23:00:11 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 5 March
23:00:11 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Mar  5 23:00:11 2019 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:00:11 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:00:13 <nickm> hi folks!
23:00:22 <nickm> Our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep
23:00:24 <nickm> who's around?
23:00:42 <catalyst> o/
23:01:17 * teor +1
23:01:32 <caw> +1
23:01:38 <nickm> hello, catalyst, teor, gaba!
23:01:44 <nickm> hi, caw!
23:02:31 <nickm> soooo.... we start with the kanban. are we all doing something roadmapped?
23:02:51 <nickm> are we within the points estimates, or do we have to revise?
23:03:23 * nickm did some ci+chutney stuff, but won't know the size of next steps till I can confer with teor . No hurry there. I should find another thing to do
23:04:22 <nickm> gaba: when I'm looking for next-thing-to-do, do I look at backlog or icebox?
23:04:56 <teor> I think I'm still within the points estimates, but I won't know until I split the branches I have right now into the correct tickets. They depend on each other.
23:05:25 <nickm> make sense
23:05:29 <nickm> *makes sense
23:06:22 <teor> Oh, gaba, you added a comment to some tickets on the kanban, but I don't get emails or notifications for comments.
23:06:39 * arma1 is around if needed
23:08:02 <nickm> fwiw, gaba said she might be somewhat distracted right now; one of her kids has a birthday
23:08:12 <nickm> if there's nothing else we can do on the kanban, let's move on?
23:08:21 <teor> I will add it to the meeting pad instead.
23:08:26 <nickm> ok
23:08:35 <ahf> hey, sorry
23:08:44 * ahf read backlog
23:09:00 <nickm> needs_review tickets are next; I'm nearly done with mine for this week though the last one (#28288) is a big one.  Please let me know if you need to offload
23:09:07 <nickm> err not that
23:09:12 <nickm> #26288
23:09:16 <nickm> that's the big one
23:09:34 <ahf> cool, gonna be nice to get in
23:10:03 <nickm> any other stuff I could/should review for anybody? Please feel free to just change reviewer if so. keep in mind I can't review my own patches :)
23:10:16 <nickm> or others might be able to take things too
23:10:43 <nickm> rotations this week are nickm on triage (oh hey!), ahf on ci (oh hey!)
23:10:51 <ahf> cool
23:11:18 <ahf> is the appveyor changes done? or are there some tickets left for review there? i'm already almost done with my weekly reviews so i could takeover those related to the Ci role
23:11:36 <nickm> I don't know what tickets those are. teor?
23:11:36 * catalyst thought they already set the required ticket to merge_ready
23:11:42 <ahf> \o/
23:11:43 <ahf> cool
23:11:52 <nickm> oh hey, there they are
23:12:43 <nickm> I'll probably merge them to 0.4.0 and later in the morning; teor can do the backport per stable maintainer policy
23:12:52 <teor> Thanks!
23:13:06 <ahf> thanks for looking into the speed part of appveyor btw
23:13:35 <nickm> now let's see announcements: the one to discuss is US DST.  Usually we move our meetings when US DST hits. Shall we do that again this time?  I'm cool if so
23:13:41 <nickm> i'm also cool if not
23:13:57 <catalyst> is tbb-team doing the same again?
23:14:02 <nickm> I do not know
23:14:05 <gaba> sorry I lost internet. I'm back
23:14:24 <ahf> i'm okay with either, i think it would be nice to have it at the same time all year around, but i think it might get early/late for other people if we don't move it
23:14:40 <teor> I do not want to move this meeting, if that's ok
23:14:47 <teor> And the patch party
23:14:53 * catalyst was asking about the Monday meetings
23:14:54 <nickm> gaba: welcome back; pending questions for you above :)
23:14:58 <gaba> nickm: about the next thing to do is the backlog. Each month we should get stuff from the icebox into backlog and review priorities.
23:15:11 <gaba> teor: the comments were mostly for me
23:15:45 <ahf> teor: yeah, i'd prefer not to move this one either
23:16:17 <nickm> okay; that makes it shift for me, but that's okay.
23:16:30 <nickm> so we keep this one at 2300 UTC but move the monday one with US DST?
23:16:53 <ahf> us dst changes in .. 3-4 days'ish?
23:17:01 <catalyst> oh hey we already document moving the Monday meeting with US DST
23:17:04 <catalyst> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam
23:17:07 <teor> I think shifting this meeting later is bad for Europe?
23:17:43 <teor> Ha, yeah, we had this conversation 6 or 12 months ago:
23:17:44 <teor> The primary meeting will track US daylight saving time. The Patch Party will not change with daylight saving time. The optional catch-up will track European daylight saving time.
23:17:52 <ahf> it would become 1 in the night for me i think and 2 for asn
23:17:54 <gaba> :)
23:18:05 <catalyst> ok then we should just send out reminders and update the schedule part of the meeting pad?
23:18:08 <nickm> teor: oh. we've converged on the policy yet again
23:18:14 <teor> :-)
23:18:15 <nickm> catalyst: sounds good to me
23:18:29 <teor> Convergence is faster every time.
23:18:51 <ahf> :-)
23:19:32 <nickm> on to discussion stuff -- I am +1 on the idea of skipping people who are on leave, and giving away reviews of everybody who is on leave
23:20:06 <nickm> in fact, I suggest that giving away reviews of people on leave should be default: you should have to explicitly say "no I want to stay reviewer on this; wait till I come back" if you want to do that
23:20:10 <nickm> does that sound ok?
23:20:26 <ahf> yes, i think that would be nice to know what the policy in case ones forgets so it isn't in the back of the head
23:22:18 <teor> +1
23:22:21 <nickm> ok, other question /thing is that we need to prioritize sbws
23:22:41 <gaba> juga is wrapping up and it would be good to close that before they leave
23:22:43 <nickm> this is the last month juga is paid to work on sbws, so they need our reviews asap
23:23:12 <nickm> we should remind everybody who is reviewer on an sbws ticket about this...
23:23:21 <nickm> ... and make sure every sbws ticket has a reviewer
23:23:31 <nickm> gaba: any more we can do here?
23:23:56 <gaba> not that i think of
23:24:09 <nickm> ok
23:24:15 <catalyst> nickm: should we pick up new sbws tickets to review before the weekly assignments?
23:24:59 <teor> yes, we should make sure we don't delay for up to 2 weeks
23:25:02 <nickm> if there are any unreviewed sbws tickets and somebody has extra time, I'd _suggest_ yes? But I'd like to know what dgoulet and asn say before I call that official
23:25:08 <teor> (1 week to assign, 1 week to review)
23:26:24 <nickm> ok, let's try to add sbws reviewers early
23:26:40 <teor> I suggest that juga adds reviewers when they finish a ticket
23:26:48 <catalyst> teor: +1
23:27:05 <ahf> yeah, could speed things up
23:27:10 <nickm> teor: or asks for somebody to add reviewers, whatever juga feels comfortable with.
23:27:21 <nickm> teor already answered my question about recommended versions; anybody else have thoughts there?
23:27:22 <teor> Sure. Whatever works for them.
23:27:26 <catalyst> right now i see #28864 unassigned?
23:28:15 <nickm> I'll review that, if I can figure out AsyncResult
23:29:04 <nickm> thanks, catalyst
23:29:26 <nickm> anything on the recommended versions? if not, on to teor's question about blockers?
23:30:39 <nickm> teor: my own thought there would be to ask "network-team" on IRC , and make it clear that there's a blocker, and about how hard it is
23:31:19 <nickm> when I do that, somebody usually takes it on within the day. If not, it's usually because everybody thinks it will be too hard, and I have to ask again
23:31:28 <nickm> Anybody have another method?
23:32:22 <ahf> does everybody have network-team added as a highlight in their irc client? otherwise the other option is to highlight individual nicks
23:32:27 <catalyst> where's the blocker question?
23:32:38 <gaba> i also didn't see the blocker question
23:32:40 <nickm> catalyst: under "getting help"
23:32:44 <gaba> ahhh
23:32:48 <nickm> "what's the best way to get other people to help me with blockers"
23:33:22 <catalyst> oh, i was looking under teor's section
23:33:59 <catalyst> how about if nobody responds in a day or so, assign the reviewer yourself? and ping them on IRC?
23:34:08 <gaba> +1 catalyst
23:34:30 <nickm> huh. I am not sure how that will work, but let's try it for a few weeks and see how it goes?
23:34:32 * catalyst thinks people should also feel free to hand off such an assignment
23:34:46 <nickm> let's do that judiciously and make sure we don't overuse it :)
23:35:13 <catalyst> hopefully these will be rare
23:36:38 <teor> Yeah, I tried network-team, and waited for 5 days.
23:36:48 <teor> Normally I would assign the review to the CI rotation, but that was me.
23:36:49 <nickm> wrt ipv6-only network failures: I think right now our problem is that we don't think we have applicable funding.  Maybe we should take this on as an unfunded task, but our procedure for doing that doesn't seem to work so well
23:37:10 <nickm> teor: also try again every 12-24 hours. That's what I do. :)
23:37:23 <nickm> teor: I emphasize how important the bug is, and how easy the review is
23:37:34 <teor> Yeah, we need a better process for this. Let's add it to the list of process problems.
23:37:47 <gaba> yep ^
23:38:09 <nickm> gaba: any thoughts on the "when can we spend some time on getting tor clients working on ipv6-only networks?" question?
23:38:46 <teor> nickm: I would like us to allocate a "sponsor" in each roadmap for unfunded tasks, then assign tasks to that sponsor.
23:38:57 <gaba> if we think is high priority then we should look at reserve time to do it in not sponsored time
23:39:26 <teor> Of course, that requires us to know the tasks in advance. And have our sponsored tasks completed in a reasonable time.
23:39:45 <gaba> yes, it is tricky as we already have a lot for sponsored tasks
23:40:27 <teor> That's not quite what I mean.
23:41:09 <teor> I feel like we are already overloaded. I don't want to add another set of tasks to that overload.
23:41:31 <teor> I want to reserve time for urgent tasks, and decrease what we do for sponsored tasks.
23:42:39 <teor> (done)
23:43:28 <nickm> gaba: any thoughts?
23:43:58 <gaba> no thoughts right now about this, sorry :/ . I agree that it would be good to have more time for non-sponsor tasks
23:44:39 <nickm> does anybody know how assigning people to 20%-time on "do what you think is important and fun" helps with this? I gather that it has been less than perfect at google, but many things have.
23:44:41 <gaba> but I think it is not possible right now. Maybe something to consider for our next roadmap
23:45:32 <teor> I would love 20% time. But I feel like I already have more than 5 days of work to do every week.
23:46:04 <teor> Unless we want to cut 1/3 off our current roadmap?
23:46:34 <teor> I have a suggestion for the next few weeks: I don't know how urgent automatic IPv6 is.
23:46:37 <gaba> the issue would be to sponsor the things that are fun and important to work on
23:46:53 <nickm> hm.  I think we should talk some time about expected time consumption? I'm comfortably within 5 days of work, which either means I'm slacking, I'm underallocated, or I have a slacker's idea about how much I should do each week
23:46:59 <nickm> Likely some of each :/
23:47:05 <ahf> one could do a variant of 20% time where some people who have a project that we all find important, but don't have a sponsor for right now, get to work on that?
23:47:42 <teor> gaba: I disagree. We have funding that is not tied to sponsors. The network team should get some of that funding.
23:47:50 <gaba> yes, I know indiegogo was doing something similar like ahf is mentioning
23:47:57 <teor> * specific sponsored work
23:48:08 <gaba> teor: for that we need more specific sponsored funding for the other teams
23:48:14 <gaba> the grants team is working on that
23:48:15 <catalyst> or figure out how to charge some of this work to "overhead"?
23:48:23 <gaba> to get sponsor project for metrics and tbb
23:48:48 <ahf> i _really_ like my current sponsor assigned tasks, so i'd prefer not to work on non-sponsored stuff, but i think we have projects that would be really good to get done (ipv6? pqc handshake? etc) and i'd love if some other people on the network team could get 20% time to do that
23:49:11 <teor> gaba: or those teams could do less
23:49:21 <gaba> +1 ahf
23:49:38 <gaba> if there is anything that really needs to be done and we do not have sponsor for we should look for a way to complete it
23:49:46 <gaba> is that the case with IPv6?
23:49:47 <nickm> teor: one problem we have right now is that we have enough specific funding to fund our team's salaries, but some other teams over the last year have not.
23:50:11 <gaba> catalyst: that is what we are looking into doing right now for metrics
23:50:24 <gaba> overhead for metrics as it is very hard to get sponsors for that work
23:50:42 <teor> I understand. And I understand that we are locked in to other teams' staffing, and the time to decide not to hire people has passed.
23:51:14 <gaba> isabela will hold a tea time to talk about several things of the organization. maybe this could be one of the topics/questions for that
23:51:31 <nickm> It would be great if we had a defined minimal mission that we needed to do regardless of funding
23:51:56 <nickm> or maybe not
23:51:58 <teor> gaba: I can't go to the teatime, because it is scheduled for Americans/Europeans.
23:53:13 <teor> If we are going to schedule meetings for everyone, then we usually need to schedule two meetings. How can we make sure everyone knows that?
23:53:34 <nickm> So, there is a plan that the next tea-time needs to be shifted from this one for timezones
23:53:42 <nickm> At least, that's what isabela told me
23:53:51 <nickm> It's likely that this is something she does know
23:54:15 <gaba> yes
23:54:21 <gaba> they will rotate for each time for what I understand
23:55:14 <ahf> have this tea time thing been announced already or are we talking about something that is coming in the future?
23:55:27 <teor> I was looking for the email, but I can't find it right now.
23:55:50 <gaba> mmm,sorry, maybe it has not been announced yet :/
23:56:03 <ahf> 1) organizing ED tea time for March 21st, Thursday, 1400 UTC time
23:56:08 <ahf> sat vegas team email :-)
23:56:10 <ahf> last*
23:56:15 <gaba> ok
23:57:22 <gaba> Anything else from the meeting today? We are in the hour.
23:58:40 * ahf is good
23:59:07 <gaba> teor: if you want we can have other moment to discuss this specifically thing about sponsors and non-sponsor work. We need to set priorities if there are some that are not contemplated in the sponsor work already.
23:59:17 * nickm is ok
23:59:54 <teor> I am done
00:00:27 <nickm> okay. I'll call the meeting then. but if anybody wants to talk about something some more, I'll stick around #tor-dev a few more minutes
00:00:30 <nickm> peace, all!
00:00:32 <nickm> #endmeeting