16:58:30 <ahf> #startmeeting network team meeting september 21
16:58:30 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Sep 21 16:58:30 2020 UTC.  The chair is ahf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:58:30 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:58:32 <ahf> yoyo
16:58:43 <ahf> our pad is at https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-netteam-2020.1-keep
16:58:44 <nickm> hihi
16:59:19 <ahf> dgoulet said he might miss first part and asn said brb
16:59:21 <jnewsome> o/
16:59:22 <ahf> o/ nickm
16:59:24 <ahf> o/ jnewsome
16:59:55 <ahf> let's start with our board: https://gitlab.torproject.org/groups/tpo/core/-/boards
17:00:28 <nickm> lgtm
17:00:33 <nickm> at least for my stuff
17:00:48 <nickm> probably going to rearrange next/backlog as the week develops
17:01:09 * ahf moved an item from next to backlog
17:01:11 <ahf> ye
17:01:26 <gaba> o/
17:01:31 <nickm> hi gaba
17:01:38 <ahf> nickm: re tor#40114 you were cool with the solution we made there for now?
17:01:48 <ahf> and don't think we should spend time on importing the glob() to android?
17:01:55 <ahf> at some point we'll get glob() there when we bump the NDK version
17:01:56 <nickm> the solution is "just don't have glob on android" ?  Yes, I agree.
17:02:04 <ahf> ok, i will jigsaw that then and close it
17:02:06 <asn> back!
17:02:06 <ahf> thanks
17:02:12 <nickm> woo
17:02:21 * asn reads backlog
17:02:24 <ahf> asn: wb
17:02:29 <ahf> we at first step, looking at our board
17:02:33 <ahf> o/ gaba
17:03:33 <ahf> ok
17:03:49 <asn> board is good with me
17:03:58 <ahf> we good with reviewer assignments?
17:04:15 <asn> yes
17:04:16 <asn> did them today
17:04:17 <ahf> hm, is annoying the pad don't make [] clickable in URLs
17:04:34 <ahf> very nice, i also see torspec stuff. cool!
17:05:14 <ahf> hm
17:05:15 <ahf> ok
17:05:27 <ahf> so do we want to start doing 0.4.5 statuses now? or do we wanna skip this for now?
17:05:49 <asn> you mean the small proposals?
17:06:00 <ahf> no, we ususally now talk about the 0.4.4 status
17:06:16 <ahf> but last week we talked shortly about continuying to do that or moving to next release status
17:06:17 <nickm> let's clear out the 044 list this week, and start looking at 045 next week?
17:06:23 <ahf> ok!
17:06:30 <nickm> asn: ahf means the part that says "let's check out 0.4.4 release status and open tickets!"
17:06:34 <asn> ack
17:06:57 <ahf> we only have tor#27194 there
17:07:26 <ahf> that is unassigned
17:08:18 <nickm> we have assigned ones that maybe we should look at , but we can do so over the course of the week, I hop.
17:08:21 <nickm> *hope
17:08:24 <dgoulet> o/
17:08:40 <nickm> let's try to make sure all the 044 stuff on that list is in the right place by next monday?
17:08:51 <ahf> yep
17:09:45 <ahf> ok
17:10:40 <ahf> i guess there isn't much to update for the tor releases part today?
17:11:41 <ahf> ok, let's move to discussion items then
17:11:53 <ahf> we always take a look at https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/team/-/issues
17:12:02 <nickm> not
17:12:06 <nickm> nothing new there, I think
17:12:56 <ahf> doesn't look like it no, and we spoke a bit about that thursday
17:13:05 <ahf> ok
17:13:11 <ahf> next item is:     Let's schedule a set of meetings for revising and discussing open design proposals. [for 9/21]
17:13:37 <ahf> who added that? should we doodle a good time that works well for each week for a period of time or what do we want to get here?
17:13:57 <asn> i checked the open design proposals
17:14:04 <nickm> i did; i think that idea would be fine, though for some of them (316, 324) we need to make sure somebody in particular can be there
17:14:06 <asn> i'm interested in working on the utf-8 proposal
17:14:22 <nickm> (We're looking at the list of proposals to discuss and revise now)
17:14:32 <asn> ah sorry
17:14:33 <ahf> what is the timeframe for these proposals right now? until the DRL project begins?
17:14:34 <asn> got confused
17:14:48 <nickm> ahf: you mean, for revising and discussing?
17:14:49 <ahf> oh,yeah, we are mixing two items now, sorry
17:14:58 <nickm> It depends
17:15:00 <ahf> no, i was in the next item
17:15:46 <nickm> does somebody have time to do all this scheduling?  I think "one per week" would be a good plan, with 324 and 316 getting priority since they are most urgent
17:15:59 <ahf> who is needed for which? mike is needed for the RTT one. dgoulet and/or asn is needed for onion naming. flashflow i guess we might want pastly at the meeting but the rest of us to hvae read it?
17:16:22 <ahf> i can do the scheduling if i know who needs to be scheduled for which
17:17:04 <dgoulet> that is _many_ proposals, may I propose that we do those revising meeting for the ones we which to implement or consider high prio?
17:17:05 <nickm> i should probably be at all of them
17:17:35 <ahf> yeah, the list is a bit big, especially if we also mix in the conversations that will happen for the next item too
17:17:46 <nickm> I think the two that are marked with stars are highest priority
17:18:15 <dgoulet> agree
17:18:15 <ahf> ok, the two with highest priority is also the ones that needs other folks in
17:18:47 <ahf> could it make sense to do this as part of our thursday video chat if we extend that with ~30 min? or will that be too much/be at a bad time?
17:18:55 <ahf> every time this is suggested we end with a doodle anyway :-)
17:19:00 <asn> we could yes
17:19:03 <asn> we could yes thursday for that
17:19:10 <asn> s/yes/use
17:19:18 <dgoulet> I like the Thur. idea yeah , better than IRC at least
17:19:25 <dgoulet> (as in voice++)
17:19:35 <ahf> we usually have around 30-40 min of tasks when we don't do the big gitlab tasks or something like that during that meeting
17:19:50 <ahf> what do you think about the above nickm ?
17:20:41 <nickm> Thu is good if it works; we should be more flexible for the ones where we need others
17:20:48 <ahf> yes, for sure
17:21:37 <ahf> i will try to hear mike then if he is up for joining us on thursday the 1st?
17:21:44 <ahf> then people have a week to read up on that
17:21:57 <nickm> +1, though that's a bit early for pacific time
17:21:58 <ahf> and then try to see if we can do the flashflow one the 8th
17:21:59 <nickm> but we'll see
17:22:07 <nickm> ok w me
17:22:09 <asn> ahf: +1
17:22:17 <ahf> ok, i will prod people
17:22:20 <ahf> cool!
17:22:28 <ahf> then once those two meetings are over, we can look at the list again
17:22:40 <nickm> A suggestion for each meeting, that has worked well before:
17:22:43 <dgoulet> _1
17:22:46 <dgoulet> +1*
17:22:58 <nickm> somebody _other_ than the proposer should plan to explain and summarize the proposal.
17:23:16 <nickm> it helps make sure that someone has understood it, and helps them learn from the proposer whether they understood correctly
17:23:32 <ahf> sounds smart, yeah
17:23:41 <ahf> and not too complicated
17:24:13 <ahf> ok
17:24:18 <ahf> next item is:     Who is interested in which "little" proposals for 045? [for 9/21]
17:24:24 <dgoulet> wait sec
17:24:27 <ahf> ok
17:24:37 <dgoulet> considering that algo, we should get someone to do that
17:24:43 <asn> i liked the utf-8 proposal
17:24:49 <asn> i would like to look more into that
17:24:51 <dgoulet> because they are _big_ proposals and will at least require me many days to assimilate
17:24:53 <ahf> dgoulet: like pick someone?
17:24:56 <nickm> how about everyboy write their name next to what they're interested in?
17:25:02 <dgoulet> nickm: sounds good
17:25:17 <nickm> we should probably plan to all understand these proposals at least a little before discussion.
17:25:35 <nickm> i've already done a pass over flashflow; anybody else volunteer for summarizing that?  If not, I could.
17:25:38 <dgoulet> I put my name on one and by that I'm willing to be the one explaining the proposal at the meeting
17:25:45 <nickm> ack
17:25:59 <ahf> ok
17:26:50 <ahf> hm, ah
17:27:13 <ahf> so one is name for what people are interested in and one is name for who wants to explaining their understanding of the proposal
17:27:29 <nickm> yes
17:27:38 <nickm> like, interested in working on
17:28:03 <ahf> yes
17:29:01 <nickm> ok. looks like there's interest in 275 from ahf and 285 from asn, leaving the others for me :)
17:29:08 <nickm> dgoulet: unless you're interested in something there?
17:29:16 <nickm> prop#318, prop#315, prop#321
17:29:50 <dgoulet> not "really" lol ... I'm just mostly thinking about the time I have to invest on this since I have a set of s28 tickets :S
17:29:55 <nickm> ok
17:30:13 <nickm> then how about we assign 275 to ahf, 285 to asn, and I'll look into taking the others if i can
17:30:14 <ahf> my timeframe on this is also first october
17:30:35 <nickm> I'll create tickets for these if folks would like?
17:30:55 <ahf> yes please!
17:31:47 <nickm> will do
17:31:51 <ahf> okay
17:32:08 <ahf> i see nothing in bold elsewhere on the pad
17:32:13 <ahf> does anybody else have any
17:32:31 <dgoulet> maybe one question here
17:32:39 <dgoulet> I missed the first 10 minutes so might have been answered
17:32:53 <ahf> ok
17:33:02 <dgoulet> but there is a _stack_ of Backport, we do have someone in charge of merging those right or I remember incorrectly?
17:33:35 <ahf> last time we did a round with nick and i merging some where we sat together and did it in a batch
17:33:40 <ahf> and went over them
17:33:43 <dgoulet> ah ok ok!
17:33:52 <ahf> maybe we want to do something like that again at some point when the pile is at some size?
17:34:19 <nickm> maybe we should plan a periodic time to do that
17:34:27 <nickm> like, once or twice a month
17:34:38 <nickm> and we can evaluate if more stable releases are justified
17:35:13 <ahf> how about we poke at the list on the 1st monday meeting on a month? so that will be the one in 2 weeks ?
17:35:24 <nickm> sounds good
17:35:30 <ahf> adding it to the list on the pad
17:36:09 <ahf> ok
17:36:10 <ahf> added
17:36:16 <ahf> anything else for today?
17:36:46 <nickm> not from me!
17:37:03 * ahf good too
17:37:09 <ahf> asn, gaba, dgoulet: you all good?
17:37:12 * dgoulet good
17:37:48 <asn> yep
17:37:50 <asn> all good
17:38:05 <ahf> ok!
17:38:16 <ahf> let's go back to our other things
17:38:18 <ahf> happy hacking o/
17:38:20 <ahf> #endmeeting