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]
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]
Hi,
Nick Mathewson: proposals sit around for a long time
Is there a summarized visualization of these, or is it sifting through emails and tickets?
contribute usefully to discussions, I will prioritize your nominations [for proposals] more
Sounds fair and balanced.
Wordlife, Spencer
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.tx...
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.
- 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.
- 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)!
- 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 usingVanguards [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
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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?
On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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
On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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. :)
Hi,
Nick Mathewson: We should make a chart of what times we have in common. :)
Wordlife, Spencer
On 28 Jan 2016, at 01:05, Nick Mathewson nickm@torproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@gmail.com mailto:teor2345@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2016, at 23:19, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 26 Jan (07:00:31), Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:14 AM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
On 18 Jan (07:13:36), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
On 15 Jan 2016, at 03:31, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net 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
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"?
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:39 PM, isis isis@torproject.org 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 Mathewson nickm@torproject.org 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.
- 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.
- 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)!
- 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 usingVanguards [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?
-
David Goulet -
George Kadianakis -
isis -
Lunar -
Nick Mathewson -
Nick Mathewson -
Spencer -
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor