17:01:09 <nickm> #startmeeting weekly network team meeting, July 8
17:01:09 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Jul  8 17:01:09 2019 UTC.  The chair is nickm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:09 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:11 <nickm> Hello!
17:01:15 <asn> o/
17:01:25 <ahf> hello o/
17:01:27 <nickm> This is likely going to be a preview of the Stockholm meeting, since we've only got a few days before that
17:01:34 <nickm> I hope folks are well!
17:02:31 <nickm> Pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2019.1-keep
17:02:45 <nickm> do we have mikeperry / catalyst  / dgoulet ?
17:03:42 * catalyst is here
17:03:45 <nickm> Before we look at the 041Status page, let's look specifically at the 041-must tickets: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=merge_ready&status=needs_information&status=needs_review&status=needs_revision&status=new&status=reopened&keywords=~041-must&group=status&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component&order=priority
17:03:52 <nickm> Hello catalyst !
17:04:23 <nickm> looks like #30871 doesn't belong in 041-must any more, since it's been merged to 041.
17:04:57 <asn> same as #30649
17:05:01 <asn> they both seem like backport tickets
17:05:09 <nickm> removed 041-must from both
17:05:38 <nickm> Does anybody super want to backport #31001 to 0.2.9?  If not, I will.
17:06:07 <nickm> ok, that's me.
17:06:56 <nickm> Now, on to 041Status at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTorReleases/041Status
17:06:57 <gaba> o/
17:07:11 <nickm> we're approaching our one-mont
17:07:25 <nickm> we're approaching our one-month-to-stable date for 0.4.1, so I'm going to propose something here and on network-team@
17:07:44 <nickm> I want us to identify any tickets that should be 041-must but are not...
17:07:57 <nickm> and I want us to identity any tickets (like CI ones) that can be done post-stable...
17:08:28 <nickm> and we should assume that everything else that is "041-should" might get deferred.
17:08:43 <ahf> ok
17:09:05 <asn> agreed
17:09:08 <nickm> That way we can put out an -rc release right after Stockholm, and try to get stable out on time.
17:09:11 <nickm> sound ok?
17:09:24 <ahf> yes
17:09:27 <nickm> awesome
17:09:48 <nickm> I suggest that today we skip our roadmap checkin, and instead talk about roadmap prep for stockholm
17:09:53 <nickm> gaba: Anything to say on that?
17:10:01 <nickm> other folks: any ideas on roadmap prep?
17:11:10 <ahf> like we did in brussels, but this time we have a lot of the tickets on post-its already?
17:11:13 <nickm> right
17:11:14 <catalyst> nickm: we need to split up the pre-writing of stickies for s31?
17:11:38 <nickm> catalyst: I spoke with Teor about that a bit this morning. They won't have time to write anything before Thursday...
17:11:55 <nickm> ... so I suggested that we take all the tickets and the objectives and try to cluster them
17:12:00 <nickm> so we don't do 1 sticky per ticket
17:12:06 <gaba> oops, sorry I was looking at a pad. Yes
17:12:08 <nickm> and then we each have a smaller list to do pre-Thursday
17:12:18 <catalyst> the only stickies i have readily available aren't big enough for our usual format, i think
17:12:25 <nickm> catalyst: does that sound okay to you?
17:12:28 <nickm> I can do stickies
17:12:43 <nickm> and if so would you like to schedule a clustering time?
17:12:44 <gaba> nickm: how that would work for building the roadmap?
17:12:45 <catalyst> how should we cluster them? keywords?
17:12:48 <nickm> (i can do today or tomorrow)
17:12:54 <nickm> gaba: how would what work?
17:13:07 <nickm> catalyst: I think broad-ish projects with small-ish steps within them
17:13:13 <gaba> having clusters instead of the tickets
17:13:26 <nickm> catalyst: possibly, making parent tickets when appropriate
17:13:33 <nickm> gaba: I hope we can do it with parent tickets
17:13:59 <nickm> if that sounds reasonable?
17:15:53 <gaba> hpoefully is fine.
17:17:21 <nickm> ok.  Is everybody confident about roadmapping going into Stockholm?
17:17:35 <nickm> catalyst: would you like to cluster with me some time today or tomorrow? I am also okay trying to do it solo
17:17:36 <ahf> i think so
17:17:45 <asn> im good as well
17:18:08 <asn> at least for s27. not sure waht's the plan with scaling
17:18:31 <catalyst> nickm: i'm mostly doing trip prep today and tomorrow
17:18:33 <nickm> gaba: can you ping mikeperry about scaling?
17:18:42 <nickm> catalyst: ok. I'll cluster then.
17:18:53 <catalyst> nickm: thanks!
17:18:56 <gaba> yes. mike is on leave until wednesday. I will ping hime about it
17:19:16 <gaba> we will need to have space for scaling as there are a few specific session on that and one will include planning
17:21:44 <nickm> ack
17:21:53 <nickm> gaba: will you be coming with capacity estimates?
17:22:42 <gaba> yes
17:22:45 <nickm> awesome
17:22:50 <nickm> so, on to reviews!
17:22:52 <gaba> i have some already
17:23:33 <nickm> please check reviews and keep them coming if you can; more reviews before stockholm will help more than more code before stockholm most likely :)
17:24:51 <ahf> yep
17:25:20 <nickm> on announcements: please help with state of the onion items, and with sessions for day 1
17:25:42 <nickm> on to discussion?
17:25:49 <nickm> I don't see anything new on rotation updates
17:25:56 <nickm> catalyst: are your discussion questions fresh?
17:26:36 <nickm> or are they from last week?
17:26:41 <catalyst> we talked about the Trac workflow one last week
17:27:00 <catalyst> #31081 is new-ish
17:27:31 * catalyst commented on the ticket saying we should figure out which stakeholders to consult
17:27:48 <nickm> ok. so my thought is that http://www.hyrumslaw.com/ applies, and that it's probably easier to document and support the current behavior than it is to make it an error
17:28:05 <nickm> especially since the current behavior is reasonably logical
17:28:30 <nickm> i don't think we have a complete list of every project that uses the controller API.
17:28:31 <catalyst> unless we ever name a config variable "OK" :)
17:28:51 <nickm> ("set this to true if you are running in Oklahoma")
17:28:52 <nickm> ;)
17:29:43 <catalyst> i'm going to go with "if there are zero arguments, it MAY return a 250 reply that doesn't correspond to a supported configuration variable"
17:29:54 <nickm> sounds fine w me
17:31:40 <nickm> other discussion topics are that 306 (and various other proposals) need attention
17:32:02 <nickm> shall we talk about the metaproposal for how we do team consensus today, or save it for stockholm?
17:32:32 <gaba> it may makes sense to have the discussion when dgoulet and teor are around too.
17:32:44 <asn> agreed
17:33:03 <ahf> very much agreed
17:33:29 <nickm> sounds good to me
17:33:40 <nickm> do we have any other business today?
17:33:41 <ahf> and mike around too
17:34:19 <nickm> if not, I'm going to suggest that we all try to take it easy for the next day or two: we'll be putting in a whole bunch of working hours when we're all in Sweden, and it will be good to show up rested!
17:34:45 <ahf> yeep
17:35:41 <nickm> okay. If there's nothing else, I'll call the meeting done, and see everybody in Stockholm!
17:35:48 <ahf> see you in sweden o/
17:35:53 <nickm> cheers all, and safe travels
17:35:53 <asn> see you sooner than ever!
17:35:58 <asn> yes safe travels!
17:36:03 <nickm> #endmeeting