17:06:19 <isabela> #startmeeting network team meeting
17:06:19 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Aug 13 17:06:19 2018 UTC.  The chair is isabela. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:06:19 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:06:23 <isabela> hello everyone!
17:06:24 <isabela> :)
17:06:26 <nickm> hi isabela !
17:06:50 <isabela> hehe
17:07:00 <mikeperry> hello
17:07:02 <isabela> nickm sent out an email with a link to a pad
17:07:11 <isabela> where everyone added input /me believes
17:07:13 * asn reads and answers summaries
17:07:25 <isabela> related to the roadmap changes
17:07:37 <isabela> has anyone not seen that?
17:07:57 <nickm> Did everybody enswer that?
17:08:04 <nickm> *answer
17:08:26 <nickm> last I klooked, there were a bunch of things in "maybe" there that nobody had responded to
17:08:29 <nickm> *looked
17:08:36 <nickm> url is https://pad.riseup.net/p/huDStrBDgqi5
17:08:58 <nickm> mikeperry:are the WTF-pad deliverables in or out?
17:09:23 <mikeperry> I'm going lto give it a shot.
17:09:34 <nickm> ok; say so on the pad?
17:09:54 <nickm> I'm planning to defer all/most items under "maybe/status?" unless somebody says they are doing them
17:10:57 <nickm> mikeperry: thanks!
17:11:33 <asn> wrt v3 client auth i currently give it 50% probability to land on 035, given that there is still some code to be written/moded.
17:11:35 * isabela gives folks some time to review it - please let me know when you good to continue the meeting
17:11:44 <nickm> [i'm ok]
17:12:04 <catalyst> re sponsor3 roadmap items, did we move it all to sponsorV?
17:12:41 <asn> haxxpop: given that feature freeze is sep15, i think we should try to have the bnrach ready for review at least by end of august , for sufficient time to review before merge.
17:12:49 <nickm> catalyst: I believe that we're not currently planing to do all of that stuff; only some
17:12:50 <asn> haxxpop: let me know if that;s not reasonable.
17:12:54 <nickm> at least for 15 aug
17:13:09 <nickm> some is marked as "doable for V" which is fine
17:13:58 <haxxpop> asn, I think that's fine. no problem getting it done before end of aug :)
17:14:43 <asn> haxxpop: great
17:15:05 <nickm> asn: I'm looking at the review sheet and you seem to be crossed out on all your reviews?
17:15:22 <asn> ouch
17:15:22 <nickm> at least your name does
17:15:24 <asn> let me see about that
17:15:26 <nickm> probably just a typo?
17:15:33 <asn> yep
17:15:36 <nickm> also thanks to everybody for doing so many reviews last week
17:15:40 <nickm> there was a lot of stuff there
17:15:59 <asn> the tick on the left side is what's important. we need a script to fix that spreadsheet ;)
17:16:09 <asn> it's fixed now
17:16:32 <nickm> I see that everybody else has at least one patch I wrote to review. Please feel free to ping me for Q+A; I'm super happy to help explain what was going through my head :)
17:16:56 <nickm> isabela: oh oops; is it okay if we move on to looking at the rview list?
17:17:05 <isabela> hehe of course
17:17:44 <isabela> does anyone has any questions about review assigments?
17:18:22 <nickm> and/or does everybody feel they can review all their stuff?
17:18:38 <asn> ye i left a note about this. because of two people being on vacations this week, the load was not spread very thin
17:18:49 <mikeperry> I would like a second pair of eyes (from someone who knows circuitmux) on #25152
17:19:14 <nickm> mikeperry: okay. would you like to schedule a time this week to co-review?
17:19:52 <mikeperry> ok
17:20:05 <nickm> mikeperry: I think teor and pastly might also know that code from their KIST adventures
17:20:25 <nickm> mikeperry: okay, please let me know when would work. Before 3pm pacific if possible :)
17:20:41 <nickm> anybody else want a reviwer-buddy?
17:22:36 <nickm> isabela: shall we move on?
17:22:51 <isabela> yep
17:23:02 <isabela> can folks review the rotation positions for this week
17:23:19 <isabela> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/TeamRotations
17:23:49 <isabela> looks like ahf is at one spot
17:23:51 <catalyst> did we write down a description of the "design meetings" role?
17:23:57 <isabela> and he is on vacation
17:24:17 <nickm> catalyst: I don't think we did. :(
17:24:17 <asn> catalyst: we didn't
17:24:26 <asn> i seem to be the design meetings person this week
17:24:33 <asn> perhaps i should figure htis out and write down a description myself
17:24:38 <nickm> woo.
17:24:46 <isabela> +1
17:24:54 <asn> i will write it in https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/TeamRotations
17:25:01 <isabela> cool
17:25:39 <isabela> should someone take ahf rotation spot? or it  could survive a week without a person?
17:25:50 <asn> i feel like ahf had coordinated this
17:25:54 <isabela> ah
17:25:56 <isabela> great
17:26:04 <nickm> I think I offered to take one on, not sure if it was this. will check....
17:26:18 <isabela> k
17:26:24 <nickm> no, I took on next week
17:26:39 <isabela> ty
17:26:40 <nickm> Let's all try to put in a little extra community effort this week, since we don't have a designated person
17:26:41 <asn> btw, if you were the design meeting person last weeks, i'm gonna try to inteview you on what's to be done.
17:27:14 <isabela> nickm: +1
17:27:25 <isabela> can folks put in a bit more this week to cover for ahf?
17:28:29 <nickm> asn: One thing I think you should do is: schedule a meeting to talk about mike's QUIC email
17:28:37 <asn> nickm: good point
17:28:42 <nickm> mikeperry: ^
17:28:53 <asn> noted
17:29:05 <mikeperry> yay
17:29:29 <isabela> alright folks
17:29:34 <isabela> i will move on with the agenda
17:30:09 <isabela> will jump to reminders - since we spoke about the roamdap pad/035 already
17:30:56 <isabela> reminders: /status update - code review should be done by end-of-week - Make sure you are in touch with everybody with whom you are doing work for the next releases
17:30:59 <isabela> :)
17:31:14 <isabela> ok moving to discussions
17:31:15 * nickm is going to have 3 minutes latency in about 2 minutes, when getting off the bus and walking home
17:31:22 <isabela> - How are reviews coming?
17:31:50 <nickm> No problem on my side though I do worry that i'm generating too much code and not making CI pass enough.
17:31:51 <isabela> ^^ can anyone give more context to it?
17:32:06 <nickm> Last week we had a buildup of backlog on reviews, and we needed to clear it
17:32:12 <nickm> afk, back soon
17:32:21 <isabela> k!
17:33:06 <isabela> anyone having issues w/ reviews?
17:35:30 <mikeperry> I mentioned mine already.
17:35:47 <isabela> kk
17:35:54 <isabela> first discussion point is from nick
17:36:01 <isabela> second is from asn
17:36:13 <isabela> asn: do you need nick around to start talking about yours?
17:36:19 <nickm> re
17:36:22 <isabela> o/
17:36:24 <asn> the one about reviews? no.
17:36:26 <asn> it was just a note.
17:36:41 <isabela> nickm: do you want to talk about your discussion point?
17:37:22 <nickm> sure, really quick thing: just came out mid last week; in theory we are scheduled for 0.3.4 stable on the 15th.
17:37:32 <nickm> which is... wednesday
17:37:35 <nickm> should we delay that a bit?
17:39:11 <nickm> Possibly we should find out if #27080 is a real bug first
17:39:18 <nickm> it looks like it's a blocker if so
17:39:21 <nickm> I'm going to go with "yes"
17:39:34 <isabela> on delaying it?
17:39:46 <asn> yes we can delay a bit imo
17:40:11 <nickm> ok. let's aim for end-of-august.
17:40:19 <nickm> anybody think that's too soon/late?
17:41:19 <nickm> hearing no objections...
17:41:22 <isabela> yep
17:41:31 <isabela> i will move on with the agenda :)
17:41:36 <isabela> next is mikeperry
17:41:41 <isabela> you have 2 discussion points
17:42:34 <mikeperry> yeah. nick got one of them
17:43:08 <mikeperry> the quic mail can be handled in a design meeting, but I also want to highlight that we con't have a clear process for making decisions like this
17:44:00 <nickm> I can suggest a process: send an email like mike sent, and ask the meeting scheduler to schedule a meeting. before the meeting happens, everybody who cares should read and answer and think about the email.
17:44:00 <mikeperry> and there a a few pieces to the congestion control topic that need decisions
17:44:54 <mikeperry> research direction, research platform, how-to-coordinate, and potential budget allocation
17:46:43 <mikeperry> I'm guessing the design meeting can cover the first couple, maybe the first 3 of those
17:48:04 <isabela> ok, for the 4th one you could reach out to me and arma3
17:49:00 <mikeperry> ok
17:50:12 <isabela> i dont see other discussion points
17:50:38 <isabela> does anyone has anything else? should we call it?
17:50:41 <nickm> I have nothing else :)
17:51:17 <asn> good here too
17:53:00 <isabela> alright people! i am calling it
17:53:01 <mikeperry> I'm good. have a preference for having the design meeting before thursday, I think
17:53:07 <asn> ok
17:53:09 <mikeperry> but we can figure that out after
17:53:11 <asn> perhaps we can aim for wednesday
17:53:15 <asn> but it's gonna be too short notice
17:53:18 <asn> bcause im gonna send the email tomorrow
17:54:06 <isabela> #endmeeting