17:00:09 <nickm> #startmeeting network team meeting, 9 September 2019
17:00:09 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Sep  9 17:00:09 2019 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:09 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:17 <nickm> Hello, network-team. It's that time again!
17:00:23 <dgoulet> o/
17:00:40 <gaba> hi!
17:01:05 <ahf> hello hello
17:01:11 <RotationMatrix> o/
17:01:53 <catalyst> o/
17:02:28 <nickm> are we expecting asn and mikeperry ?
17:02:40 <ahf> mike wrote on the signal group that we should not expect him.
17:02:47 <catalyst> did meeting notes get sent last week?
17:02:58 <nickm> I think so; let me check
17:03:34 <nickm> oh yikes, it looks like not. :(
17:04:01 <gaba> swati is also around for this meeting. Her project is starting
17:04:23 <dgoulet> gaba: expand on this project?
17:04:34 <ahf> hello swati o/
17:04:43 <gaba> https://pad.riseup.net/redirect#https%3A//developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/participants/project-tor
17:04:58 <dgoulet> a for SoD!
17:04:59 <dgoulet> awesome
17:05:03 <ahf> ah, cool!
17:05:04 <gaba> working on rewriting the Tor manual page
17:05:15 <ahf> very cool
17:05:20 <gaba> catalyst and me are commited to mentor her through the process
17:05:47 <nickm> catalyst: I will send them out after today's meeting so that I don't interrupt, if that's okay w everybody
17:06:15 <swati> Hello everyone!
17:06:20 <arma2> swati: welcome!
17:06:21 <nickm> hi swati !
17:06:40 <catalyst> hi swati!
17:06:42 <swati> I am just starting out with my work on the Tor Manual and I have some questions that I am sending to Gaba and Taylor over email.
17:06:56 <dgoulet> swati: welcome!
17:07:14 <swati> Mostly questions about the process, review, etc.
17:07:22 <ahf> cool!
17:07:29 <swati> Thanks so much Taylor and dgoulet!
17:08:12 <nickm> Our first ourders of business are 041 and 042.
17:08:25 <nickm> I think that we can now remove the 041Status page from our weekly workflow, if folks agree?
17:08:34 <ahf> yes
17:08:43 <gaba> yes
17:08:43 <nickm> And I think that the 042Status page is not yet useful, though it does show the amount of stuff that we have to remove.
17:09:15 <dgoulet> +1
17:09:30 <gaba> nickm: I would love to check with you later to see how we can reproduce or have a similar process for gitlab on release status. I think milestone may work but let's talk later about it.
17:10:12 <nickm> ok. teor may also have good insight here; they're the one who made the initial page
17:10:17 <gaba> ok
17:11:09 <nickm> next item is the kanban ?
17:11:42 <ahf> very nice with the move to dip here btw!
17:11:49 <nickm> I'll move my items around a bit; others should do so too
17:12:40 <dgoulet> gaba: speaking of, I see some duplication in tickets and I'm guessing this is to basically have a proper kanban. I've been opening much s27 tickets lately, what should I do there?
17:13:11 <ahf> im gonna move mine around when i get back to my password manager. im on my temp laptop right now which doesnt have the dip password in it
17:13:22 <gaba> duplication of tickets in dip?
17:13:35 <dgoulet> https://dip.torproject.org/torproject/core/tor/issues/11
17:13:36 <dgoulet> ==
17:13:39 <dgoulet> <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/30924
17:13:41 <dgoulet> for instance
17:14:03 <gaba> that one is closed
17:14:12 <nickm> I just moved that one to closed
17:14:20 <gaba> there may have been a mistake or two when opening tickets. I closed them if that was the case
17:14:23 <gaba> oh, let me check
17:15:08 <dgoulet> well regardless of close or not, I'm just wondering here trac ticket vs dip ticket what should I do :)
17:15:08 <gaba> #30924 is only once in kanban dgoulet
17:15:25 <gaba> ahh, until we migrate, trac is the source of all truth
17:15:48 <dgoulet> roger so I do not do anything on dip?
17:15:49 <gaba> we are using dip right now to mantain roadmap and test how it will work once we leave trac
17:16:33 <gaba> Keep still trac tickets updated. We can update the kanban board in the meeting, mostly with the status of the tickets for now
17:16:40 <gaba> (if I understand you correctly)
17:16:50 <dgoulet> sorta, but it is clear. Thanks!
17:18:20 <nickm> on to revies?
17:18:23 <nickm> *reviews
17:20:22 <nickm> doesn't look too overwhelming this wek; I think we're doing ok.
17:20:43 <nickm> Please remember that we're freezing 042 this week, so if there are any features we really want to get in, they should get a prompt review
17:20:58 <nickm> (for "this week" == 15 Sep)
17:21:03 <ahf> roger
17:21:05 <nickm> and for "freezing" == "no new features"
17:21:10 <dgoulet> prop305 ticket was merged, that was our s27 _big_ piece :D
17:21:13 <dgoulet> \o/
17:21:33 * arma2 changes his name
17:21:36 <nickm> dgoulet: I still owe you a merge on #26294, but first I want arma2 to express an opinion
17:21:37 <dgoulet> #29294 is the other part but smaller footprint
17:21:40 <dgoulet> :)
17:22:17 <dgoulet> I'm going in test mode "in the wild" this afternoon about the above ^, adding this to the hs health tool
17:22:23 <nickm> anybody need to move reviews around?
17:22:36 <ahf> dgoulet: t needs testing on some bigger relays?
17:22:43 <ahf> i need to update my relays this week, so could try that branch
17:22:54 <dgoulet> ahf: nea, your relays have been used quite a bit for prop305 dev ;)
17:23:10 <dgoulet> ahf: more on the "functionnality" side and if client/intro behave like expected
17:23:20 <ahf> ah, cool! i will just go with master then
17:23:26 <dgoulet> ahf: (which has been tested before merge ofc but I always like to do "customer-client followup" ;)
17:23:36 <teor4> nickm: which parts of the confog refactor do we need to get in 0.4.2?
17:23:39 <dgoulet> ahf: yeah go master!
17:23:49 <dgoulet> ahf: I will certainly use akka and ukko for this for sure
17:24:02 <ahf> coolio
17:24:19 <nickm> teor4: I think nothing but cleanup at this point.
17:25:10 <teor4> so no new reafctors from config.c merged into 0.4.2? Seems ok.
17:25:36 <nickm> teor4: I'd like to resolve the outstanding issues that we opened from the last round of reviews, but only if you're confident in them
17:25:57 <nickm> I also think it's okay to add more tests when we are in freeze mode
17:26:45 <teor4> yeah I think it's good to draw a line somewhere, and now seems like a good place to just fix issies
17:26:57 <nickm> +1
17:27:20 <nickm> this moves us to the announcements, I think:
17:27:27 <nickm> #1: hi, swati !  welcome again!
17:27:38 <swati> Thanks Nick!
17:27:45 <nickm> Please feel free to ask any of us when you have questions, if your regular helpers are not around
17:27:55 <swati> Sure, I would.
17:28:10 <nickm> # 2: dip.  we looked at it before; let's keep trying it.
17:28:37 <nickm> # 3: Next S31 meeting is tomorrow. We needed more time than we had for the first one, so we're going to keep going.
17:29:08 <nickm> (nickm, catalyst, teor: please remember to go to the agenda pad and try to write in draft answers for the questions there before the meeting, if you have not already done so)
17:29:21 <nickm> # 4: freeze, mentioned above.
17:29:45 <nickm> Nobody's planning any big feature merges in 042 I don't know about, right?  If so, please tell me asap. :)
17:30:10 <nickm> # 5: bugsmash fund.  Use the BugSmashFund keyword for bugs you fix that are not covered by a sponsor.
17:30:25 <dgoulet> oh
17:30:47 <nickm> gaba: (starting when?)
17:30:59 <gaba> now :)
17:31:04 <gaba> last week actually
17:31:21 <nickm> okay. so doing it retroactively for last week's work is okay...
17:31:27 <nickm> but not for work from august?
17:31:38 <gaba> yes
17:32:09 <nickm> great
17:32:14 <ahf> cool
17:33:12 <nickm> last announcement is about a trac->gitlab migration.  We really need to comment on that thing soon, ideally this week.  Thanks to gaba & teor for getting us started there
17:34:01 <teor4> as I said in my email, it's a really big document, so it's hard to comment on
17:34:16 <teor4> but the details are also important
17:34:22 <gaba> not sure what other options are teor4
17:34:29 <teor4> not sure how we
17:34:29 <gaba> they have the feature comparison at the beginning
17:34:32 <gaba> maybe read that part?
17:35:08 <teor4> gaba: let's try to fond a better way of communicating the change, please
17:35:09 <dgoulet> I have to say, impressive doc indeed
17:35:34 <gaba> teor4: i'm open for suggestions on other ways to do it
17:36:00 <teor4> because asking ~30 people to read and understand a 20 page document is going to lead to disappointment, misunderstandings, or overload
17:36:06 <ahf> communicating the change? the change = the transition to GL?
17:36:31 <ahf> i think the document reads pretty quickly. i saw it first time last week and i think it is verbose but not overly verbose
17:36:46 <teor4> gaba: work out the things that will surprise or disappoint people, and summarise them?
17:37:01 <gaba> teor4: that is what the document is trying to do
17:37:02 <nickm> yeah. maybe somebody can summarize the substantive process changes from our team's perspective?
17:37:04 <teor4> * summarise them in an email to the list
17:37:22 <teor4> nickm: I think a per-team summary would be really useful
17:37:39 <nickm> I think each team needs one person to try to figure out what actually changes for them.
17:37:47 <teor4> gaba: a 20 page document is not a summary :-)
17:38:02 <gaba> it is the best i was able to do to summarize this :)
17:38:14 <ahf> i think trying to summarize this in a shorter form is going to surprise people more than it would if they read this thing
17:38:41 <teor4> ahf: do we know how many people have actually read the document?
17:38:42 <ahf> a part of the effort with the dip transition is also to make it easier for us to work together with other teams, so having a feel of what they are up to is a good thing, even if it requires reading 20 pages
17:38:58 <ahf> i dont know if we know that
17:39:03 <teor4> sure, and if people have the time and ability that's great
17:39:19 <teor4> but if they don't, let's make it easier for them
17:39:45 <ahf> i think people should prioritze reading this document then this week because it is such an important part of our whole workflow if they are into how our workflows are and are maybe going to be in the near future
17:40:02 <ahf> sorry for all the typos, i am so unused to writing on an island keyboard and danish keyboard layout
17:40:21 <teor4> if our purpose is to get feedback from everyone, then let's make it easy for people to give feedback
17:40:28 <gaba> i think the important thing you can read is the 'Feature comparison'. The other part is about structure, permissions, workflows
17:40:53 <ahf> yeah, i would say the feature comparison is the most important area to read too
17:40:57 <teor4> also, making a per-team summary helps gaba and pili know if people have actually understood the document
17:41:18 <gaba> teor4: do you want to volunteeer to read it and make a summary for the network team?
17:41:23 <teor4> summaries *are* a form of feedback
17:42:33 <nickm> gaba: I can try to write a summary if nobody else has time, but I would want you to read the summary and commit to it or correct it :)
17:42:38 <teor4> gaba: I feel weird that I said I don't have time, and now I get that task
17:42:41 <gaba> ok
17:43:49 <ahf> nickm: i would be OK with doing it
17:44:01 <ahf> even though i am not very good at reducing information :)
17:44:05 <dgoulet> is it a thing where we want a summary in a bullet list type of format that says: "1. We will loose this feature but will transition to this feature in Gitlab" ... etc.. ?
17:44:26 <nickm> I'm not sure what the best format is
17:44:31 <dgoulet> because hhonestly, this document can be summarized in a 1000 different ways....
17:44:51 <dgoulet> so asking gaba for a summary ... might lead this process to endless bikeshedding of "waiting for something we don't know what we are looking for"
17:45:36 <ahf> hm, maybe i'm messing something up here. is the 20 page document we are talking about now something different than the 13 page document with the title "Evaluation of Gitlab vs. Trac" ?
17:45:49 <dgoulet> personally, I'm primarly intesterd in knowing what will be our workflow in Gitlab... and that can be usually summarize easily with a drawing/diagram
17:46:01 <gaba> It is the same document and it has an overview at the beginning and a table of contents at the beginning.
17:46:08 <nickm> ahf: We're talking about the thing on nextcloud
17:46:18 <ahf> okay, great, that is the one i am looking at too
17:46:56 <gaba> dgoulet: there is a section on workflows but it may not be good enough or it may be missing something
17:47:43 <nickm> ahf: want to collaborate? I can pass something to you and gaba today, and you can revise it then we send it out?
17:48:09 <ahf> yes
17:48:10 <gaba> thanks nickm
17:48:13 <ahf> i would love to be in on this
17:48:19 <nickm> great
17:48:31 <nickm> gaba: I'm having a hard time understanding the feature comparison.  There are things in the "comments" column that implies that there are key decisions here that are not made
17:48:39 <nickm> anyway we should discuss other thing too
17:48:44 <nickm> *things
17:48:48 <gaba> yes, this are all proposals.
17:49:14 <gaba> the comments has stuff about concerns that I may have with each feature
17:49:18 <nickm> first discussion thing is left over from last week...
17:50:28 <gaba> can we remove it?
17:50:50 <nickm> sure.  But first let's just summarize:
17:51:12 <nickm> once 042 freezes we should focus on 042 stability stuff.  How well we do on that determines when we can be comfortable opening 043 for patches
17:51:46 <nickm> this week's discussion item is whether we should do anything about older needs_review tickets
17:52:16 <nickm> I think we should look over them individually -- some may be stalled but some are probably in a weird state that isn't quite needs_review or needs_revision or merge_ready
17:52:32 <nickm> Going over the list this week would be neat
17:54:27 <ahf> would it make sense to do at patch party time?
17:54:34 <nickm> could be, if folks are around!
17:54:43 <ahf> i was planning on being around tomorrow evening
17:54:54 <teor4> I don't know if I can male the patch party this week
17:54:56 <nickm> cool, but patch party time is wednesday
17:55:16 <nickm> ahf: tomorrow evening is s31 meeting, where of course you're welcome
17:55:28 <ahf> ah, i can do wednesday evening too
17:55:53 <nickm> ahf: let's talk about this when you and I are meeting with gaba to talk about role transitions tomorrow?
17:56:00 <nickm> we can figure out some first steps then
17:56:14 <nickm> (unless there are other proposals here?)
17:56:32 <ahf> yeah, i thinj that is a good idea
17:57:27 <nickm> also, maybe ahf will be running next week's meeting.  That would be cool if so :)
17:57:32 <nickm> any more for our last minutes?
17:57:57 <ahf> i was thinking would be one of the low hanging fruits for me to takeover :)
17:59:33 <nickm> :)
17:59:39 <nickm> okay, hearing no new topics...
17:59:43 <nickm> thanks, all!
17:59:45 <nickm> #endmeeting