17:58:25 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 19 Feb
17:58:25 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Feb 19 17:58:25 2019 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:58:25 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:58:27 <nickm> Hi all!
17:58:43 <ahf> hey o/
17:59:14 <catalyst> o/
17:59:15 <nickm> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep is our pad
17:59:40 <nickm> Let's start with our lovely kanban roadmap, linked from that pad!
18:00:29 <nickm> Does everybody's major tasks for this week match what is in the first column there?
18:01:05 <gaba> o/
18:01:09 <nickm> Please check, and clarify, and let's talk about what to do if it isn't
18:02:01 <nickm> (For me, it's fine. I'll be working on #28226 and #29280 based on discussions with catalyst and teor, but I will grab later stuff and do admin tasks if there isn't so much to do there)
18:02:11 <dgoulet> gaba: 9316 is not on my radar for this week, more urgent stuff before but I can't move it :S
18:02:35 <ahf> cohosh and i will begin #29207 and #29206 this week
18:02:53 <ahf> we started a bit last week already
18:02:57 <nickm> ahf: cool; please put them in the "in progress" column on the appropriate kanban
18:03:05 <nickm> dgoulet: you mean you can't move it on the kanban?
18:03:18 <nickm> gaba: (where would it go in that case?)
18:03:21 <ahf> yeep, waiting for login email :-)
18:03:31 <dgoulet> nickm: yes I can't ... it is still loading here half the page and I can't move any squares (and I'm logged in!)
18:03:39 <gaba> just a sec
18:03:52 <gaba> dgoulet: i will move that one
18:03:56 <dgoulet> gaba: thanks!
18:04:04 <gaba> ahh, because loading
18:04:30 <dgoulet> gaba: it doesn't stop loading ... so that is my reality here lol
18:04:49 <nickm> catalyst, asn (if here), mikeperry (if here): is the kanban correct for you?
18:04:57 <catalyst> nickm: looks like it
18:05:00 <nickm> great
18:05:11 <gaba> ok, let me write it down and i move it in a moment
18:05:21 <ahf> ... i should just drag to move it?
18:05:27 <mikeperry> yah it was at the end of last week; waiting for it to load still
18:05:28 <gaba> yes
18:05:31 <gaba> from the top right
18:05:33 <nickm> ahf: you drag the little plus sign in the upper right corner
18:06:31 <ahf> hmm
18:07:27 <ahf> i don't seem to be allowed to do that or something. i can lift the card up and move it around but nothing makes it stay on the "in progress" column
18:07:39 <gaba> ahf: which one you want to move?
18:07:50 <ahf> 29206 and 29207 to in progress
18:08:07 <catalyst> i wonder if it's a permissions thing on that Wekan
18:08:21 <gaba> how are you doing with #28848 ahf?
18:08:27 <gaba> mm, let me check catalyst
18:08:38 <ahf> gaba: good, awaiting some feedback on it and then i think i'm gonna close it
18:08:43 <nickm> next topic is reviews; okay to move on?  Please see the query on the pad under "check reviewer assignments"
18:09:07 <gaba> mm, if you are login then you should be able to edit, there is no way to change permissions per person
18:09:12 <gaba> only for the public links
18:09:47 <gaba> ok ahf
18:10:25 <ahf> i had very few reviews this week and could take one more if somebody else is stressed with things
18:11:40 <nickm> I could also do an extra review if needed
18:12:08 <nickm> everybody okay w reviews for this week?
18:13:24 * catalyst will look and offload if need be
18:13:37 <nickm> great
18:14:19 <nickm> Rotations this week are dgoulet on triage, nickm on CI
18:14:33 <dgoulet> ack
18:15:12 <nickm> announcements: the onion services proposal was accepted (woo); it will start in april and run 1 year.  We probably will only do minimal work on it until more S19 stuff is done, though.
18:15:37 <nickm> announcements: the master branch is now 0.4.1.x; 0.4.0 patches should be based on maint-0.4.0
18:16:03 <nickm> questions/comments/etc?
18:17:03 <nickm> on to discussions -- would anybody like to lead a short chat on release planning for 040 and 041 and beyond?
18:17:08 <nickm> wrt Teor's questions?
18:17:23 <nickm> (I could, but I talk too much)
18:17:36 <gaba> you mean find a meeting time that teor can be in and facilitate that discussion?
18:18:25 * catalyst isn't sure what teor's question means
18:18:28 <nickm> that, and let's maybe see if those of us here have consensus that the goal (having milestones that we actually accomplish) is worthwhile
18:18:52 <nickm> I think their goal is to not end each release with a bunch of leftover junk in the milestone,
18:19:10 <nickm> and to have a process where we don't put stuff into milestones haphazardly, but we do put it in when it's important
18:19:12 <catalyst> so "put fewer things in the release milestone"?
18:19:18 <gaba> We are using the milestones only for the releases, right?
18:19:21 <gaba> +1 catalyst
18:19:27 <nickm> yes
18:19:41 <nickm> I think so
18:21:00 <gaba> I should get an estimation on how much we have in each release to see how we are doing on that. IT would be good to find a system to do that automatically with the capacity we have
18:21:40 <nickm> I liked the theory of marking tickets as "proposed" and tracking the total work in a release... but it seemed not to go so great when we tried it
18:22:22 <nickm> Should we try to schedule a meeting for some time teor4 can make it, and talk more?
18:22:32 <gaba> yes, it sounds good about the meeting
18:22:35 <dgoulet> doubt it will work also, I think we need to prioritize instead of throwing out things. We'll always end up with too many things imo and if we put them into the Unspecified void, we loose them so food for tought on my side
18:22:37 <nickm> Do we have rough consensus that it would be good to try to solve this?
18:22:47 <dgoulet> yes
18:22:50 <gaba> yes
18:23:15 <nickm> Does anybody have an idea for easy changes we could make in the next month ?
18:23:38 <nickm> (It would be cool to bring such ideas into the meeting.)
18:23:47 <nickm> also, any volunteers to schedule the meeting?
18:24:18 <gaba> I can schedule it.. I will send a doodle this time
18:24:29 <nickm> thanks, gaba !
18:24:45 <nickm> Let's also think about teor4's questions and try to add good suggestions to the pad
18:25:03 <nickm> (it would be nice to make sure that we consider their things in weekly meetings even when they're not here)
18:25:22 <nickm> My next discussion topic is that we don't actually have a process for making things policies
18:25:37 <nickm> and without that, we can't easily make a process for making things policies :)
18:26:02 <nickm> so I'm wondering how people feel about the meta-process that I suggested in my network-team email about merging, which I copied (slightly cleaned) onto the pad
18:26:38 * gaba still didn't have time to read it but thanks for sending that mail!
18:28:03 * catalyst values individuals and interactions more than processes
18:30:02 <gaba> catalyst: what it means?
18:30:19 <gaba> i mean: "what you mean?"
18:30:26 <gaba> :)
18:31:01 <catalyst> processes are good. we should continually evaluate whether a given process still works for us, based on the current individuals and interactions
18:31:35 <gaba> ah, yes
18:32:14 <nickm> a process could help us do that :)
18:32:41 <nickm> like, writing on each policy we have, "we should make sure that we re-evaluate this process by x/y/20zz"
18:33:40 <gaba> yes
18:35:00 <nickm> Two failure modes I think we have now are that our policies stay in draft for too long; and that when we decide to drop a policy we sometimes don't document the fact.
18:35:06 <nickm> There are probably other failure modes
18:35:48 <gaba> yes, I think it would be great to document when it is not working and changes
18:36:44 <nickm> any other thoughts here?
18:37:59 <nickm> ok, moving to discussion -- teor4 has pointed out some new unit test errors.  I'm on one of them; can anybody else have a look at the others?
18:38:18 <nickm> asn, mikeperry: Is #29527 the one I just added a commit to disable the test for?
18:39:02 <mikeperry> hrmm no :/
18:39:13 <nickm> ok
18:39:28 <nickm> can I list you for it?
18:40:36 <mikeperry> yah. I might have to chase down Rhistradh though
18:40:53 <nickm> ok
18:41:32 <nickm> Any thoughts for #29530?  I think that the best we can do might be trying to bisect it on a  macos laptop and see when it started?
18:41:57 <nickm> ah, the problem is that they're error messages
18:42:10 <nickm> yeah, I can fix that; I did the errors-are-failures fix
18:43:27 <nickm> next things --  mikeperry, we're trying to schedule a meeting that you should be at about a researcher who is doing packet stuff. Could you answer the thread please?  Subject line is "Introduction, Tor Performance"
18:43:58 <nickm> ahf: mikeperry has a question about testing with wine; is that something you can help with?
18:44:17 <ahf> looking
18:44:33 <arma1> nickm: ..packet stuff?
18:44:38 <nickm> datagrams
18:44:50 <arma1> ah ha. so quic et al. great.
18:44:55 <ahf> mikeperry: my repo might be the easiest way to check at least. if you can reproduce it with the repo then usually the fix works on real windows too
18:45:05 <ahf> mikeperry: if you cannot reproduce it then it becomes a bit more problematic :-/
18:45:37 <ahf> mikeperry: the script should work though and i run CI on it every night with tor master to make sure the makefile still works
18:45:43 <mikeperry> ahf: does it use the same compilers as appveyor uses?
18:45:45 <nickm> Last question is mine -- can somebody help me identify all must-fix-in-040 issues, and triage the rest?
18:46:08 <ahf> mikeperry: it uses mingw32 or mingw64 which is what appveyor uses
18:46:12 <ahf> i believe
18:46:12 <nickm> This would be getting together for an hour or so on IRC some time.  I am bad at doing this on my own
18:46:38 <ahf> yeah, see: https://github.com/torproject/tor/blob/master/.appveyor.yml#L18-L26
18:47:42 <dgoulet> nickm: sure
18:48:06 <nickm> dgoulet: ok. let's talk after this meeting and pick a time?
18:48:13 <dgoulet> ok
18:48:32 <nickm> any other discussion topics?
18:48:50 <nickm> mikeperry: have you found that thread, and can you reply to the proposed times for  this week soon?
18:50:37 <mikeperry> nickm: yeah I see it now
18:50:54 <nickm> ok great
18:51:06 <mikeperry> little frustrated that they are again trying th QUIC-between-relays thing. I was pretty explicit about that being done to death and not what we need
18:51:16 <nickm> then you should say so :)
18:51:44 <mikeperry> that made me drop the thread.. but yeah I should mail them with a link to the mailinglist posts again and ask them to please read up before we meet
18:52:28 <nickm> ok; better pick a time later in the week if you can, or suggest times next week, so that this can move forward
18:52:52 <nickm> Hearing no other topics, I'll declare the meeting over?
18:53:03 <gaba> ok
18:53:50 <nickm> ok!
18:53:52 <nickm> #endmeeting