23:00:55 <gaba> #startmeeting  s31 October 8th 2019
23:00:55 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Oct  8 23:00:55 2019 UTC.  The chair is gaba. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:00:55 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
23:01:07 <gaba> the pad for the meeting is here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IRjuGtQkWNKZLc7qskDb
23:02:22 <gaba> i wonder if we will have teor at the meeting today
23:02:39 <gaba> catalyst: you around?
23:02:42 <catalyst> o/
23:02:49 <nickm> \o
23:03:57 <gaba> ok. I added an agenda with the items from last week
23:04:03 <gaba> s/week/meeting
23:04:39 <gaba> Anything to add there?
23:05:24 <nickm> I think that's all correct.
23:05:43 <nickm> Did teor say they'd be away?
23:06:13 <gaba> they said the are going to be half away this week
23:06:18 <gaba> so not sure if they can make this meeting or not
23:06:21 <nickm> ok
23:06:33 <gaba> Let's start with the documentation. Catalyst: do you have any news there?
23:07:04 <catalyst> looking at the "s31-doc" keyword
23:07:31 <catalyst> i still see only 2 of those tickets that are sponsor31-must?
23:08:00 <gaba> in last meeting we said that you are going to take #29215 and we need an owner for #29214. Those are the 2 must tickets
23:08:17 <nickm> IIUC I'm on #29214, at least in part.
23:08:28 <nickm> IIUC catalyst, you wanted to run #29215?
23:08:40 <catalyst> nickm: yes, i'll actually take that in Trac
23:09:33 <nickm> okay.  Do you have a plan for that?  Ideally this should be something that pulls in the rest of the team too.
23:11:55 <gaba> catalyst?
23:12:00 <catalyst> in terms of "new stuff" we have pubsub and decentralization of control.c and config.c, right? or were there other pieces you think should be in there?
23:12:26 <nickm> I think that the "subsystems" design matters. Also ...
23:12:37 <nickm> ... I think we should document how we want the modules that we hve to interact
23:12:48 <nickm> like, what modules should use which other modules, and how
23:13:37 <gaba> catalyst: this one is the next issue you are working on from the roadmap, right? there is nothing before that?
23:14:01 <catalyst> i think that will tend to evolve dynamically. i guess we can make guidelines about how modules should interact through "plumbing" APIs like the what we've been working on in s31
23:14:27 <catalyst> gaba: looking at roadmap
23:16:22 <catalyst> gaba: other than the control.c key-value stuff that is already in progress, no
23:17:20 <gaba> #29210 ?
23:17:48 <gaba> or #30984 ? Both are in progress?
23:17:49 <catalyst> stand by, having login troubles
23:18:12 <gaba> ok
23:18:44 <nickm> I can talk a bit about modularization status while catalyst is logging in?
23:18:59 <gaba> ok
23:19:13 <catalyst> gaba: yes #30984 is the one
23:19:24 <catalyst> #29210 is the parent of #30984
23:19:35 <nickm> What I know is that we have decided our best thing to do on modularization is to make relay.c optional, and to improve the modularity of its code in the process
23:19:46 <gaba> ok catalyst: you have those 3 in the queue in roadmap
23:20:01 <nickm> #31851
23:20:52 <nickm> Teor has a plan there, and I think they plan to start on it soon
23:21:16 <gaba> ok. I'm adding it to the roadmap
23:21:40 <nickm> I'm planning to help once they divide up the work; it's very big for one person
23:21:47 <nickm> I'm also doing #29211 stuff in the background
23:22:39 <gaba> ok
23:23:16 <gaba> And the new C style is on the way as you are sending the poll soon.
23:23:38 <gaba> Anything else? Anything we are missing?
23:24:03 <gaba> anything related to issues you are working on s31 that needs to be discussed?
23:24:38 <nickm> catalyst: quick question; your suggestions on the poll conflicted with teor's.  They suggested IIUC that we remove specific lengths from question ; you suggested different specific lengths.
23:24:55 <nickm> Okay if I go with the version as I revised it after their feedback?
23:25:13 <nickm> (see pad at https://pad.riseup.net/p/netteam-c-poll-DRAFT for current version)
23:25:57 <catalyst> nickm: looking (wasn't sure whether the version on the pad was revised)
23:27:17 <catalyst> i think we should consider the C99 limits when actually setting numbers
23:28:18 <catalyst> not sure if we should give those in the poll for reference now that specific numbers have been removed
23:29:15 * gaba needs to step out for 5 min (brb)
23:30:12 <catalyst> nickm: are you planning to put this in some sort of survey software? or will you be accepting more free-form replies in case we have conditional opinions on some of these?
23:30:47 <nickm> I think if our goal is to get the team to agree to a shorter limit, agreement-in-principle is likelier to be achievable than agreement-on-specific-number as a first step, maybe.
23:31:25 <nickm> I was thinking of doing some kind of survey software, maybe with freeform answers after each section?
23:32:53 <catalyst> kind of wondering what your motivation for using survey software is. is this list longer than you're willing to tabulate manually?
23:33:36 * gaba is back
23:34:16 <gaba> could it just be a pad where people add +1 or something? Or is mostly so people do not get influence by other people's votes?
23:34:19 <nickm> I'm more worried that it's too complex for everybody to answer in the same way.
23:34:44 <nickm> unless there is software to encourage it
23:34:49 <nickm> a spreadsheet might work?
23:35:35 <catalyst> hm, spreadsheet might encourage anchoring effects though
23:35:41 <nickm> true
23:36:02 <gaba> it could be just a google form :P
23:36:29 <gaba> anyway, it seems that we are done with the meeting today. Anything else?
23:37:16 <catalyst> note i'll try to focus on GSoD stuff this week before other stuff
23:37:21 <nickm> I'm ok for this week; I'll check in with teor the next time we see them?
23:37:23 <nickm> catalyst: +1
23:37:44 <gaba> sounds good
23:38:04 * catalyst has nothing else for this meeting
23:38:09 <gaba> #endmeeting