16:59:56 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 15 april 2019
16:59:56 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Apr 15 16:59:56 2019 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:56 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:02 <nickm> Hello everybody and happy monday!
17:00:04 <asn> o/
17:00:05 <nickm> Who is here today?
17:00:10 <nickm> The pad is https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep
17:00:15 <mikeperry> hi
17:00:21 <gaba> o/
17:00:24 <ahf> hello
17:01:33 <catalyst> o/
17:02:33 <nickm> Looking at 040-must and ci-blockers, we're in an improved state from last week
17:02:51 <nickm> ahf: you have #29930 and #29645 -- any progress on those?
17:03:13 <nickm> teor4 has asked if somebody else can investigate #29437; I can poke my nose into that one, but not this week
17:03:48 <ahf> i wrote notes on both: i cannot really figure out what is causing #29930 since the file doesn't seem open to me at the point where the access denied is given
17:03:58 <nickm> hm
17:03:59 <ahf> but, i have managed to reproduce #29645 *once* :-/
17:04:12 <nickm> wow
17:04:47 <ahf> (locally, that is, not on appveyor - there it happens more often)
17:05:34 <nickm> need any help with those?
17:05:42 <ahf> i could need some help with #29930 i think
17:06:11 <nickm> I can have a look but not this week. can anybody else look? The leading theory is that we are unlinking a file before closing it, which windows doesn't like
17:06:58 <ahf> i have been looking at some related github issues and one stackoverflow post and the stackoverflow post suggested to use system("some-command ...") to delete a file, but the symptom seemed related
17:07:23 <nickm> It doesn't actually hurt to have that message around, but I would rather fix the issue
17:07:39 <ahf> yes, it's not a terrible bug
17:07:52 <ahf> nickm: maybe if i don't make progress on it this week we look at it together next week?
17:08:01 <ahf> this is a short week here because of easter
17:08:24 <asn> if it's rare and harmless pehraps we can remove from 040-must?
17:08:34 <nickm> also I'm taking of Weds through Mon, so I am not likely to be super available
17:08:35 <ahf> it's harmless, it's not rare
17:08:50 <ahf> like, it happens every time you start tor.exe
17:08:54 <ahf> on first start
17:09:48 <nickm> next up is our roadmap
17:10:41 <nickm> looking at the kanban, filtered for me, I don't think I'm going to make much progress on roadmapped stuff in my 2-day week; I think I'm mostly going to be reviewing and revising stuff
17:10:52 <nickm> anybody else have stuff to revise on the kanban?
17:11:03 <asn> i think i might
17:11:45 <nickm> catalyst: fwiw, I am blocked from making further progress on control.c refactoring stuff till your branch is done and merged, since I think my next step will be a refactoring on top of yours.
17:12:06 <catalyst> nickm: ok we should break the deadlock somehow :)
17:12:15 <nickm> catalyst: oh, are you blocked on me?
17:12:51 <asn> hmm the s27 part of the kanban needs some more love before i can accurately update kanban
17:12:52 <catalyst> yeah my stuff is almost done, at least this increment of it. we can talk later about details
17:13:53 <nickm> catalyst: ok, let's talk about that after the meeting. I'm glad to take an hour or three to review your stuff if it unblocks you, especially if you can get my #30091 reviewed this week
17:14:05 <nickm> that way we can both merge this week or next and do the next refactoring stuff
17:14:39 <nickm> asn: is this something to do after you & gaba & dgoulet are together to talk about S29?
17:14:48 <nickm> everybody else: happy w the kanban?
17:14:55 <mikeperry> (I might have kanban changes if #29034 passes review; generally I will be working on child tickets of #28634)
17:15:12 <asn> nickm: yes i think the s27 situation will improve this week after dgoulet is back
17:15:27 <nickm> [sorry, s27]
17:15:59 <nickm> this takes us logically to the needs-review area...
17:16:14 <asn> so there were lots of reviews this week
17:16:26 <asn> and i made the mistake of assigning normal amount of reviews to nick even tho he is gonna be missing half of the week...
17:16:33 <nickm> naw, that's cool
17:16:42 <asn> basically everyone got about 3.5 reviews
17:16:55 <asn> i gave less to catalyst because #30091 looked biiiig
17:17:02 <catalyst> asn: thanks!
17:17:16 <asn> nickm: ... i will try to rearrange your reviews some more
17:17:25 <nickm> no, don't worry about it. these look small
17:17:25 <asn> i think it's fair for people to get less reviews when they rae vacationing
17:17:37 <nickm> I'm not vacationing till Wednesday
17:17:46 <asn> nickm: ok please let me know if you want changes.
17:17:51 <nickm> ok
17:18:10 <asn> and things will improve next week when dgoulet is back
17:18:17 <nickm> FWIW, my top priority before I go on vacation is to make sure I minimize how much is blocking on me...
17:18:24 <nickm> and reviewing code counts as one way to do that.
17:18:41 <nickm> asn: could you reassign anything that I haven't reviewed by Wednesday, if I forget to ask?
17:18:47 <asn> yes
17:18:50 <nickm> thanks!
17:18:59 <nickm> How is everybody else feeling about the review load?
17:19:17 <nickm> If there's a small ticket from me that you review today, I will have a chance to fix it or merge it; otherwise, maybe not.
17:19:32 <ahf> looks OK to me
17:20:43 <nickm> next is rotations.  This week the rotations are mikeperry on bug triage and teor on CI.  I did both last week; I'd like to discuss status a bit during the discussion section, since I put notes there
17:21:30 <nickm> I'll try to get in touch with teor and coordinate with them about CI status before I go.  I'll ask mikeperry and teor to be ready to "hand over" those rotations to me and ahf respectively next week
17:21:47 <nickm> on to discussions
17:22:07 <nickm> gaba: you have the first serveral topics, I think.  You want to go first?
17:22:19 <gaba> yes, one is about meetings in april/may
17:22:28 <gaba> teor is on leave at the end of april
17:22:29 <ahf> do we do meeting on monday next week, nickm?
17:22:34 <gaba> so they were asking if we can change
17:22:47 <nickm> ahf: that's the topic of the present discussion :)
17:23:04 <ahf> ah! :-)
17:23:12 <gaba> the proposal is to change tuesday 23 april to 23 UTC and May 7th to May 6th 1700 utc
17:23:50 <catalyst> gaba: +1 on swapping meeting times
17:23:51 <gaba> everybody ok with that?
17:23:52 <gaba> ok
17:23:54 <asn> sounds good
17:24:00 <nickm> mikeperry: good with you?
17:24:07 <mikeperry> yah
17:24:18 <ahf> sounds good
17:24:23 <nickm> great. We should also make sure dgoulet can do it, but let's call it a plan
17:25:09 <gaba> the one about sponsors does not need also a discussion. It is just for people to be aware that this is happening
17:26:11 <asn> is the sponsor pad something we should add stuff into?
17:26:18 <nickm> is there anything people can/should do to help if they have minimal time?  to prioritize, for instance?
17:26:24 <gaba> not really. It is a summary of conversations from before
17:26:33 <gaba> asn ^
17:26:47 <asn> because it seems a bit random. e.g. the only mention of hses is the one about mobile dormant support, wheras there are mor eprojects we can think of
17:27:12 <gaba> this are possible projects for 2020
17:27:29 <gaba> asn: do you think that there are other projects more important?
17:27:47 <asn> i think so yes, but i dont have examples right now
17:28:04 <gaba> ok, there is no rush. we can add them later. I will make a note
17:28:13 <asn> im just talking about HSes btw
17:28:22 <asn> i think the pad is good in general
17:28:47 <asn> i just didnt know if the pad means "this is all the stuff we care about and will seek funding for. we dont care about anything else."
17:29:40 <asn> gaba: ack
17:30:27 <mikeperry> yah, I would add stuff to it and alter scope of a couple of things there. (vanguards work comes to mind, network health/testing network stuff, dedicated CI engineer, some other research transition topics)
17:31:47 <mikeperry> I guess some/much of that stuff is there, but under specific tasks perhaps
17:31:52 <asn> +1
17:32:13 <gaba> ok, if you want to add that comment somewhere that would be fine
17:32:44 <gaba> remember that this projects will evolve and change once we identify a grant oportunity for them
17:33:01 <gaba> and you all will be able to shape them
17:33:19 <asn> ack
17:33:55 <nickm> next is gsod?
17:34:14 <gaba> yes, pili is organizing it
17:34:17 <gaba> we need mentors
17:34:25 <gaba> this is for documentation
17:34:26 <nickm> when does it run?
17:34:31 <gaba> so we will have technical writers
17:34:39 <mikeperry> percentage of all machines
17:34:40 <mikeperry> globally. so we can experiment and measure any performance impact (which I believe will be negligible/zero, but we
17:34:43 <mikeperry> should verify my belief)
17:34:46 <mikeperry> wtf ugh sorry
17:34:56 <nickm> glad it wasn't private :)
17:34:59 <mikeperry> my mouse is being cut+paste happy
17:35:02 <mikeperry> lol yah
17:35:37 <gaba> after july nickm
17:35:42 <gaba> starting september actually
17:35:47 <nickm> until when?
17:36:04 <gaba> 3 months, until end of november
17:36:36 <nickm> I could volunteer for anything touching the Tor manual, or programmer documentation, or protocol docs.
17:36:54 <gaba> yes, that sounds good
17:36:55 <nickm> anything less technical, I should probably avoid :)
17:36:58 <nickm> pili: ^
17:37:04 <nickm> anybody else?
17:37:33 <catalyst> i can help answer questions but i'm not sure i have time to be the primary mentor
17:37:48 <gaba> sounds good, I think 2 mentors from network team would be ok
17:38:07 <nickm> (who else besides me?)
17:38:29 <ahf> i'd like to, but i'll be gone most of august, so it might not be the best idea
17:38:30 <gaba> catalyst
17:38:55 <nickm> catalyst said  they weren't able to be primary mentor.  so that would be 1 mentor, one backup mentor?
17:39:05 <nickm> and only for internals-stuff and tor-manual stuff
17:39:22 <gaba> mmm, good question. I'm not sure. I will check with pili or i will go read what it says about it
17:40:40 <gaba> documentation, something that everybody loves :)
17:41:11 <catalyst> we all would love it if we could improve it? :)
17:41:47 <gaba> yes, i think there were alredy some technical writers interested :)
17:41:58 <gaba> about next topic, roadmap
17:42:21 <gaba> it is not necessary for people to participate. Nick and me are going to look at the roadmap and check if anything needs to be included/updated etc
17:42:46 <nickm> on the other hand, the more people who help us, the better it's likely to go.
17:42:53 <gaba> yep
17:43:41 <gaba> that is it
17:43:46 <nickm> ok.
17:44:01 <nickm> teor reminds us that they can't do a bug triage on the 29 april week, since they'll be away.
17:44:06 <nickm> then it's on to me, I'm afraid :)
17:44:15 <nickm> I'd like to start with passing on the status for the rotations
17:44:45 <nickm> We should do this for a while, I think, and then think about how rotations can work better
17:45:00 <nickm> For bug triage, I put more details on the pad.  But for me the big takeaways were two:
17:45:06 * gaba loves so much detail you added to the rotation updates
17:45:45 <nickm> on the two areas where I could look at the stats, I found a lot of backlog.  This is not the fault of anybody in particular, since everybody has had a triage rotation between when this backlog began and now.
17:46:03 <nickm> (tickets with no component, Tor tickets with no milestone)
17:46:54 <nickm> this makes me concerned about any area where we are depending on keywords and tags, since for those, we have no way to check "which tickets haven't been considered for our usual tags"
17:47:27 <nickm> I've tried to pass a fairly clean slate to the next person here, at the expense about possibly making some mistakes in the milestones
17:47:43 <nickm> any discussions on this before ci/coverity?
17:48:28 <nickm> for CI -- i've tried to get as much passing as I can, and to summarize the current jenkins failures.
17:48:46 <nickm> I didn't open tickets for any intermittent failures, though I should have.
17:49:03 <nickm> I've listed the current failures in the update; IMO this should be general practice
17:49:35 <nickm> last is coverity -- right now we have 42 unresolved warnings on coverity.  That's way higher than we want.
17:50:02 <nickm> Again, this is not anybody's faul in particular, since these have been around long enough that we have all been kicking them down the road
17:50:05 <nickm> so, yeah
17:50:27 <nickm> let's try to get those cleaned up.  I'm going to take on the current batch, and ask teor (when we talk) to have their coverity rotation only apply to new ones that show up this week
17:50:32 <nickm> does that all sound reasonable?
17:51:29 <ahf> yes
17:51:38 <nickm> mikeperry: as you're doing bug triage, please try to keep notes like these, so we can see where we are at next week?
17:51:39 <catalyst> i think we should spend a little more time converging on expectations for these rotaitons, and then documenting them
17:51:46 <catalyst> (not at this meeting)
17:51:50 <nickm> I'll ask teor the same wrt ci/coverity
17:53:01 <nickm> catalyst: I agree, but I also think that the documentation we have on https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/TeamRotations does describe minimal stuff that we have all not been doing
17:53:01 <mikeperry> ok. I think this rotation idea is pretty darn inefficient and all of this documentation during role pasing is a symptom of that... but I can do my best
17:53:02 <asn> catalyst: +1
17:53:32 <nickm> mikeperry: I don't like the old version where I do all of this stuff either :)
17:53:45 <nickm> let's try to come up with something that does work
17:54:40 <mikeperry> right.. there are perhaps better ways to delegate..
17:55:39 <nickm> agreed!
17:55:51 <gaba> yes, if this is a priority let's discuss it in july when we are face to face and start thinking about new ways of working
17:56:08 <mikeperry> ok
17:56:12 <nickm> last thing from me -- I did #29223 last week. teor is the reviewer, but this will touch everybody's work in the future, so we should figure out collectively what to do with this information
17:56:26 <nickm> especially if you have firm opinions on naming things in tor
17:56:31 <ahf> cool
17:58:36 <nickm> and that's all from me!
17:58:50 <nickm> We're about of time, so I'll thank everybody
17:58:55 <nickm> (thanks everybody!)
17:59:04 <ahf> o/
17:59:07 <nickm> and let's move followup discussion to #tor-dev
17:59:10 <nickm> cheers, all!
17:59:13 <nickm> \o
17:59:13 <asn> thanks
17:59:17 <nickm> #endmeeting