14:59:48 <gaba> #startmeeting Tor Browser release meeting May 12th
14:59:48 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue May 12 14:59:48 2020 UTC.  The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:59:48 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:59:58 <gaba> pad for the meeting: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-browser-release-meeting-keep
15:00:01 <gaba> o/
15:00:14 <sysrqb> hello everyone!
15:00:19 <gaba> please check discussion to see if there is anything to add/edit
15:00:21 <gaba> hi :)
15:00:35 <isabela> o/
15:00:57 * ahf is here, but mostly observing i think
15:02:06 <ggus> ok, done
15:03:51 <gaba> ok
15:04:03 <gaba> firs topic is about timeline
15:04:05 <sysrqb> okay. before we entered this new world, we scheduled 9.5 stable as being released this week
15:04:11 <gaba> :)
15:04:29 <sysrqb> :)
15:04:44 <asn> (kinda here if im needed)
15:05:15 <sysrqb> that timeline was delayed, and tentativively planned 9.5 stable at the beginning of June
15:05:28 <gaba> it seems that makes sense to delay as we had to stop doing stuff for a few weeks
15:05:46 <GeKo> what is still needed to have it delayed so long?
15:05:50 <sysrqb> we can release one, final, 9.5 alpha release for testing next week
15:06:02 <sysrqb> GeKodelaying two weeks?
15:06:09 <sysrqb> GeKo:
15:06:45 <GeKo> ?
15:06:55 <GeKo> june 2 is three weeks away
15:07:45 <sysrqb> because back-to-back tor browser releases is not fun
15:07:50 <isabela> :)
15:07:59 <isabela> actually
15:08:03 <sysrqb> and if we release a final alpha update next week, then 2 JUne is a reasonable time
15:08:18 <antonela> right for my solar return
15:08:29 <isabela> for us ( alsmith and me) is good too giving 20k things we are doing now :) and proposals deadlines
15:08:36 <GeKo> aha, next week. i was under the impression we release the alpha this week, okay
15:09:14 <cohosh> o/
15:09:25 <sysrqb> this is all part of today's conversation, too
15:09:28 <sysrqb> cohosh: o/
15:09:56 <sysrqb> we're balancing a lot of priorities
15:09:56 <GeKo> to add another point for the timeline question
15:10:17 <GeKo> we used to release major stable not together with security updates if possible
15:10:29 <GeKo> because we have only a small amount of alpha users
15:10:55 <GeKo> and we have seen in the past issues that were severe but got only caught by the stable release
15:11:06 <antonela> what is your suggestion GeKo?
15:11:12 <GeKo> so then the idea was to have major releases like a week before the security release
15:11:35 <GeKo> so that we have the option to fix major fallout together with the firefox security update
15:11:52 <GeKo> antonela: i don't have any suggestion yet
15:12:04 <GeKo> it seems we need to pin the next alpha release first :)
15:12:18 <sysrqb> let's work backwards from there
15:12:26 <isabela> ok
15:12:32 <sysrqb> curently, we have nearly zero changes ready for the next alpha release
15:12:40 <antonela> right
15:12:42 <sysrqb> and we have a very long wish-list of items on the pad
15:13:16 <sysrqb> and we have about 5 days to implement the additional features we want
15:13:19 <antonela> i dont think the list in the pad is related strictly with development tho
15:13:29 <sysrqb> not all, true
15:13:56 <sysrqb> but, we currently don't have any onboarding functionality with the new onion services features
15:14:09 <sysrqb> maybe that would be a smart thing to have for such a major feature
15:14:15 <isabela> we should do the about:tor take over
15:14:19 <isabela> to teach the user
15:14:32 <antonela> well, onion-location has an explainer
15:14:48 <antonela> and i also suggest _something_ to move foward with user updates
15:14:52 <antonela> *forward
15:15:18 <antonela> but yes, i mean, i think june 2 is a great date for stable and we can have an alpha in between
15:16:52 <sysrqb> right. onion-location has some user interaction
15:17:35 <sysrqb> but we should have something for onion naming
15:17:54 <antonela> yes, agreed
15:17:58 <sysrqb> i don't know how we should add that, because it is limited to securedrop
15:18:09 <sysrqb> and not many tor browser users are going to securedrop instances
15:19:14 <sysrqb> i'll create a ticket for that
15:19:19 <sysrqb> and we can discuss our options
15:19:29 <antonela> sounds good
15:19:31 <gaba> ok
15:19:31 <isabela> ok, sounds good
15:19:54 <sysrqb> for onion-location, we need developer docs
15:20:02 <antonela> right, is the next item in the agenda
15:20:03 <sysrqb> who should write that?
15:20:21 <ggus> sysrqb: do you mean onion service operator docs?
15:20:26 <cohosh> can i get a pad link (joined late sorry)?
15:20:33 <gaba> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-browser-release-meeting-keep
15:20:35 <GeKo> https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-browser-release-meeting-keep
15:20:35 <ahf> if it's for integrating the feature on your website, i can help out there
15:20:49 <sysrqb> "We need devs docs and end-users docs:"
15:20:55 <ahf> i saw somewhere that antonela had already collected some notes on apache and nginx
15:20:58 <sysrqb> for web server configs
15:21:04 <antonela> yes, is in the pad
15:21:18 <gaba> i think it would makese sense for ggus to be involved somehow
15:21:23 <sysrqb> yes
15:21:32 <sysrqb> but i'm not sure how we should coordinate
15:21:55 <sysrqb> i assume acat or ahf or someone else should work directly with ggus
15:22:01 <gaba> do we have a ticket for it?
15:22:10 <ggus> i think so
15:22:19 <sysrqb> someone who has experience configuring onion-location on webservers
15:22:22 <sysrqb> at least
15:22:23 <ggus> in trac, i guess
15:22:28 * antonela goes to find the ticket, again
15:22:45 <isabela> we need: support site update, tor browser user doc update, community portal onion site operator update
15:23:43 <gaba> ok. ggus, antonela, ahf: let's coordinate after the meeting
15:23:48 <ahf> WFM.
15:24:25 <sysrqb> great, thanks
15:24:28 <antonela> ok, starting a pad https://pad.riseup.net/p/qsbCucp7rNSsZ7I39in4
15:24:50 <sysrqb> regarding DDG using onion-location
15:25:11 <sysrqb> i can follow up on the previous emails i have with them, too
15:25:33 <sysrqb> they did not think their onion service could support all tor users
15:25:52 <sysrqb> and they were adding to their roadmap scaling up their service
15:26:05 <antonela> matt that could be ideal
15:26:23 <sysrqb> i asked them about tor browser using their onion service by default, instead of ddg.com
15:26:31 <antonela> what im thinking is: if the user first action is searching, they will get prompted by ddg onion just in the first flow
15:26:37 <sysrqb> but onion-location is similar, if enough users click the button
15:26:50 <sysrqb> yeah
15:26:51 <isabela> sysrqb: let me try an email w/ them and copy u
15:26:52 <ahf> i saw hiro had a ticket of getting it enabled on TPO's website too
15:26:55 <antonela> so we have chances to get the opt-in super early
15:27:08 <sysrqb> isabela: sure. i'm concerned they aren't ready yet
15:27:09 <antonela> ahf: yes, ideally tpo is ready for the realease too
15:27:10 <sysrqb> but we can ask
15:27:14 <isabela> yep
15:28:21 <sysrqb> okay. next item. onion-location...in Onion Browser?
15:28:31 <sysrqb> antonela: is that happening?
15:28:38 <sysrqb> it won't be available on Android
15:28:56 <sysrqb> we'll implement that after the Fenix transition
15:29:07 <antonela> i dont know! is an item carried from last meeting
15:29:45 <sysrqb> hrm. okay, i see'
15:29:51 <antonela> i can talk with guardian if we want it to happen
15:30:14 <sysrqb> i would prefer keeping this simple
15:30:23 <sysrqb> so if they aren't ready or if it isn't implemented
15:30:30 <sysrqb> then we continue
15:30:41 <sysrqb> i don't want to worry about coordinating with them
15:30:52 <antonela> got it
15:31:03 <sysrqb> but if they are ready and we can add it in our docs, then let's do it
15:31:30 <sysrqb> so, yes, please. if you can ask them about their status, that will help
15:31:32 <sysrqb> thanks
15:31:49 <antonela> oka, will talk with guardian then
15:31:51 <ahf> i have weekly meetings with them, but right now i think they have a lot of fires burning with their webkit battles
15:32:18 <antonela> i wonder how much they know about it and where to point if they ask for developers docs
15:32:25 <sysrqb> yeah, that was my understanding, but maybe their UI development is separate? idk.
15:32:28 <antonela> but lets figure it out after chat with them
15:32:32 <sysrqb> yeah
15:32:38 <antonela> is fine, i can take it
15:32:39 <ahf> they have one iOS person doing all of it
15:32:46 <sysrqb> :) oh, good.
15:33:21 <sysrqb> okay. antonela: onion-naming UI improvements
15:33:57 <antonela> yes, so quickly
15:33:58 <sysrqb> so.
15:34:09 <antonela> i linked the suggestion fpf shared with us
15:34:20 <sysrqb> yes
15:34:34 <antonela> i think is gross to show the entire onion address with **bolds** as in our current version
15:34:51 <antonela> maybe we can use the onion name in the doorhanger?
15:35:13 <antonela> also, they are suggesting to link to some explainer page, i agree for sure
15:35:28 <antonela> and maybe the doorhanger is the best place to locate that link, too
15:35:38 <sysrqb> nina's version will not look at pretty for a v3 onion address
15:35:44 <antonela> true
15:35:49 <sysrqb> but i like her suggestion, too
15:36:16 <antonela> i dont think we need to show the onion origin address two times, the circuit display should help on that
15:36:28 <isabela> +1
15:36:47 <isabela> i think the long bold address is not nice
15:36:48 <sysrqb> but. step 1: show the human meaningful name at the "Site Information for"
15:36:49 <GeKo> i loke anto's suggestion
15:36:51 <isabela> i agree w/ that
15:36:55 <GeKo> *like
15:37:09 <isabela> me too
15:37:26 <sysrqb> okay, good. acat, can you work on that improvement this week?
15:37:33 <sysrqb> i think we need a new ticket for this
15:37:39 <sysrqb> but anto or i can create it
15:37:44 <antonela> i can do it
15:37:45 <antonela> yes
15:37:49 <sysrqb> thanks
15:38:18 <acat> sysrqb: sure, it's replacing the Site information url with the friendly one, right?
15:38:23 <sysrqb> yes
15:38:23 <antonela> i'll add both things, the update in the site info and also the link to more info
15:38:25 <sysrqb> exactly
15:38:26 <antonela> we can talk in the ticket
15:38:27 <antonela> acat: yes!
15:38:46 <antonela> acat: is doable?
15:38:54 <acat> should be :)
15:39:00 <antonela> ha, awesome
15:39:12 <antonela> fpf folks will be happy with this iteration as well
15:39:17 <sysrqb> si
15:39:22 <antonela> next
15:39:29 <sysrqb> acat, ideally i'd like a patch by thursday
15:39:40 <sysrqb> so we can get it into nightlies soon
15:40:10 <sysrqb> just so you have an understanding of timing :)
15:40:13 <acat> good, no problem
15:40:48 <sysrqb> okay, antonela: onion errors?
15:40:57 <antonela> next item is also mine and i wonder if onion errors strings reached l10n at some point and in a more optimistic way, if that is ready
15:41:40 <antonela> if is not ready, is fine, we have two weeks for pushing that but we should make sure that we are showing the english version if l10n is not ready
15:42:25 <sysrqb> yes
15:42:29 <sysrqb> they are localized
15:42:33 <antonela> \o/
15:42:38 <sysrqb> (or in progress)
15:43:15 <antonela> okey, if they are in the process we are fine
15:43:16 <sysrqb> we can look at the percentage later
15:43:19 <antonela> ye
15:43:42 <antonela> ggus added onion auth which i forgot is going to reach stable now!
15:43:54 <antonela> yes, we need docs for that and i added the tickets in the docs pad ggus
15:44:19 <ggus> antonela: we have some docs for onion auth ready. cleopatra did it.
15:44:26 <antonela> awesome, are they live?
15:44:35 <ggus> live in a PR
15:44:49 <antonela> cool, can you push them and close the tickets?
15:44:57 <antonela> i pasted the numbers in the pad
15:45:07 <antonela> ggus: do they need review?
15:45:17 <antonela> we can gentile ask asn for review
15:45:41 <antonela> gentile, kindly
15:45:51 <ggus> yes, we need to review and see if the explanation makes sense (for the user and the service admin)
15:46:05 <antonela> great
15:46:08 <sysrqb> great. let's coordinate that
15:46:13 <antonela> thanks ggus
15:46:33 <sysrqb> okay, for informing users
15:46:40 <sysrqb> i see antonela and isabela have some ideas :)
15:46:49 <antonela> yes, you are going to open a ticket and we can discuss them there
15:46:51 <antonela> yes :)
15:46:59 <isabela> hehehe
15:47:13 <sysrqb> oh. right :)
15:47:18 <sysrqb> good, moving on...
15:47:41 <antonela> urlbar formatting, is you?
15:47:44 * gaba reminds that we are 10 min for the hour of meeting
15:48:20 <sysrqb> for onion naming, currently when you visit the site, the url bar highlights a part of the string
15:48:41 <sysrqb> the suredrop naming scheme changed some over the last couple weeks
15:48:46 <sysrqb> i opened #33992
15:48:57 <sysrqb> but i think we shoudl delay this change until after 9.5
15:49:06 <antonela> yes! and they removed the .com
15:49:11 <sysrqb> yeah
15:49:17 <antonela> sysrqb: i think is smart thinking about this after the release
15:49:24 <sysrqb> so now the the entire domain name is highlighted
15:49:27 <antonela> right now it looks good
15:49:28 <antonela> yes
15:49:37 * antonela for lurkers https://twitter.com/micahflee/status/1259898204750938119/photo/2
15:49:52 <sysrqb> before, in theintercept.come.securedrop.tor.onion, 'com.securedrop.tor.onion' was highlighted
15:50:03 <antonela> sysrqb: are you good moving this for after stable?
15:50:09 <sysrqb> now it it theintercept.securedrop.tor.onion, and the entire domain is highlighted
15:50:14 <sysrqb> so it doesn't look as weird now
15:50:17 <antonela> i think it was critical in the previous alpha
15:50:19 <sysrqb> yes
15:50:20 <antonela> yes, agreed
15:50:25 <sysrqb> okay, good
15:50:34 <sysrqb> new icons.
15:50:46 <sysrqb> ggus: ?
15:50:46 <antonela> i pasted the ticket
15:50:50 <antonela> what is the question ggus?
15:50:52 <sysrqb> ah
15:50:53 <sysrqb> #32645
15:51:17 <ggus> we have docs ready for support portal. we should add that to the blog post
15:51:37 <antonela> oki, i remember working with cleo on that yes
15:51:44 <antonela> cool
15:51:47 <isabela> k
15:51:49 <antonela> comms?
15:51:58 <isabela> ggus: send to comms@ the urls  for the docs we should mention
15:52:04 <ggus> yep!
15:52:19 <sysrqb> blog post, mailing list announcements, tweets, ...
15:52:24 <isabela> yep
15:52:29 <isabela> we will work on all that :)
15:52:31 <sysrqb> we can coordinate this
15:52:31 <antonela> we have this meeting with the otf learning lab this week and i think we can close that project in two weeks; a perfect timing for our release
15:52:33 <ggus> new swag too
15:52:37 <isabela> lol
15:52:43 <sysrqb> ha
15:52:53 <sysrqb> antonela: nice
15:53:10 <isabela> where should i share the place where comms will be working on all of the above?
15:53:41 <antonela> maybe internal isa?
15:53:54 <sysrqb> where ever works best for you, i think
15:53:58 <sysrqb> pad or doc?
15:54:01 <isabela> is to review blog post mostly
15:54:09 <isabela> i will have a doc
15:54:09 <antonela> yes yes a pad or a doc is good
15:54:20 <isabela> i mean where to share the url for folks to review the post
15:54:32 <sysrqb> ah :)
15:54:41 <antonela> yes that, ping matt or me or anyone else who wants to read and we will review
15:54:49 <isabela> k
15:54:53 <sysrqb> and we can forward to others
15:54:58 <antonela> yes
15:54:59 <isabela> k
15:55:08 <sysrqb> ok, before moving onto the last few items
15:55:39 <sysrqb> does the plan for squeezing these new features/improvements into a final release next week
15:55:45 <sysrqb> make sense?
15:56:08 <sysrqb> i understand GeKo's concern about releasing 9.5 stable at the same time as Mozilla release 68.9.0esr
15:56:26 <GeKo> it's not a concern so much
15:56:34 <GeKo> just how we used to do in the past
15:56:40 <sysrqb> we *could* release 9.5 stable the following week
15:56:44 <GeKo> and 9.5 is less critical here than a 10.0
15:56:45 <sysrqb> instead of the end of May
15:56:56 <sysrqb> true
15:57:17 <GeKo> so how much programming and reviewing on browser folks side is involved in all of that?
15:57:39 <GeKo> we have the circuit display
15:57:49 <sysrqb> and onboarding
15:57:55 <sysrqb> or about:tor changes
15:58:08 <sysrqb> i think they should only need a few days
15:58:27 <sysrqb> for implementation and review
15:58:45 <GeKo> i am worried about the onboarding as this has been a timesink in the past
15:58:54 <GeKo> but if we have a clear plan here, fine with me
15:58:56 <sysrqb> i hope. but onboarding/about:tor is still not decided
15:59:02 <GeKo> hrm
15:59:03 <sysrqb> yes
15:59:18 <antonela> which im trying to move outside the browser just to leverage devs work
15:59:29 <antonela> but lets see
16:00:00 <antonela> next item? snowflake?
16:00:06 <antonela> sorry for passing the hour :/
16:00:14 <sysrqb> yeah.
16:00:19 <sysrqb> so, cohosh :)
16:00:23 <sysrqb> I also have another meeting now
16:00:24 <GeKo> but we'll do the alpha next week, right?
16:00:34 <sysrqb> yes, i want these in the alpha
16:00:42 <sysrqb> in an lpha, before we release stable
16:00:43 <GeKo> that was not my question :)
16:01:01 <sysrqb> yes, in the alpha next week
16:01:12 <cohosh> hey
16:01:13 <GeKo> okay
16:01:28 <antonela> are we ok to have snowflake in alpha next week?
16:01:33 <cohosh> yeah
16:01:36 <sysrqb> (ah, i don't have another meeting now, good)
16:01:36 <antonela> awesome
16:01:38 <cohosh> i think we should wait on stable
16:01:49 <antonela> but moving to alpha is a progress cohosh :)
16:01:50 <sysrqb> for all platforms?
16:01:59 <cohosh> i'd really like to get #34043 in alpha
16:02:11 <gaba> nice
16:02:12 <cohosh> idk if we're ready for android to be in alpha yet though
16:02:14 <GeKo> antonela: we already have snowflake in the alpher series
16:02:16 <GeKo> for a while
16:02:19 <cohosh> that seems like it needs more testing?
16:02:21 <GeKo> what do you mean?
16:02:32 <antonela> GeKo: yes but they have been working on that and they have updates
16:02:39 <cohosh> GeKo: did you want to put the android builds in alpha before we test them ourselves?
16:02:47 <cohosh> my understanding is alpha is very soon
16:02:49 <ggus> GeKo: also for windows?
16:02:54 <GeKo> yes
16:02:55 <cohosh> and i'm not sure how much testing we need
16:03:00 <GeKo> ggus: ^
16:03:15 <GeKo> cohosh: i am fine doing the yolo thing here
16:03:27 <cohosh> okay then great
16:03:27 <GeKo> i think the main issue will be getting this reviewed in time
16:03:42 <cohosh> let's prioritize #34043 for review
16:03:54 <GeKo> yes, that should make it next week
16:03:57 <cohosh> and then if we have time android? #34043 is more important
16:04:09 <GeKo> but to save us some sanity i think #30318 is something for 10.0a1
16:04:19 <GeKo> yeah
16:04:24 <cohosh> okay cool
16:05:10 <sysrqb> with #34043, is snowflake ready for stable on win/macos/linux?
16:05:25 <sysrqb> or do you want more testing in alphas before that?
16:05:54 <sysrqb> or do you not know yet
16:06:07 <GeKo> 16:02 <+cohosh> i think we should wait on stable
16:06:17 <cohosh> yeah i'm okay with waiting
16:06:18 <GeKo> but maybe that was meant for something else
16:06:34 <cohosh> we can find other ways to ramp up usage
16:06:40 <cohosh> before moving to stable
16:06:40 <sysrqb> okay
16:06:42 <GeKo> cohosh: what are the blockers?
16:06:59 <cohosh> the blockers for stable are mostly child tickets of #19001
16:07:14 <cohosh> but also figuring out whether we can handle more clients
16:07:14 <sysrqb> GeKo: it was, but #34043 was the qualifier for "waiting" :) i was curious about if that wsa the only blocker
16:07:26 <cohosh> we have tens of clients right now, not hundreds or thousands
16:07:33 <GeKo> :)
16:07:38 <sysrqb> yep
16:07:38 <GeKo> okay, sounds good
16:07:42 <cohosh> so if we can ramp this up in alpha still, that would be a better stress test
16:07:52 <sysrqb> that sounds like a find decision
16:08:15 <sysrqb> we only have some thousands of daily users on alpha
16:08:33 <sysrqb> but we can think about how we get more testing
16:08:46 <ggus> cohosh: we could use social media to make a call for snowflake / alpha testers.
16:09:02 <cohosh> ggus: that would be great
16:09:10 <cohosh> only once #34043 is in though
16:09:19 <cohosh> so maybe after the next alpha?
16:09:20 <sysrqb> :)
16:09:24 <cohosh> phw was thinking of a blog post
16:09:29 <sysrqb> we can coordinate this
16:09:34 <cohosh> cool, thanks!
16:09:51 <isabela> yep
16:10:07 <antonela> i think tor-qa list is better, the problem to open call for alpha testing is that regular users download alphas and then they not switch channels
16:10:20 <antonela> but yes, we can coordinate that
16:10:29 <cohosh> okay makes sense
16:10:49 <isabela> cohosh: email comms to coordinate w/ us (gus, me anto)
16:10:56 <cohosh> will do
16:10:58 <isabela> we can help
16:11:05 <cohosh> \o/
16:11:13 <sysrqb> very exciting
16:11:25 <sysrqb> quickly for the remaining two items. 1) we have a weekly S58 meeting on Mondays now. that basically replaced the team meeting
16:11:51 <sysrqb> 2) we have a draft blog post for Tor's position on DNS-over-HTTPS
16:12:11 <sysrqb> after micahflee tweeted about the intercept's new short onion name
16:12:17 <gaba> +1 to keep regular release meetings
16:12:21 <gaba> that are in irc open to everybody
16:12:32 <isabela> +1 too
16:12:37 <antonela> gaba: yes, we should keep release meetings
16:12:43 <sysrqb> for their securedrop instance iheard some questions about why we're re-implementing dns for our thing
16:12:53 <sysrqb> gaba: oooh. release meeting
16:12:55 <sysrqb> sorry i misread
16:12:59 <GeKo> gaba: what does regular mean?
16:13:11 <antonela> as regular the releases are GeKo
16:13:15 <GeKo> because i am actually against having like biweekly release meetings
16:13:19 <GeKo> as we used to have
16:13:20 <antonela> so maybe we can do it monthly
16:13:22 <sysrqb> like every two weeks
16:13:28 <gaba> yes what antonela said
16:13:31 <GeKo> because that is overkill i think
16:13:39 <GeKo> given that we are essentially in maintenance mode
16:13:39 <gaba> monthly would be fine
16:13:50 <sysrqb> yes, every month is good
16:14:01 <sysrqb> because we won't have (many) new features going into 9.5
16:14:09 <isabela> please send an invite to comms when u decide the date for the next one :)
16:14:13 <gaba> next one in a month then?
16:14:14 <sysrqb> and we'll be focusing on fenix/78esr transition
16:14:25 <antonela> into *10 you mean sysrqb
16:14:40 <sysrqb> gaba: yes, let's try that
16:14:41 <GeKo> no 9.5
16:14:44 <gaba> June 9th
16:15:01 * gaba adding it to the calendar... will send a reminder a few weeks before
16:15:04 <GeKo> and 10
16:15:04 <gaba> a few days*
16:15:16 <isabela> ok
16:15:30 <sysrqb> anyway. i want to publish the DoH blog post
16:15:49 <sysrqb> because some we'll receive some complaints about our decision to use https-everywhere for a new naming system
16:15:58 <sysrqb> and we should describe why DNS is not a good choice
16:16:03 <sysrqb> this is mostly just FYI
16:16:04 <isabela> sounds good - i saw you will talk w/ arma2 and move this fwd
16:16:04 <antonela> i replied to the thread sysrqb, i think is great if you do it
16:16:06 <gaba> can we bring back comments for tb blogposts?
16:16:11 <sysrqb> antonela: ye[
16:16:12 <sysrqb> *p
16:16:16 <antonela> gaba: ideally
16:16:46 <GeKo> gaba: there are still dozens of unmoderated ones sitting in the queue
16:16:48 <sysrqb> only if we coordinate who is responsible for them
16:16:55 <gaba> oh
16:16:56 <GeKo> someone should clean that out first
16:16:56 <sysrqb> i began going through the comments yesterday
16:17:00 <sysrqb> after nickm mentioned it
16:17:19 <gaba> ok. didn't check that. I will help with it.
16:17:21 <sysrqb> i haev another 50 comments
16:17:31 <antonela> :/
16:17:33 <GeKo> sysrqb: i'd like to have a look over the DoH blog post before it goes live if possible
16:17:49 <sysrqb> yes, i'll send you the draft
16:17:56 <GeKo> thanks
16:18:10 <sysrqb> okay, this meeting went a little long
16:18:17 <sysrqb> thanks for everyone who was able to stay
16:18:23 <sysrqb> we covered a lot of topics
16:18:28 <isabela> nnp
16:18:31 <sysrqb> and we have some work to do over the next two weeks
16:18:31 <antonela> thanks folks!
16:18:32 <isabela> tx ppl o/
16:18:33 <gaba> ok. ending the meeting now
16:18:35 <gaba> #endmeeting