16:59:02 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting, 9 march 2020
16:59:02 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Mar  9 16:59:02 2020 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:59:02 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:06 <ahf> hello network-team
16:59:10 <nickm> hi ahf!
16:59:11 <catalyst> hi
16:59:17 <dgoulet> yello
16:59:18 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep
16:59:31 <asn> o/
16:59:36 * nickm 's home internet is down again; i'm on borrowed wifi
16:59:41 <ahf> we skipped a lot of last weeks meeting so let's get going right away
17:00:01 <ahf> are folks doing alright with roadmap?
17:00:46 <asn> yes
17:01:16 <gaba> hi!
17:01:21 <ahf> hey gaba
17:01:22 <nickm> i think so. wondering if we can call #31851 and #31943 done now?
17:01:32 <gaba> asn: how more time you think you will have with s27?
17:01:50 <asn> gaba: i think onionbalance can be called done in two weeks or so
17:01:55 <asn> i need to write the blog post
17:01:57 <asn> and do packages
17:02:12 <ahf> nickm: hmmm, the first one still have open tickets, but in a roadmap context we might be able to call it closed for now
17:02:18 <ahf> that is more like an iterative ticket
17:02:22 <gaba> ok. thanks
17:03:23 <nickm> ack
17:03:38 <ahf> oki
17:03:47 <ahf> asn, dgoulet: are we OK with reviewers this week?
17:03:51 <asn> yes i mdoing them right now
17:04:01 <dgoulet> yah
17:04:08 <ahf> ah, cool, just seeing two free ones there
17:04:10 <ahf> coolio
17:04:11 <gaba> catalyst: are you starting any s28 or s30 ticket this week? we can talk in a dm later
17:04:22 <ahf> are people alright with what they have had assigned to them?
17:04:27 <asn> done
17:04:34 <catalyst> gaba: will need to check
17:05:28 <gaba> all the tickets from s30 and s28 are in the trac with keyword network-team-roadmap and related sponsor. They are also in the gitlab board by s30 and s28 organized in 'next' column.
17:07:02 <gaba> #30477 is the one from s30
17:07:32 <ahf> should we dive into 0.4.3 status?
17:07:42 <ahf> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/043Status
17:07:42 <nickm> ok w me
17:09:04 <ahf> are people doing OK here?
17:09:07 * ahf is a bit behind
17:09:20 <asn> dgoulet: one of us should take #31669
17:09:28 <dgoulet> asn: yeah I was exactly looking at taht
17:09:59 <dgoulet> asn: I can take it so you can focus on OBv3
17:10:03 <asn> seems like a case of log_warn -> log_protocol_warn thing
17:10:04 <asn> so not very hard
17:10:06 <nickm> #33469 is a windows thing we should figure out
17:10:24 <nickm> and #33545 looks important too
17:10:41 <asn> nickm: i think #33545 is a dup
17:10:44 <dgoulet> yeah dup
17:10:49 <asn> of #33069
17:10:51 <asn> which is a dup of ....
17:10:58 <nickm> though it may tie in with #33069
17:10:59 <nickm> yeah
17:11:07 <dgoulet> #33458 ?
17:11:16 <dgoulet> err
17:11:16 <dgoulet> nvm
17:11:28 <asn> oh that went nowhere
17:11:35 <asn> dgoulet: this is importantino
17:11:56 <asn> dgoulet: wanna focus on #33458 and i take the easier #31669?
17:12:00 <dgoulet> asn: yes it is on my plate
17:12:12 <dgoulet> asn: ok, go
17:12:14 <asn> kk!
17:12:17 <ahf> #33469 is windows server 2003 :o
17:12:17 <asn> taking ownership
17:12:25 <ahf> that i don't think is supported anymore
17:12:37 <ahf> people are running windows server 2016 these days
17:12:56 <ahf> unless our OS name detection on windows gets this one wrong
17:13:00 <dgoulet> nickm: we got a diagnostic patch in for #32564 ... so not sure we should keep it in 043 ?
17:13:57 <nickm> okay with me
17:14:17 <dgoulet> nickm: ack
17:14:19 <nickm> ahf: yeowch. okay, it would be worthwhile double-checking that, and seeing whether the issue is a one-line fix or what
17:14:36 <ahf> yeah
17:14:46 <ahf> you are asking for the specifics of the version of the os on the ticket already
17:14:51 <ahf> would be interesting what the person says
17:15:02 <ahf> windows server 2003 is equivalent to windows xp kernel-wise and system api wise
17:15:18 <ahf> just without the bubble gum theme 8)
17:15:28 <dgoulet> it is also EOL
17:15:31 <ahf> yeah
17:17:01 <ahf> okay
17:17:16 <ahf> let's move to discussions
17:17:19 <ahf> teor has some from last week
17:17:26 <ahf> first one is about doing post-trove retrospectives
17:18:00 <ahf> i think it sounds like a good idea. i think i'd place it together with our normal retrospectives though, but others might have different ideas here
17:19:14 <ahf> i hear no yays nor nays, which means i think we should take it in as part of our retrospective workflow
17:19:20 <dgoulet> yay
17:19:59 <ahf> teor is trying to focus on a lot of s55 and have dropped some things they do usually to focus a bit more, i don't think we can pin-point individual folks to do each of these things, but we should all be more aware of teor not doing them and try to help out where we can
17:20:19 <ahf> teor is especially good at going over all incoming tickets and reviews in our queues and look there
17:20:45 <ahf> unless anybody have anything to add here i move to the next item
17:20:58 <ahf> which is #24857 which i have taken after talking with nick
17:21:07 <ahf> and then finally we have:
17:21:10 <ahf> Followup from our retrospective: should we have a  way to table/queue discussion topics for a whole-team voice meeting? -nickm
17:21:18 <ahf> you wanna run this one, nickm?
17:21:25 <nickm> sure
17:21:45 <nickm> so the main quesiton i had was this:
17:22:01 <nickm> often topics come up in these meetings that seem big or important and we want to do it with everybody present
17:22:06 <nickm> or similar over the course of the week
17:22:24 <ahf> yeah
17:22:36 <gaba> we could add it at the top of the meeting pad and vote on which one should go to a voice meeting
17:22:42 <nickm> at our last retrospective we talked about grabbing some regular timeslot to do a teleconferencing session, beyond what we have for our retrospectives, so that we do followup on important topics there
17:23:16 * ahf would love to have some team meetings being voice instead of irc
17:23:18 <nickm> we should also have a vector for less public stuff to go to voice, and some kind of a queue?
17:23:21 <nickm> let's work out a process
17:23:40 <ahf> we should also for voice have some notes that can go public. this we get almost for free with irc
17:24:18 <gaba> maybe a spreadsheet in the teams folder in nextcloud would be fine
17:24:33 <gaba> to add stuff and then add who wants to get involved in the discussion
17:24:56 <ahf> that or just keeping it in our weekly meeeting pad?
17:25:04 <ahf> just have a list of items there
17:25:08 <ahf> we all look at it once a week
17:25:28 <gaba> wrt to the "less public stuff to go to voice"
17:25:38 <ahf> oh, right
17:25:50 <ahf> yeah, maybe something on nextcloud could work there
17:26:00 <nickm> we could send email to network-team@ to remind people
17:26:05 <ahf> yep
17:26:10 <gaba> ok
17:27:50 <ahf> let's do that. keep track of who wants to participate on NC, we should have reminders to the team list
17:28:08 <ahf> i don't see anything else in bold on the pad right now - does anybody else have something we need to chat about?
17:28:27 <nickm> just 2 quick notes:
17:28:44 <nickm> if you think i might be making a terrible mistake by using CBOR as a metaformat for walking onions, please let me know soon
17:28:50 <nickm> (that's note one)
17:29:14 <nickm> note two is that i'm not going to make much progress on a few things that I've been roadmapped on, and i noted them at the end of my section
17:29:17 <nickm> that's all
17:30:41 <ahf> #1 is cool, i only have tried CBOR with erlang and it worked fine. we picked msgpack because it had a faster lib back then, but i dont think that is a concern for us
17:30:49 <ahf> coolio
17:31:18 <ahf> okay i am going to close the meeting now then
17:31:21 <ahf> thanks all o/
17:31:23 <ahf> #endmeeting