14:29:22 #startmeeting metrics team 14:29:22 Meeting started Thu Feb 15 14:29:22 2018 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:29:22 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:29:56 https://storm.torproject.org/shared/Oh4g0hNenh65QZNWRsIe5zxpB3e0axASeSgo5hKOp2A <- agenda pad 14:30:40 are you still adding topics to the agenda pad? 14:30:45 i'm done 14:30:48 nope 14:30:53 okay. 14:30:58 * quick announcement from irl 14:31:19 antonela produced some new designs for the "badges" that accompany tweets/toots from metrics-bot 14:31:32 these have now been implemented and deployed and they look considerably better than my old designs 14:31:42 i've put some example links on the pad 14:32:01 cool! 14:32:19 looks indeed pretty good. 14:32:26 I made a note to include this in the monthly report, too. 14:32:26 (~‾▿‾)~ㅤ 14:32:30 hi antonela! 14:32:36 neat 14:32:38 hey! just lurking around :) 14:32:55 while you're here.... :) 14:32:59 * Bootstrap 4.0 (karsten) 14:33:03 oh dear 14:33:06 hehe 14:33:15 so, irl and I briefly talked about an issue in bootstrap 3.3.7. 14:33:32 and irl's suggestion was to edit the minimized js and replace a function with the 3.3.5 version. 14:33:44 my question was: should we look into upgrading to 4.x? 14:33:53 which is something that irl didn't want to do alone. 14:34:04 is this something where you could help, antonela? 14:34:19 i think this would mean that we use the styleguide bootstrap fork to redo metrics.tpo's design 14:34:31 the styleguide uses 4.x? 14:34:37 i believe so 14:34:38 yes, the styleguide uses 4.x 14:34:48 https://styleguide.torproject.org/getting-started/ 14:35:00 so, I guess at some point we'll have to upgrade to 4.x anyway. 14:35:12 questions are: who does it? when do we do it. 14:35:13 ? 14:35:25 web designer? 14:35:29 we could also ask our web designer who did the design last time. 14:35:44 i'm happy to do it with the help of hiro/antonela, but in the second half of the year, not just now 14:35:57 after the new website, i can help on metrics i think 14:35:59 yes :) 14:36:21 okay. 14:37:15 made some notes on the pad. 14:37:15 we'll get to see then also how the other portals have done integration 14:37:25 the 4 used at the moment is also in alpha I think 14:37:26 and until then we just hack 3.3.7? 14:37:46 if it helps to reassure you, the hacked 3.3.7 is what's been running for relay search since the theme change 14:37:54 also you can just import the boostrap.css from the styleguide and you should have everything there already 14:38:16 hiro: I have no idea how many things would break. 14:38:44 okay, great. sounds like a plan. 14:38:57 (: 14:38:58 moving on? 14:39:22 moving on. 14:39:23 * webstats memory issues (karsten), please confirm comment:6 in 25161 (iwakeh) 14:40:04 I can prepare 14:40:08 done. 14:40:16 the shell scripts for the import. 14:40:21 ok :-) 14:40:27 I'll get new hardware in the first half of next week. 14:40:47 what memory max limit? 14:40:55 I thought about 64GB. 14:41:02 (I'll still have to buy the ram.) 14:41:07 ok, just run the import with that. 14:41:13 ;-) 14:41:13 everything? 14:41:15 heh 14:41:24 I can certainly try. 14:41:27 well, I can try and check ... 14:41:39 feel free to wait for that. 14:41:52 the slicing idea only applies 14:41:54 that == me trying it out next week. 14:42:03 to very limited 8 to 16G. 14:42:22 ok. 14:42:32 sounds fine, I'll run it and tell you whether that works. 14:42:39 I do a small test beforehand. 14:42:51 ok. 14:42:54 to make sure I didn't underestimate the needed RAM. 14:43:18 sounds good. moving on? 14:43:21 fine 14:43:26 * more feedback on Sponsor 13 deliverable 2 (karsten) 14:43:39 half of the month is over, and I haven't done anything for that sponsor yet. 14:43:49 I'd like to continue working on the document next week. 14:44:04 iwakeh: can you take another look at the comments and move the discussions there forward? 14:44:14 sure! 14:44:19 thank you! 14:44:30 and do you have a google account? 14:44:31 (I didn't know it was waiting for my comment) 14:44:52 errg 14:44:52 no worries. I had it on my list to tell you last week, and then you weren't here and I forgot. 14:45:09 or, can I let you edit some other way? 14:45:15 without letting the world edit, too? 14:45:24 hhmm 14:45:29 I can find out. 14:45:38 * iwakeh thinks about this question and mails later. 14:46:06 okay! 14:46:15 * feedback for #24229: Provide BGP Data Collection on Tor Metrics (iwakeh); 14:46:16 I'd rather discuss on ticket than in 14:46:27 these tiny comment boxes of the Gdoc. 14:46:32 ah, hmm. 14:46:42 we find a solution there. 14:46:48 yes. 14:47:01 Regarding BGP data 14:47:30 I suggested a structure which can be commented on on the ticket 14:47:36 the question here: 14:47:54 Do we plan to update the data? 14:48:04 in the near future? 14:48:15 at all? 14:48:16 hmm, fine question. 14:48:33 if we do, I'd think about the steps necessary. 14:48:50 I think we're mainly providing a place for researchers to serve their interesting tor-related data. 14:49:10 so, if they want to update that data, we should make that possible. 14:49:20 which shouldn't require much work, though. 14:49:21 ok, so we just leave it at the scope of archiving third party data. 14:49:41 yes, the steps are outlined on ticket. 14:49:55 I'd say, let's start simple. 14:50:09 it is very simple. 14:50:14 sounds good. 14:50:25 I'll take a look at the ticket, too. 14:51:05 shall we discuss this more on the ticket then? 14:51:19 yes, just wanted to raise attention. 14:51:25 ok! 14:51:29 * Make a plan for assigning points to tickets, including what points<>time factor we're going to use, if at all. 14:51:49 * iwakeh added the 'if...' 14:51:49 * karsten noticed that irl started using points. 14:51:55 i had a go at this 14:52:04 for the metrics-bot and relay search tickets 14:52:19 i used the network team points to time conversion system 14:52:51 i found that just thinking about how long something would take meant i had to think about how i would do it and i tidied up a couple of missing tickets or missing things that had to be done first, so setting parent tickets 14:52:59 how about we all experiment with this, if we feel like it, but we don't make it mandatory yet? 14:53:11 fine. I thought about this after noticing irl's point-adding, but 14:53:28 it felt quite distracting and I didn't continue. 14:53:40 I'll give it another try. 14:53:47 yes, I'll do the same. 14:53:57 regarding the conversion system, 14:53:58 Maybe, for things that will wait longer before being worked on. 14:54:06 can we agree on doing the same as the network team does? 14:54:16 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/ReleaseGuidelines#TeamCapacity 14:54:23 Where was the conversion formular again? 14:54:31 ah, thanks! 14:55:15 I think it makes sense for compatibility reasons. 14:55:17 the wheel exists, let's use it. 14:55:25 indeed 14:55:44 alright. 14:55:55 the priority field 14:56:09 ah, yes. 14:56:26 let's use it better. 14:56:31 There are quite some tickets having 'high', but were not touched for weeks/months. 14:56:32 so far we use high, medium, and low. 14:56:40 true. 14:57:00 i.e., let's also adjust when topics loose priority. 14:57:07 or gain. 14:57:08 agreed. 14:57:10 a weekly or bi-weekly review would catch this 14:57:17 true. 14:57:35 true. shall we append that to today's agenda, if we have time? 14:58:00 it doesn't have to be a team thing, just go through all the tickets and work out which ones are the most important ones 14:58:04 maybe, limited to only looking at 'high' this time? 14:58:06 then accept them and work on them 14:58:31 but yes, also things that need discussion could then be discussed at the meeting 14:58:38 but you'd know what they are 14:58:45 we could adjust 14:58:49 okay, let's do a quick round at the end, just for high tickets. 14:58:53 ok 14:58:56 after the meeting 'offline' this time,and 14:59:10 plan reviewing the prios next time? 14:59:16 sure, or that. 15:00:09 okay, 15:00:10 * Including Relay Search in metrics-web (#23518) 15:00:26 I see there are tickets waiting for review? 15:00:41 yes, including one that actually includes relay search into metrics-web 15:00:56 but it will need a couple of changes before actually merging, which i've described in the comment 15:01:04 ah, okay. 15:01:18 so, I can review things later today, possibly tomorrow. 15:01:23 like the submodule points to my personal repo, which can change once the relay search changes are merged 15:01:28 ok cool 15:01:55 once you've reviewed i can put it all into one branch to merge in one go 15:02:15 it's currently two branches because the bootstrap js was still being discussed 15:02:46 I can merge that one after this meeting, and you can rebase. 15:02:52 ah cool (: 15:02:55 that works too 15:03:28 what's the part about freeze? 15:03:44 is there a specific timing? 15:03:55 ah yes, so i need to update urls to make it work in metrics-web and this will break the deployment on the static mirrors 15:04:15 so ideally we don't want to change anything on the static mirrors once we make these changes 15:04:30 which i think is fine, as we would shortly after put in a redirect once we've confirmed it all working 15:04:37 should we plan to do this on monday, not friday then? 15:04:56 i mean, the static mirrors would continue to work serving relay search 15:05:09 but if we made changes they would conflict with changes made for integration with metrics-web 15:05:30 okay, let's see how far we get before the weekend approaches. 15:05:32 this is more a warning not to run ./update on staticiforme than anything else 15:05:48 you mean run it for atlas? I don't do that. 15:05:54 yep 15:05:57 okay. 15:06:11 cool, looking forward to this. :) 15:06:15 (: 15:06:22 moving on? 15:06:24 ok 15:06:29 * Publishing bridge contact information: how to make a decision (karsten) 15:06:46 where there any comments? 15:06:52 yes, some. 15:07:12 and I got some more from the research group that worked on identifying bridges last year or so. 15:07:24 interesting. 15:07:26 (not the one that leaked 2k bridge addresses as a result.) 15:07:40 it's not a clear case. we might do it or leave it. 15:07:45 I'm not sure how to decide. 15:08:01 we could discuss this in the team, we could ask tor-internal@, ... 15:08:04 The 'privacy board'? 15:08:09 aha! 15:08:12 can we do a proposal to clarify some wording in a specification maybe? 15:08:40 the change is pretty small. 15:09:06 and we do have a specification. 15:09:06 #20983 15:09:29 https://metrics.torproject.org/bridge-descriptors.html 15:09:38 but yes, I think the privacy board would indeed be a good place to ask. 15:09:39 would need to be adjusted. 15:10:01 https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/bridgedb-spec.txt#n55 15:10:24 so the bridge descriptors we get are different to the bridgedb-spec ones? 15:10:41 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/20983#comment:6 15:10:42 no, but we sanitize them. 15:11:14 ok, so we should do a proposal to update the spec for this and make it clear that contact lines can be made public 15:11:19 and then it's a formal decision process 15:11:31 well, 15:11:36 we did this 4 years ago. 15:11:43 making it clear that contact lines can be made public. 15:11:49 but it's not in the spec at all 15:11:56 there's no mention that bridge descriptors even have contact lines 15:11:57 let me find it.. 15:12:00 the comment https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/20983#comment:6 replies to irl's link-question. 15:12:09 that's an implementation spec how bridgedb works. 15:12:16 it just doesn't do anything with contact lines. 15:12:17 aaaaaah 15:12:42 right ok, so we do already say these are public 15:12:42 #9854 15:13:05 that's where we clarified in the default torrc that contact lines may be published and indexed by search engines. 15:13:11 we just didn't do it yet. 15:13:39 so, how about I reach out to the privacy board, cc'ing you two, and ask if we can proceed or not? 15:13:49 yep, sounds good. 15:13:50 i think that sounds good 15:14:11 especially for group identification 15:14:18 which wasn't mentioned in the earlier ticket 15:14:44 the tor-relays@ thread has an updated list of possible advantages/disadvantages. 15:14:53 I'll include that, too. 15:15:09 fine. 15:15:14 to be honest, I'm okay if the final decision is that we're not doing it. 15:15:27 I just want to have a final decision and not go back to this over and over. 15:15:35 yep, makes sense 15:15:40 true. 15:15:47 okay. 15:15:49 we should also include then the option of a hashed contact line being included 15:15:57 aha! 15:15:58 to enable group detection without giving away the contact line 15:16:02 good idea. 15:16:17 otherwise we'll do the whole thing and someone will come back with this suggestion 15:16:18 want to read the thread again and see if you have more thoughts? 15:16:23 heh, yes. 15:16:35 before I reach out to privacy board folks? 15:16:38 shall we make an email up on a pad before sending it? 15:16:42 sure! 15:16:43 and then send it tomorrow 15:16:54 (: 15:16:57 good idea 15:17:05 yep! 15:17:44 last on the list: * Assigned Trac tickets (karsten) 15:17:50 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?owner=karsten&owner=iwakeh&owner=irl&owner=metrics-team&status=accepted&status=assigned&status=merge_ready&status=needs_information&status=needs_review&status=needs_revision&status=new&status=reopened&group=owner&max=300&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component&col=changetime&desc=1&order=changetime 15:18:30 we should have another one for open reviews. 15:18:52 some of my tickets are in need of review, as are some of yours. 15:19:09 true, I started adding my name to the 15:19:26 reviewer field and even assign reviews to myself. 15:19:42 sounds useful. 15:20:01 the list looks doable. 15:20:01 I'll take a look at ticket in needs_review, and also assign reviews to myself. 15:20:08 and come up with a ticket query for that. 15:20:21 (probably a 2 min thing, but don't want to leave you waiting here.) 15:20:47 anything else for today? 15:21:00 nothing more from me 15:21:18 all set. 15:21:23 awesome! 15:21:35 thank you, and talk to you next week! bye, bye. 15:21:38 bye, bye! 15:21:39 bye! 15:21:47 #endmeeting