topl stuff in particular related to the ui you wrote
18:48:19 <sysrqb> GeKo: oh, yes, i missed that on my update
18:48:29 <sysrqb> i want to test TOPL integration this week, too
18:48:46 <sysrqb> i this sisbell maybe started looing at that, too
18:48:53 <GeKo> sysrqb: what is the f-droid submission patch?
18:48:55 <sysrqb> *think
18:49:14 <sysrqb> submitting TBA directly to f-droid
18:49:26 <sysrqb> instead of using the guardian projects repo or creating our own
18:49:34 <GeKo> how do we make sure we get the same build as we build?
18:49:50 <GeKo> s/we build/we//
18:49:50 <sysrqb> they build with tor-browser-build
18:49:58 <GeKo> aha!
18:50:00 <sysrqb> they accept a shell script
18:50:13 <sysrqb> so the shell script downloads and runs to-browser-biuld :)
18:50:18 <sysrqb> in theory, this should work :)
18:50:23 <GeKo> even though we create runc containers etc.?
18:50:26 <sysrqb> we'll see if it does in pratice
18:50:31 <sysrqb> yes they build in a VM
18:50:38 <sysrqb> so we can modify the vm as needed
18:50:46 <sysrqb> including installing deps
18:50:51 <pospeselr> neat
18:50:54 <GeKo> great
18:50:57 <sysrqb> in theory :)
18:51:09 <sysrqb> but i'm hopeful
18:51:32 <GeKo> have you seen _hc's feedback on the ticket?
18:51:45 <GeKo> it seems pretty reasonable to me
18:52:42 <sysrqb> yes
18:53:12 <GeKo> okay, good
18:53:21 <sysrqb> i think we can avoid running our own repo, as long as we create reproducible builds
18:53:34 <sysrqb> and using that update mechanism would be very nice
18:54:09 <GeKo> yep
18:54:24 <GeKo> okay, antonela:
18:54:36 <GeKo> yes, i planned to reply to that mail and pointing to our ticket
18:54:49 <antonela> oh great
18:54:51 <antonela> i found that briar's takeaways very useful as an intermediate step for what we are trying to achieve with TBA, Tor reachability vanilla test, offer PT per location - what do you think about to have those in consideration for our Tor Browsers?
18:55:05 <GeKo> sounds good
18:55:18 <GeKo> i did not have the time today to study in detail what they did
18:55:35 <GeKo> but from what i read that sonded like a good direction to explore
18:55:40 <GeKo> *sounded
18:55:41 <antonela> i know, its fine, i just want to put that over the table and if you mobile dev didn't read it, you should :)
18:56:19 <GeKo> i agree :)
18:56:21 * sysrqb will read the mail later
18:56:25 <antonela> thanks!
18:56:43 <GeKo> alright, anything else regarding status updates?
18:57:25 <pili> actually I will move my 2 announcements to status updates
18:57:40 <GeKo> then let's move on to pili's discussion items
18:57:45 * GeKo hands mic over
18:57:50 <pili> right, so I'll start with the quick ones :)
18:58:06 <pili> Our OTF Onion Services proposal got accepted, for those that didn't see
18:58:22 <antonela> \o/
18:58:23 <pili> officially we have that starting in April, but we could start it earlier if we wanted
18:58:38 <sysrqb> are there details available of what that includes? :)
18:58:54 <pili> sysrqb: yup, one sec, let me pull it up
18:59:52 <sysrqb> it's not necessarily needed right now :) but i am curious
19:00:07 <pili> "Objective 2: We will improve the end user experience of onion services with the goal of increasing user adoption and retention."
19:00:10 <pili> is the gist ;)
19:00:21 <sysrqb> neat, thanks
19:00:29 <pili> it was the authorization for onion services
19:00:49 <pili> making the v3 onion addresses more human readable
19:01:04 <pili> typo errors, etc... :)
19:01:17 <sysrqb> cool
19:01:21 <mcs> maybe that includes OTF items on https://pad.riseup.net/p/tbb-roadmap-2018-19
19:01:32 <pili> mcs: that's right :)
19:01:58 <GeKo> i need to update that next week
19:02:03 <pili> then we had another proposal with NLNET for ESR migration work move to the next round, so fingers crossed for that... it won't cover all the work, but it will cover some of it if we get it
19:02:04 <GeKo> as i move some items out
19:02:16 <GeKo> *moved
19:02:42 <pili> actually I think I may have put those OTF ones there :)
19:02:57 <GeKo> yeah, the items in april look like a decent start
19:03:09 <GeKo> (not saying we'll tackle all of them in that  month :) )
19:03:13 <antonela> geko, is a lot
19:03:28 <GeKo> yeah, got just dropped there
19:03:30 <antonela> haha but maybe make plans on them
19:03:43 <antonela> yep
19:03:48 <GeKo> and i'll need to organize that next week with pili's help
19:03:51 <pili> yup
19:04:06 <pili> you mean we're not going to finish the whole project in April?!? :P
19:04:24 <pili> ok, any questions on OTF or NLNet?
19:04:30 <GeKo> :)
19:04:54 <GeKo> the good thing about the otf item is that it is over 12months
19:05:07 <GeKo> so we don't have to solve all the things during our esr migration
19:05:19 <GeKo> (which would have been the case if it were just 6months)
19:05:25 <mcs> GeKo: That’s good news :)
19:05:32 <GeKo> indeed
19:06:09 <pili> ok, I'll move on :)
19:07:03 <pili> dev meeting invites brainstorm: is there anyone that we want to make sure is there at the dev meeting in July from a browser team point of view? :)
19:07:23 <pili> anyone we've been working with a lot ?
19:07:52 <pili> it doesn't mean they'll get invited we just want to make sure we don't forget about anyone
19:08:00 <pili> or remember them at the last minute...
19:08:24 <GeKo> do we have a spreadsheet where we collect this info?
19:08:27 <sysrqb> who is organizing this this list?
19:08:38 <sysrqb> ah, yes, that :)
19:08:42 <GeKo> or is this  more or less an adhoc thing right now?
19:08:45 <GeKo> :)
19:09:17 <GeKo> i guess we could have someone from cliqz and brave at the meeting?
19:09:25 <GeKo> for their tor mode
19:09:30 <GeKo> and next steps?
19:09:50 <pili> there is a spreadsheet
19:10:07 <sysrqb> there's a new https-everywhere developer/maintainer who we should invite, too
19:10:09 <pili> I'm not sure how public it is
19:10:27 <antonela> pili, riastradh from Brave
19:10:34 <sysrqb> should we start discussing this internally?
19:10:47 <antonela> maybe is on the network team part of the list pili
19:10:50 <pili> sysrqb: yup, I just wanted to get people to start thinking about it
19:10:57 <sysrqb> alrighty :)
19:11:34 <pili> I'll send an email out :)
19:12:45 <pili> sorry, 1 sec
19:12:56 <GeKo> what's the deadline for this?
19:13:00 <GeKo> this week?
19:13:18 <pili> yeah, ideally
19:13:31 <GeKo> kk
19:14:17 <pili> then we need to schedule part II of the Tor Browser vision exercise, I'm going to suggest the unpopular time of Friday 20:00 UTC again :)
19:14:41 <sysrqb> this friday? next?
19:14:43 <GeKo> what about 1900 UTC?
19:14:51 <GeKo> this
19:14:51 <sysrqb> undecided which week?
19:14:56 <sysrqb> ah, okay
19:14:58 <pili> this week friday
19:15:08 <brade> I’m not available; sorry another appointment
19:15:22 <pili> could also potentially be 19:00 UTC
19:15:37 <pili> brade: does that help or still can't make it?
19:15:48 <brade> pili: sorry; does not help me
19:15:54 <pili> no worries :)
19:16:09 <pili> we can move it to the following week if it would be better, I'll create a doodle in that case
19:16:11 <GeKo> mcs: but you could make it?
19:16:17 <GeKo> okay
19:16:24 <mcs> GeKo: I think so, yes.
19:17:59 <pili> ok, I'll send an email anyway to try to schedule it, I just wanted to do a quick poll to see if it could work
19:18:20 <pili> any other objections to Friday 1900 UTC?
19:18:57 <pospeselr> works for me
19:19:02 <boklm> works for me
19:19:14 <antonela> i can do it
19:19:43 <pili> ok, great, let's move on to the tor browser dev hiring process as we just have 10 minutes
19:19:47 <GeKo> i can do it, too
19:20:23 <pili> I think the main thing I want to get feedback on is criteria for evaluating candidates
19:20:59 <pili> and maybe any feedback on the process in general
19:21:46 <pili> are there any notes somewhere of how we evaluated candidates in the past that we can re-use?
19:22:45 <GeKo> not sure if the storm spreadsheets are still available
19:23:07 <GeKo> i we guess we could ask ewyatt about that
19:23:19 <pili> yup
19:23:34 <GeKo> but there was nothing else that came close to "criteria"
19:23:55 <pili> I'm also going to start giving us deadlines for giving feedback about candidates, does 1 week seem reasonable to everyone or would we prefer 2 weeks?
19:24:06 <pili> i.e from the moment we receive the application
19:24:24 <pili> I will send emails out reminding us to do so in any case
19:24:47 <brade> I would think 1 week is better (for candidates)
19:25:05 <pospeselr> yeah 1 week seems reasonable
19:25:27 <pili> ok, good :)
19:25:32 <GeKo> (and should not be that hard assuming we don't get dozens of applications suddenly)
19:25:42 <pili> fingers crossed
19:25:53 <pili> GeKo and I can also do a first screen if it would help
19:26:33 <mcs> just so I am clear on the process: we should send feedback after pili calls for it, e.g., like you did earlier today for 3 candidates?
19:26:33 <pili> I actually only sent emails about those candidates I thought would be worth reviewing for the next round, but everyone can feel free to give feedback to Erin about any candidate, especially if it's positive
19:26:54 <pili> mcs: we can discuss this now, GeKo what do you think?
19:27:09 <GeKo> sure
19:27:28 <pili> do we do a first pass and then I send an email to the team those that we think we should review further?
19:27:53 <mcs> if you and Geko can do that quickly, then I like the prescreen idea
19:27:59 <GeKo> i did something like that in the past iirc
19:28:29 <GeKo> yes, the prescreen should be easy
19:28:33 <pili> ok, let's do that then, when a new cv comes in, GeKo and i will scan and I will send an email if they pass the prescreen
19:28:48 <pili> to get the rest of the team to give feedback
19:28:53 <GeKo> in the sense that we only sort those out that we very likely don't want anyway
19:29:00 <pili> yup
19:29:06 <GeKo> (e.g. because not necessary experience etc.)
19:29:18 <GeKo> pili: sounds good
19:29:42 <pili> ok, any other comments and/or feedback on the process for the current browser dev hiring?
19:29:51 <GeKo> and, just as a note, this is a learning process :)
19:30:02 <pili> +1 :D
19:30:03 <GeKo> so far we did the whole hiring more or less adhoc
19:30:10 <brade> pili: what about “blind coding review”? are we doing that?
19:30:10 <GeKo> without having a proper process etc.
19:30:14 <pili> we're working on formalising though
19:30:22 <GeKo> which kind of worked
19:30:29 <GeKo> but we can do better i think
19:30:36 <pili> brade: I think that's a very good idea we just need to work out the logistics
19:30:44 <brade> pili: I don’t like the idea
19:30:47 <pili> no? :)
19:30:51 <GeKo> brade: that's not decided yet
19:31:01 <brade> pili: I like to interact with people to know who we might hire
19:31:11 <brade> GeKo: good :-)
19:31:25 <pili> brade: fair enough :)
19:32:22 <pili> please also keep sending feed back on evaluation criteria
19:32:29 <pili> we will need it for the next rounds
19:32:48 <pili> and I think that's all from me
19:33:01 <pili> (especially since we're over time now)
19:33:39 <GeKo> pili: how should we submit feedback for the evaluation criteria?
19:34:32 <pili> I will forward the existing comments we've had to a new thread on the browser job mailing list and we can discuss there
19:34:42 <GeKo> great
19:34:49 <GeKo> anything else for discussion today?
19:35:47 <GeKo> i hear... nothing. thanks everybody then *baf*
19:35:50 <GeKo> #endmeeting