Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 28 Jan 2016, at 01:05, Nick Mathewson  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
> > wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet  wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
>> 
>> On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
>> 
>> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
>> 
>>   Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>>   Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>>   Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points
>> [OPEN]
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> 
>> teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
>> able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.
>> 
>> Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
>> text for the update and reference on why.
>> 
>> 
>> Hmm. Okay, then I guess we should reschedule.  Would some other time
>> on Friday be better, or should we hold it till Monday?
>> 
>> 
>> Will be impossible for me on Friday. However, if teor can with a time
>> that is also suitable for you and others, please proceed.
>> 
>> 
>> US/UTC Fridays are typically my Friday evening / Saturday early morning.
>> That makes them hard for me.
>> 
>> On Monday, from 9:00 to 17:00 UTC is fine by me. After that I'll be in
>> transit from a continent to an other.
>> 
>> 
>> I can do Monday 0900-1100 UTC, after that it's late evening for me.
>> 
> 
> Hm.  Monday at 0900 UTC is 0400 EST for me.  I am generally awake and
> easy to find between 1330UTC and 1730UTC; and harder to find (but
> still awake) until around 0200 UTC. We should make a chart of what
> times we have in common.  :)

I can do any time in 2100 UTC to 1100 UTC as long as I know far enough ahead.

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Nick Mathewson]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
 wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet  wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
>
> On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
>
> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
>
>Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points
> [OPEN]
>
> ...
>
>
> teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
> able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.
>
> Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
> text for the update and reference on why.
>
>
> Hmm. Okay, then I guess we should reschedule.  Would some other time
> on Friday be better, or should we hold it till Monday?
>
>
> Will be impossible for me on Friday. However, if teor can with a time
> that is also suitable for you and others, please proceed.
>
>
> US/UTC Fridays are typically my Friday evening / Saturday early morning.
> That makes them hard for me.
>
> On Monday, from 9:00 to 17:00 UTC is fine by me. After that I'll be in
> transit from a continent to an other.
>
>
> I can do Monday 0900-1100 UTC, after that it's late evening for me.
>

Hm.  Monday at 0900 UTC is 0400 EST for me.  I am generally awake and
easy to find between 1330UTC and 1730UTC; and harder to find (but
still awake) until around 0200 UTC. We should make a chart of what
times we have in common.  :)
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[David Goulet]

On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
> > On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
> >> >>
> >> >> Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
> >> >> Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
> >> >> Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction 
> >> >> Points [OPEN]
> >> >
> >> > Fosdem is the next day so I'll be at a remote location called Brussels
> >> > for this meeting for which I doubt I'll be able to attend. This one is
> >> > about onion service proposals and I would really want to discuss those
> >> > with others so moving this one before or after Febuary 2nd would be
> >> > great for me. If impossible, I'll read the notes I guess :).
> >>
> >> This is at half past midnight on a Saturday for me, can we move it to time 
> >> somewhere in 4pm - 8pm eastern (2100 - 0100 UTC)?
> >
> > Hi Nick!
> >
> > Gentle bump on this one.
> >
> > teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
> > able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.
> >
> > Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
> > text for the update and reference on why.
> 
> Hmm. Okay, then I guess we should reschedule.  Would some other time
> on Friday be better, or should we hold it till Monday?

Will be impossible for me on Friday. However, if teor can with a time
that is also suitable for you and others, please proceed.

On Monday, from 9:00 to 17:00 UTC is fine by me. After that I'll be in
transit from a continent to an other.

Thanks!
David

> 
> -- 
> Nick


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Nick Mathewson]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
> On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>>
>> > On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
>> >>
>> >> Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>> >> Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>> >> Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points 
>> >> [OPEN]
>> >
>> > Fosdem is the next day so I'll be at a remote location called Brussels
>> > for this meeting for which I doubt I'll be able to attend. This one is
>> > about onion service proposals and I would really want to discuss those
>> > with others so moving this one before or after Febuary 2nd would be
>> > great for me. If impossible, I'll read the notes I guess :).
>>
>> This is at half past midnight on a Saturday for me, can we move it to time 
>> somewhere in 4pm - 8pm eastern (2100 - 0100 UTC)?
>
> Hi Nick!
>
> Gentle bump on this one.
>
> teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
> able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.
>
> Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
> text for the update and reference on why.

Hmm. Okay, then I guess we should reschedule.  Would some other time
on Friday be better, or should we hold it till Monday?

-- 
Nick
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet  wrote:
> 
> On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
>>> On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
 
> On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
> 
>> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
>> 
>>Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>>Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>>Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points 
>> [OPEN]
> ...
>>> 
>>> teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
>>> able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.
>>> 
>>> Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
>>> text for the update and reference on why.
>> 
>> Hmm. Okay, then I guess we should reschedule.  Would some other time
>> on Friday be better, or should we hold it till Monday?
> 
> Will be impossible for me on Friday. However, if teor can with a time
> that is also suitable for you and others, please proceed.

US/UTC Fridays are typically my Friday evening / Saturday early morning.
That makes them hard for me.

> On Monday, from 9:00 to 17:00 UTC is fine by me. After that I'll be in
> transit from a continent to an other.

I can do Monday 0900-1100 UTC, after that it's late evening for me.

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[David Goulet]

On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
> 
> > On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
> > 
> >> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
> >> 
> >> Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
> >> Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
> >> Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points 
> >> [OPEN]
> > 
> > Fosdem is the next day so I'll be at a remote location called Brussels
> > for this meeting for which I doubt I'll be able to attend. This one is
> > about onion service proposals and I would really want to discuss those
> > with others so moving this one before or after Febuary 2nd would be
> > great for me. If impossible, I'll read the notes I guess :).
> 
> This is at half past midnight on a Saturday for me, can we move it to time 
> somewhere in 4pm - 8pm eastern (2100 - 0100 UTC)?

Hi Nick!

Gentle bump on this one.

teor and I won't be able to attend. At the very least, teor should be
able to attend since he is very familiar with (R)SOS.

Also, prop#246 is officially back in Needs-Research status. See proposal
text for the update and reference on why.

Thanks!
David

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tim
> 
> Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
> 
> teor2345 at gmail dot com
> PGP 968F094B
> 
> teor at blah dot im
> OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F
> 



> ___
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[George Kadianakis]

Nick Mathewson  writes:

> So, one of the longstanding problems with Tor's (change) proposal
> system has been that proposals sit around for a long time without
> sufficient discussion or approval.  When they're about to be
> implemented, we do an informal "hey did anybody look at that?" check,
> but that's not really good enough.
>
> Here's what I've been thinking of doing, as discussed at the tor dev
> IRC meeting yesterday.
>
> 1. Everybody who will review proposals* should nominate one or two
> proposals currently in state "Open" or "Draft".  People should
> nominate proposals that they themselves didn't write.
>
> 2. I'll schedule review & discussion sessions, about one per week,
> trying to hit times where interested people can make it.  Everybody
> who will review proposals* should try to show up if they can, having
> read the proposal or proposals under discussion for that week.  Then
> we talk about the proposal(s)!
>
> 3. We'll try to move nominated proposals towards "Accepted" or
> "Rejected", improving them as necessary.
>
> * I'm not going to be too elitist here, but:  If you show up and
> contribute usefully to discussions, I will prioritize your nominations
> more than I will prioritize nominations from people who don't
> contribute so much.
>
>
> This is a draft process, so we'll try to see after a month or two
> (possibly at the next face-to-face dev meeting?) how it's going.
>
> Here's the schedule I have in mind for the  first meeting, based on
> proposals already nominated at the IRC dev meeting.  I'm going to go a
> bit aggressively for the first couple of weeks, so that we can get a
> sense of how this process works out.  Everything is subject to change.
> We'll be putting notes online from these meetings.
>
>   Tuesday January 19:   11am Eastern (1600 UTC)
>
>   Guard node proposals!  We'll be talking about these proposals:
>Prop#259: New Guard Selection Behaviour [DRAFT]
>Prop#241: Resisting guard-turnover attacks [DRAFT]
>Prop#247:  Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using
> Vanguards [DRAFT]
>
>   Friday January 22:   11 am Eastern (1600 UTC)
>
>  Prop#251: Padding for netflow record resolution reduction [DRAFT]
>
>   Monday January 25: 8pm Eastern (0100 UTC on Tuesday Jan 26)
>
>   Prop#250: Random Number Generation During Tor Voting [DRAFT]
>

Hello,

I think neither me or dgoulet can attend this one at that time. It's too late
in our timezones :(

Maybe we could shift it to Tuesday 16:00UTC?



___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Nick Mathewson]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:39 PM, isis  wrote:
> Nick Mathewson transcribed 2.8K bytes:
>> Here's the schedule I have in mind for the  first meeting, based on
>> proposals already nominated at the IRC dev meeting.
>
> This idea and the schedule sound great to me.  (Minus that the HS devs should
> be at the HS one.)  Thanks, Nick!
>
> Side note: I've never understood the difference between [OPEN] and [ACCEPTED].
> xIs [OPEN] like "waiting for adoption"?
>

Rather than answer immediately, I'll send you towards proposal 001,
which is supposed to explain this kind of thing.  Please let me know
if it does a bad job explaining!  ;)

cheers,
-- 
Nick
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Lunar]

Spencer:
> >Nick Mathewson:
> >proposals sit around for a long time
> >
> 
> Is there a summarized visualization of these, or is it sifting through
> emails and tickets?

Proposals are all kept in the “torspec” Git repository:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals

Once in a while Nick updates the status document giving a general
overview:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/plain/proposals/proposal-status.txt

-- 
Lunar 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet  wrote:
> 
>> Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
>> 
>> Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>> Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>> Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points 
>> [OPEN]
> 
> Fosdem is the next day so I'll be at a remote location called Brussels
> for this meeting for which I doubt I'll be able to attend. This one is
> about onion service proposals and I would really want to discuss those
> with others so moving this one before or after Febuary 2nd would be
> great for me. If impossible, I'll read the notes I guess :).

This is at half past midnight on a Saturday for me, can we move it to time 
somewhere in 4pm - 8pm eastern (2100 - 0100 UTC)?

Thanks

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[isis]

Nick Mathewson transcribed 2.8K bytes:
> Here's the schedule I have in mind for the  first meeting, based on
> proposals already nominated at the IRC dev meeting.

This idea and the schedule sound great to me.  (Minus that the HS devs should
be at the HS one.)  Thanks, Nick!

Side note: I've never understood the difference between [OPEN] and [ACCEPTED].
xIs [OPEN] like "waiting for adoption"?

-- 
 ♥Ⓐ isis agora lovecruft
_
OpenPGP: 4096R/0A6A58A14B5946ABDE18E207A3ADB67A2CDB8B35
Current Keys: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Proposals should have reviews. Let's make sure that happens. Here's a schedule.

[David Goulet]

On 14 Jan (11:18:26), Nick Mathewson wrote:
> So, one of the longstanding problems with Tor's (change) proposal
> system has been that proposals sit around for a long time without
> sufficient discussion or approval.  When they're about to be
> implemented, we do an informal "hey did anybody look at that?" check,
> but that's not really good enough.
> 
> Here's what I've been thinking of doing, as discussed at the tor dev
> IRC meeting yesterday.
> 
> 1. Everybody who will review proposals* should nominate one or two
> proposals currently in state "Open" or "Draft".  People should
> nominate proposals that they themselves didn't write.
> 
> 2. I'll schedule review & discussion sessions, about one per week,
> trying to hit times where interested people can make it.  Everybody
> who will review proposals* should try to show up if they can, having
> read the proposal or proposals under discussion for that week.  Then
> we talk about the proposal(s)!
> 
> 3. We'll try to move nominated proposals towards "Accepted" or
> "Rejected", improving them as necessary.
> 
> * I'm not going to be too elitist here, but:  If you show up and
> contribute usefully to discussions, I will prioritize your nominations
> more than I will prioritize nominations from people who don't
> contribute so much.
> 
> 
> This is a draft process, so we'll try to see after a month or two
> (possibly at the next face-to-face dev meeting?) how it's going.
> 
> Here's the schedule I have in mind for the  first meeting, based on
> proposals already nominated at the IRC dev meeting.  I'm going to go a
> bit aggressively for the first couple of weeks, so that we can get a
> sense of how this process works out.  Everything is subject to change.
> We'll be putting notes online from these meetings.
> 
>   Tuesday January 19:   11am Eastern (1600 UTC)
> 
>   Guard node proposals!  We'll be talking about these proposals:
>Prop#259: New Guard Selection Behaviour [DRAFT]
>Prop#241: Resisting guard-turnover attacks [DRAFT]
>Prop#247:  Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using
> Vanguards [DRAFT]
> 
>   Friday January 22:   11 am Eastern (1600 UTC)
> 
>  Prop#251: Padding for netflow record resolution reduction [DRAFT]
> 
>   Monday January 25: 8pm Eastern (0100 UTC on Tuesday Jan 26)
> 
>   Prop#250: Random Number Generation During Tor Voting [DRAFT]
> 
>   Friday January 29:  8:30 am eastern (1330 UTC)
> 
>  Prop#252: Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>  Prop#260: Rendezvous Single Onion Services [DRAFT]
>  Prop#246: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points 
> [OPEN]

Fosdem is the next day so I'll be at a remote location called Brussels
for this meeting for which I doubt I'll be able to attend. This one is
about onion service proposals and I would really want to discuss those
with others so moving this one before or after Febuary 2nd would be
great for me. If impossible, I'll read the notes I guess :).

Apart from that, this is great and looking forward to those sessions!

Big thanks Nick for organising this!
David

> 
> 
> Also nominated are:
> 
> Prop#264: Putting version numbers on the Tor subprotocols [OPEN]
> Prop#257: Refactoring authorities and taking parts offline [DRAFT]
> Prop#258: Denial-of-service resistance for directory authorities [OPEN]
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nick
> ___
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev