20:03:41 Meeting time? 20:03:48 It is! 20:04:01 checkout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgJ7yck1qwY 20:04:01 Title: Android ICS on Raspberry Pi, Views: 139170, Rating: 99.0% 20:04:05 * dg gulps 20:04:15 okay then.. let's begin 20:04:22 our topics today are: 20:04:33 0) Welcome 20:04:40 (0a) Changing things up 20:04:47 (Meetings, etc) 20:05:00 (1) Network health 20:05:03 (1a) IRC 20:05:10 (1b) Growth (how do we get i2p out there?) 20:05:13 (2) IRL events (CCC, Cryptoparties..) 20:05:20 (3) - Merging Fux improvements into trunk 20:05:23 (4) Website 20:05:26 (4a) - Mirroring.. 20:05:33 (4b)- SSL 20:05:36 (5) - Progress 20:05:39 (6) - Next meeting 20:05:50 (7) - Any other notes from participants, etc 20:05:50 bit of a mouthful! 20:06:28 I'm hoping we have enough people here today 20:06:43 I'm trying to base things off of past meetings 20:07:11 so uh.. 20:07:26 First of all, do we have anyone from long enough ago to recap the changes (big ones, notable ons) 20:07:26 since the last meeting? 20:07:33 (It was Sept 8) 20:09:05 unlikely atm... could try a highlight all tho 20:09:24 Hear ye, Hear ye! 20:09:27 * asdfsdafsdafsd pounds gavel 20:09:35 I'm thinking maybe KillYourTV knows a little 20:09:53 I was told welt could be here too, so hopefully he can wave at some time 20:09:56 (no sign of zzz either) 20:10:09 This will be somewhat awkward without most of the team 20:10:23 The honorable asdfsdafsdafsd is now presiding 20:10:25 * weltende@freenode waves 20:10:37 :) 20:10:37 Okay 20:10:48 here 20:10:51 So, first of all, as some of you may know, this is the first meeting in 2 years 20:11:04 And even the last meeting was specalized 20:11:08 specialized* 20:11:30 I'm planning on booting up regular meetings to catch up on progress, etc, even if there is no big topic to discuss 20:12:01 wrt "change", I'm contemplating taking up Project Manager 20:12:04 or at least some sort of co-ordinator 20:12:28 I'm proud of the progress that was made with dr|z3d although sadly, I don't think he's ready to join in -dev again just yet (speak, even) 20:12:54 I can't comment on progress from the last 2 years since I haven't been here for that long 20:12:57 If somebody else could, I'd appreciate it 20:13:04 20:13:18 might have to wait for netsplit to unsplit 20:13:25 might be a good idea :-/ 20:13:36 hehe 20:13:51 While we wait, what happened dr|z3d? 20:13:54 what happened with* 20:13:57 * nom pokes the intertubes 20:14:13 There we go. 20:14:20 Let me paste what they missed. 20:15:42 this is painful haha 20:16:09 ok, netsplit folk: http://pastethis.i2p/show/2297/ 20:16:12 Title: Paste #2297 | LodgeIt! (at pastethis.i2p) 20:16:12 <+dg> I can't comment on progress from the last 2 years since I haven't been here for that long 20:16:15 <+dg> If somebody else could, I'd appreciate it 20:16:15 <+dg> 20:16:27 LaughingBuddah: alright 20:16:53 Basically, after dr|z3d was kicked out for a long period, etc etc, I raised the point that he should be unmuted in -dev as we're all on the same team here, etc 20:17:00 He doesn't seem to be up to joining us again yet though 20:17:06 Complication: KillYourTV badger darrob dg gatekeeper iRelay Meeh postman RN_ Shinobiwan slow sponge str4d albat asdfsdafsdafsd Astral2012_1 Biotrophy blitzkrieg christoph cipher__ dr4wd3- eight_ joepie95 k0e kytv|away LaughingBuddah lezz luminosus MTN nom operhiem1 PrivacyHawk psi SanguineRose soundwave thursday tycho usr w8rabbit woox2k Xtothec zzz meeting time people 20:17:14 Nono, I was wondering why he was kicked out 20:17:21 I wanted him to have the choice to in any case, even if he didn't *want to right now* 20:17:21 Oh 20:17:28 There were disagreements with the team a while back 20:17:35 I'm not here, I am invisible 20:17:38 I see 20:17:38 It turned into quite a big disagreement after small ones added up 20:17:53 It's lead to a pissing contest and a division of the community to an extent :-P 20:17:56 not nice 20:18:03 Alright. Proceed :) 20:18:06 ha! you may be invisible but we can hear you :P 20:18:17 I'll give the $person a few more seconds to appear.. 20:18:20 lies, you can not read what I am thinking right now! 20:18:27 * dg sits awkwardly 20:18:44 dg: yeah.. in dr|z3d and !dr|z3d mostly *cough* 20:18:48 Clearly nobody is wishing to recite history.. heh 20:18:51 * nom lounges awkwardly while reading SanguineRose's mind 20:18:57 Okay 20:19:16 meh, figure out history later when the historian decides to show up 20:19:23 so 20:19:23 (1) - network health 20:19:45 From what I've seen on the stats, we're doing okay on that front, although since the Russians left (rusleaks disappeared in general), there's been a drop 20:19:52 Returning to pre-rus levels (hah) 20:20:05 Hopefully zzz is available to comment on how we're doing on this front.. 20:20:29 imo network health is opaque, but based just on netsplits it could be better... 20:21:06 it's shaky but kytv and I last night found the bug introduced in 0.9.2 causing all the trouble 20:21:21 zab and I have doubts about something so simple causing the issues though 20:21:27 * nom :| at timing 20:21:30 ugh... split 20:21:36 >.> 20:21:48 zzz: what was the bug? 20:21:54 i guess that's the network speaking to us 20:22:13 we accidentally cut the capacity of the network in half. 20:22:53 haha 20:23:04 * dg didn't see much of a difference on the tunnel success rates but you seem a lot more confident about it fixing things 20:23:07 lol rather unfortunate bug 20:23:14 ^ 20:23:21 I suppose we're doing alright on that front 20:23:44 it's a network thing. You can't fix the network by just upgrading yourself. 20:23:50 of course one person upgrading to -10 will fix ALL the problems ;) 20:23:59 I can't comment for (1a) (IRC) because I've obviously been unable to contact badger 20:23:59 bah, I was too slow 20:23:59 KillYourTV: of course, haven't you heard of Java music? 20:24:02 *magic 20:24:02 pfft 20:24:13 (and i've been unable to contact postman, I was too late to get ech too..) 20:24:17 so that was a mess up on my part 20:24:51 (1b) then. 20:24:55 " 20:24:58 (1b) - Growth (how to make i2p grow more, developments with Russia (how do we get ourselves out there? outreach to big rus-sites?)) " 20:25:01 - if (style.equals("udp")) 20:25:01 + if (style.equals("SSU")) 20:25:01 Pretty broard 20:25:04 *** eight_ is now known as eight 20:25:07 ? that the bug? 20:25:24 (and there's a variable changed) 20:25:36 thatsit 20:25:58 What was the commit excuse for that, anyway? 20:25:58 (in 0.9.2) 20:26:59 regarding russian users, I think a big question is how is the #i2p-ru channel here doing? Are the russian users getting good support as compared to when english speakers come here and receive help 20:28:13 Do we have someone familiar with i2p that speaks russian? 20:28:24 Maybe even a dev? 20:29:02 * nom wanted to learn russian at one point, but never found the time... 20:29:21 user 'slow' fits there 20:29:32 and on a sidenote, german looks to be the 3rd largest country after russia and USA 20:29:35 slow hangs out there, right? 20:29:35 * nom thinks we need to go hunting for a russian and english speaking user who is dev inclined 20:29:38 (and he's nearly always in #ru) 20:29:53 nvm guess we found one 20:30:22 GOod 20:31:48 wrt growth generally, i would say working out all the network stability / performance bugs is a good step 20:32:09 also more content = more users = more content, sharing is caring and all that 20:32:28 What he said ^ 20:33:02 #i2p-ru is dead 20:33:02 zab is able to convert RU->EN but not EN->RU 20:33:16 btw, #ru has users, #i2p-ru does not 20:33:31 while working out bugs is great 20:33:42 We've certainly got a community based issue and I have not the slightest clue how to solve it 20:33:49 so yah.. everyone upload their media stashes to postman, and run high cap routers 20:34:13 i wish it was that simple 20:34:27 I guess this kind of includs IRL meetings 20:34:34 We've got a bunch of i2p-folk going to CCC this year 20:34:52 I think an "i2p workshop" is the best way to utilize this since it is too late to book a talk 20:35:02 lol yah increasing content is never simple, but good to remind people 20:35:18 dg: suggest, maybe you can talk to eche|on and postman about combining those two channels (redirect to one of them) 20:35:18 i2p is barely out there like Tor 20:35:53 k0e: noted, will look into it later, thanks :) 20:36:16 re irl community meetings, at conferences and such, yah there needs to be more of it. ideally with the organizers staying connected to those of us back home in i2p, with videos and blogs, etc 20:36:55 Not sure how we could reach out to the russians, but someone could try speaking to the censored websites 20:36:59 prominent ones which are controversial, etc 20:37:06 Sadly, rusleaks is absolutely gone 20:37:09 So we can't rely on that 20:37:34 I tried reaching out to the an*on folk but I was unable to get on their networks anonymously so that was a little redundant 20:38:21 Let's move on 20:38:36 i don't know about the reaching out, dg. does tor do that? this going from door to door advertising doesn't seem right. 20:38:43 Okay. 20:39:04 darrob: They don't do the door-to-door, and us doing that officially isn't right either. I was going to just encourage them a little. 20:39:22 LaughingBuddah: sure. 20:39:29 Doc improvements would help a lot. 20:39:41 * dg was thinking about that earlier 20:39:44 I wasn't sure on the standards of them 20:40:51 yah doc improvements, and also some rigorous security testing could go a long way towards user growth 20:41:25 actually, we missed out on security testing due to lack of recent docs 20:41:35 of course, we couldn't have done anything since doc improvement took a while but yeah 20:42:09 Right now, the only way to say i2p is safer than something heavily audited e.g Tor is to read all the code + design yourself 20:42:15 That's fine for those who are wise in that area but bs for users 20:42:25 i2p has had little academic research too 20:42:35 imo at least, most users of this kinda thing want to get into the details of how it works and how secure it is. the threadmodel page is useful, but their not the results of extensive testing 20:42:46 Of course, you can't exactly force academics to write papers on i2p.. 20:42:57 nom: I agree. 20:43:19 dg: that's not really true anymore imho 20:43:38 hm? 20:43:45 lol .... i suppose we could try to blackmail some grad students into writing papers on i2p \o/ 20:43:55 $5 wrench 20:44:08 ah.. just got an mail of an talk about i2p @ athens cryptoparty #0 20:44:24 oh, nice. I was wondering about Cryptoparty 20:44:27 Tor has been heavily featured at them 20:44:41 dg: there are a few papers about i2p.. (remember that tum i2p paper for example? ;) 20:44:50 I doubt many academics will write papers or advocate I2P.... they're all in league with the globalists 20:45:44 asdfsdafsdafsd: academics won't promote anything except their own software they are working on atm ;-) 20:45:48 i2p, not so much 20:46:28 The only papers I've seen about i2p are the french and correlation with headers/clocks 20:46:48 moving on 20:46:55 weltende... exactly 20:47:02 "(3) - Discussion regarding merging current fux with trunk " 20:47:14 soooo.... gsoc? seems like security testing would be a good thing for that 20:47:17 I'm not sure if anyone can give a real answer to this apart from zzz 20:47:35 *** str4d is now known as str4d_afk 20:47:46 for those of you not aware, fux is a branch of i2p dev'd by str4d among others with user interfaces improvements. Theme improvements, that kind of thing. 20:47:49 nom: nobody wants to do gsoc 20:47:56 *** str4d_afk is now known as str4d 20:48:13 nom: zzz is on trac as a mentor but he apparently doesn't want to have a student 20:48:24 sorry dg, all I know is 2-3 months old. last I heard, they were forking? 20:48:27 (not sure if correct, that's what I was told) 20:48:43 wrong 20:48:58 no kidding, probably why it hasn't got done, but its a resource that gives access to the kind of people that could actually do a security assessment 20:49:24 zzz: There was some discussion of a fork, it's kind of died down now as some people have had a change of heart. Not sure what's going to be going on there, I don't think anyone is. Regarding the current changes though, I feel they could be somewhat beneficial. Nothing massive/feature breaking in there, however. 20:49:34 zzz: also, wrong? 20:49:38 I am happy to mentor for GSoC 20:50:09 nom: Yup. 20:50:21 str4d: We could apply for next year, the application for 2010(?) is still up on trac. 20:50:25 re: gsoc: wrong as in I'm happy to help but I'm not going to be in charge and not going to do it myself. 20:50:43 totally different to what i heard 20:50:53 key word: heard, I suppose 20:51:05 relevant trac page: http://trac.i2p2.i2p/wiki/gsoc 20:51:32 dg re: fux, you're asking the wrong guy. I have no recent info. 20:51:39 imo fork is both exactly what is happening and exactly what is not happening, zzz you 'control' the official i2p.i2p branch in that you give out commit keys, but theres always gonna be people/groups writing their own features/code into i2p, if theres no interest in merging it stays a 'fork' but otherwise its not really 20:52:01 zzz: generally asking if you'd be ok with merging some of the themes, etc 20:52:04 AFAIK there is nothing stopping mentors being anon, but we need a contactable liason (not sure if they must be non-anon) and some tax form as an organization. 20:52:23 Right. 20:52:37 I'm fine with being a liason but I'm sure a few people would be. 20:52:56 Tax form .. ugh 20:53:05 We will need some people to agree to be the face of i2p 20:53:24 IIRC there was a USA-based one, or a Foreign-based one. 20:53:31 sadly we can't avoid that, LaughingBuddah.. 20:53:59 I don't want to be the guy trying to force people to give up anonymity and get up on stages but 20:54:18 We do need someone who wants to and can fulfill the job 20:54:41 dg the last I looked at it was months ago. It was a big grab bag of stuff and I had some objections. Nobody has since asked me to look again - or spilt out the bad from the good - or given me any updates - or mentioned any progress about addressing my issues.. Unless that happens I have no update for you and i assume they are either working on it or forking. 20:54:49 (Might not have been tax, but it was something financial) 20:54:52 Not sure what was done in 2010 for that. 20:55:19 zzz: Alright, if I can get them to talk about it etc, I may be able to get you an update. 20:55:27 just a note 20:55:30 http://trac.i2p2.i2p/wiki/gsoc/ideas 20:55:37 seems quite interesting 20:55:40 Title: gsoc/ideas – I2P (at trac.i2p2.i2p) 20:55:44 so I repeat, you are asking the wrong guy. If you want to know about status, ask the guys working on it, not me. 20:56:07 I was asking if you'd be okay with merging is all, if they co-operated. 20:56:19 I felt that the changes could benefit i2p somewhat. 20:56:34 welcome psi 20:56:41 ?? 20:56:48 dev meeting 20:56:55 ok 20:57:36 The application for GSOC seems solid 20:57:39 Could possibly reuse it 20:57:39 zzz: what were the issues you needed addressed? 20:59:54 There was an image in a dark theme that has since been replaced. Were there any other major issues? 21:00:17 ah yes... the assange character should've been removed for now 21:00:20 s/for/by 21:00:35 What's wrong with Assange? :P 21:00:46 the main thing in remember is regressions in legibility and color choices, esp. in snark. But it's been months since I looked at it 21:00:49 nom: you should try to find logs. it would be hard to recall or summarize. (for me, anyway, and i tried to give feedback, too). 21:00:56 I felt it was a big step backwards 21:01:18 http://killyourtv.i2p/irclogs/%23i2p-dev.2012-08-23.log.html 21:01:21 Title: #i2p-dev logs for Thursday, 2012-08-23 (at killyourtv.i2p) 21:01:32 seems too late to enter gsoc this time now 21:01:43 regardless... i think we need a "real life" UI testing mechanism that isn't totally subjective 21:01:47 or uh, next year's are not open (what i mean) 21:01:54 psi: exactly 21:01:57 this is where users like Zorya come into play 21:02:12 Zorya especially is the perfect feedback tool for UI stuff 21:02:35 re assange, imo hes a cool dude, but as he 'officially' has nothing to do with i2p, we shouldn't be using his image on stuff... unless its like something related to him or wikileaks... 21:02:38 "regular" or "casual" users are VERY important and should be utilized for feedback 21:02:41 but if the fux guys dont remember my objections either, then they probably haven't addressed them, and we're in the same place we were 3 months ago. 21:02:51 nom: i2p is politically neutral 21:03:37 zzz, I recall your legibility issues, and I still think that is more a personal preference matter (since there are clear examples of people both liking and disliking the changes) 21:03:49 psi: right... if such a thing is possible 21:03:52 nom: no need to take any stance on things that are politically sensitive anywhere 21:03:59 and color* 21:04:02 The major issue was the image, and that has been addressed. 21:04:13 pretty sure were taking a stand about anonymity and free exchange of data tho.... 21:04:35 psi, what's Zorya? 21:04:42 assange is cointelpro 21:04:53 a person, not sure who/what they do though 21:04:53 I can say that when I last looked a few weeks ago, the constrasts in snark weren't nearly as jarring as they had been. 21:04:53 str4d: Zorya is a user in this channel 21:05:15 str4d: a "regular" user in jester's group 21:05:15 so none of my issues were addressed? (except perhaps the assange image) 21:05:19 then we're in the same place 21:05:38 actually, iirc, the colors were improved 21:05:42 i'm not sure they are perfect however 21:05:56 at the time, I thought that fux was unmergable, that you should kill it and start over, separating out the good from the bad and the ugly. 21:06:08 zzz: tbh i'm not entirely sure that style issues are that critical unless they impact usability 21:06:36 psi, ah - I read your sentence as Zorya being an automated testing tool =P 21:06:39 the best bit about fux, for me, was the framing of apps inside the console 21:06:46 i don't care as much about themes 21:07:01 psi: that argument works for and against changes. ;) 21:07:20 darrob: correct 21:07:23 imo themes are themes and should be a basket of everyones options, if your problem is the default theme... then yah i guess i can see you not wanting to merge that... but still 21:07:23 I gave my comments 3 months ago and havent heard anything since. If somebody would like to identify changes and ask me to look at it again, fine. 21:07:38 nom: my thoughts. 21:07:49 you people that are saying you like some of it and dont care about the rest are missing the point completely. 21:07:49 darrob: however in its current state, the router console is in need of a redesign as it fails as a UI 21:07:52 an improvement from the ui guys's side would be a UI plugin, I think. 21:08:04 split out the good from the bad. right now it's a grab bag 21:08:11 the best bit about fux, for me, was the framing of apps inside the console <<<---- that one I liked too.. gave an impression of unity 21:08:26 Made things a lot less clunky IMO, user. 21:08:56 zzz, the point here is that there is nothing bad/ugly in fux, there is just stuff that everyone likes and stuff that some like and some don't. 21:09:07 sounds like you guys are saying you still want to merge it but haven't done anything in 3 months? 21:09:33 disagree. your snark changes are objectively bad/ugly. 21:09:56 what's it that everyone likes? maybe one could start identifying that and only merge that 21:09:59 zzz: much has been done but that doesn't mean anything is "complete", as for something being "objectively ugly" is kind of an oxymoron 21:10:02 right well the good, the bad, and the ugly, are subjective.... imo as long its configurable personal taste of devs shouldn't come into it 21:10:24 Yes, we have? 21:10:27 In fact, I believe the color issue was also addressed. 21:10:27 see nom's comment 21:10:27 imo themes are themes and should be a basket of everyones options, if your problem is the default theme... then yah i guess i can see you not wanting to merge that... but still 21:10:27 psi: Exactly. 21:10:27 psi: It's great for nerds like us, not so much for a grandma who wants to be safe. 21:10:34 zzz: I can somewhat agree for snark but the rest, no. 21:10:45 user: the unification. 21:10:48 user: the non-default themes, too. 21:10:59 user: if it's non-default, I think it's fine to merge and improve along the way. Doesn't hurt. 21:11:06 how bout this, default keeps theme the same, but includes all the things fux adds, to use them you just set something in config? 21:11:14 ^ 21:11:29 If the people doing the work say they think it's ready for another look, I'll take a look. I have nothing more to say. 21:11:32 currently (afaik), fux is aimed at hackability and flexibility, not explicitly general pleaseability 21:11:43 alright 21:11:46 Given the users that have said otherwise, I find that hard to take as truly objective. 21:11:46 fair enough, zzz. 21:11:46 Nevertheless, I do agree that fux is not ready for merging dg 21:12:09 str4d: fux is no where near merging 21:12:09 str4d: all I wanted was some discussion on it to see what needed doing :) 21:12:12 not sure who suggested a merge 21:12:15 i like the snark changes 21:12:26 zzz: can you agree to that principle tho? that its mergeable if you're experience/view isn't changed unless you select it to happen? ie no default changes 21:13:44 or rather, since as you said its a grab bag, that pieces are mergeable if they don't change default things and only add options 21:14:14 at the moment fux is more of a sandbox for ideas, not really meant to be merged over to mainline in its entirety 21:14:45 i don't expect fux to ever be fully merged over nor would it be a good idea 21:14:56 I wanted some parts merged 21:15:18 dg: if they are "done" then sure 21:15:25 dg: which ones? 21:15:29 How to we determine them to be done? 21:15:48 dg, I agree about the changes to non-default themes being mergable, especially since the majority of changes are by the original theme author, but there are other things that need work first. 21:15:55 again, plugins would be handy, as to not increase the i2p package's size unneededly. 21:16:30 One thing for sure would be the pull the fix for ticket #773. It's fine in fux; it's not fine in the vanilla builds. 21:16:37 http://trac.i2p2.i2p/ticket/773 - (new defect) - Overlapping text in midnight theme 21:16:49 i do like the unified css and inline frames for snark and mail 21:16:49 especially the unified css 21:16:52 iirc LaughingBuddah reported that in this channel as well. 21:16:59 user, that does require getting the UI separation done though (which I hope to work on with top[tabfail] when I get some time) 21:17:22 psi: mainly the embedding of things, like snark 21:17:25 LaughingBuddah: majority satisfaction 21:17:28 dg: yes i like that too 21:17:46 dg, #define majority =P 21:17:49 i'm confused. i was under the impression that fux was supposed to be merged (rather sooner than later even). i wouldn't have taken the time and given detailed criticism if i was told that it was just a sandbox. 21:18:00 KillYourTV: Yeah I remember doing that 21:18:11 darrob: my impression was that it is a sandbox 21:18:36 as i have been treating it as such so far 21:18:46 darrob, I always intended it to be merged. But in some ways it is meant as a UI sandbox. 21:18:53 str4d: i'd like the creator of the functionality to think it's ok to merge (time to), and a lot of the fux/users with it liking it 21:19:00 darrob: so was I? 21:19:00 Anyway, 21:19:07 I think we can agree that fux needs work 21:19:22 unification + #773 fix should get merged sooner rather than later 21:19:40 Let's move on ;-) 21:19:43 It's Future UX, so it's for testing and trying out new UX ideas, working out the kinks and polishing. 21:19:58 +1 dg 21:20:09 str4d: that would be sandbox... moving on 21:20:37 honestly i think we need to have better communication here, theres always going to be things that are mergable, and we need people who can discuss that merging without getting into fights ;) 21:21:03 so far so win today, which is nice 21:21:06 I also need to work out how to best merge parts of branches in monotone. 21:21:43 and yeah, it looks like assange (and the dark snark theme) are completely gone 21:21:54 At present I only know about "propagate" and "explicit_merge", but they merge everything up to a specific commit, rather than cherry-picking changes. 21:22:24 str4d: probably something involving editing a diff down to just the parts you want 21:22:24 KillYourTV, dark snark is not in mtn, but it's in my fux builds. 21:22:51 ah..so assange (run through a filter) may still live... 21:23:02 as for fux's issues, we can co-ordinate on that after the meeting 21:23:05 we're doing well so far though 21:23:05 * dg highfives 21:23:05 (4) - Website 21:23:09 (4a) - Mirroring i2p2.de/etc 21:23:09 (4b) - SSL for the sites. 21:23:09 We need welt for this.. 21:23:09 Tor's mirroring setup is great right now, rsync etc. 21:23:09 Plus a clear list of mirrors and how to do it 21:23:09 nom: Yeah. 21:23:09 nom: We did well now, just that we have other issues to discuss so.. ha 21:23:31 * dg coughs 21:24:21 right, re website.... same as before re docs i guess, theres good info, but it feels like it hasn't been touched in a while 21:24:36 precisely my feelings 21:24:39 it seems very out of time 21:24:49 KillYourTV, no - did you not read my earlier message? 21:25:03 dg: rsync master thingy is already running 21:25:46 nom, that seems a bit hacky... I'd prefer a solution that still allowed for a "propagate" at a later stage once the other branch was exactly as wanted. 21:25:46 I've noticed some issues between how things really are and what the website says 21:26:24 in general the website seems to feel old and the "revamp" last i checked looks really good 21:26:28 str4d: yah... could separate each mergeable thing into its own branch and merge that i suppose, and keep fux as a sandbox/catch all 21:26:52 weltende: not documented anywhere, iirc 21:26:59 psi: we should speed up on the revamp 21:27:05 the current one feels extremely stale 21:27:12 dg: priorities 21:27:23 like use fux as a test branch, when something is ready to be included as its own component, separate the branch and merge it there, also so you can maintain it as its own thing 21:27:32 dg: what has more importance? website or the software? 21:27:43 There does need to be improvement of the website content. I've been working on layout and structure in i2p.www.revamp but haven't touched the content (otherwise propagations would be a nightmare), so that needs working on in i2p.www 21:27:46 * str4d is still not happy with the design of the revamp, but that is not the focus right now - proper content structuring so that (a) new content can be easily added, and (b) users can find what they want easily, is the main focus 21:28:15 Could we set up a blog on the official site? I'd gladly chip write a post a week or so - short tutorials and tips, development updates, etc. 21:28:18 psi, that is a chicken-and-egg question. Both are important. 21:28:21 psi: Hell, I think the website is a big deal and it affects the software. 21:28:24 thursday: me too. 21:28:59 thursday: already kinda done in the revamp branch.. not feature complete.. but the basic stuff is there 21:29:42 str4d: +1 21:29:42 ....big picture software is more important, but the website needs improvement, and imo theres enough people with enough time and skills to work on the website, without it impacting how much 'code' gets done 21:29:42 * psi refreshes the revamp branch 21:29:42 thursday, at present the main site is just a collection of HTML files. The revamp reorganizes things so that there is a specific blog. 21:29:42 (Still a collection of HTML files, but blog generation etc. is dynamic so it makes maintaining a blog much simpler) 21:29:42 software = community = website, as its the first introduction most people get 21:29:49 current site makes me think nerdy 21:30:11 and dead, old 21:30:18 I didn't know if i2p was even in active dev when I first saw it 21:30:37 thursday, (and those who haven't seen it): http://vekw35szhzysfq7cwsly37coegsnb4rrsggy5k4wtasa6c34gy5a.b32.i2p/en/site/ is the revamp 21:31:01 psi: they could be worked on my different people. no need to decide for only one of the two 21:31:16 I can do blog posts/write ups for pages. 21:32:51 yes, I read your message str4d. and I call http://killyourtv.i2p/tmp/nffnatr.png "assange run through a filter" 21:33:17 (hell, back in early september it was still 'assange.png' :P) 21:34:13 That looks fantastic. As someone who wants to help out with the site, is there a list of the major things that need to be done before this revamp can go live? 21:34:24 KillYourTV, that is not current. If you run fux you'll see that replaced with a variant of hat guy. 21:34:47 I *just* downloaded that from you. 21:35:18 KillYourTV, oh, then the image file might still be sitting there. But snark does not use it. 21:35:45 * str4d has often forgotten to remove random files, sometimes leaving .zip files in the update packages >_< 21:36:11 alright...NOW I can agree. It's not in the css. carry on :) (and sorry) 21:36:32 hmm.. that News thingy at the end of the page is a bit to hidden imho 21:36:52 thursday: +1, I'd like this too. We can wrap up on this if we have that and can decide on a few people to work on that. 21:36:55 thursday, feedback is key. I'm still working out the structure and layout at present, so comments on that are welcome (url layout as well as navigation) 21:36:59 <+dg> thursday: +1, I'd like this too. We can wrap up on this if we have that and can decide on a few people to work on that. 21:38:11 thursday, if you want to improve content, there are many pages that could do with reworking to make it easier for end users to find/understand what they need to. 21:38:33 * str4d can go through some of that later if desired. 21:38:51 That'd be nice 21:39:57 Timed out...What's the topic? 21:40:40 Not much was said about mirroring, I think that includes the re-design though 21:40:40 imo, any changes to the current design are just temporary and not worth thinking too much about 21:42:10 Link to logs please 21:42:10 I'd like to read the part about mirroring/offer my services 21:42:10 welterde, you were making changes to the mirroring scripts IIRC? 21:42:10 weltende: SSL on the sites, legit certs, SSL on the mirrors (at least some) - how possible is this? 21:42:10 unprofessional to have expired/none/CACert (which throws up errors = scary) 21:42:10 you could argue CA system is weak but better than nothing 21:42:10 LaughingBuddah: website etc 21:42:10 LaughingBuddah: very little was said wrt mirroring 21:42:10 I'd like to set up a mirror 21:42:19 dg, yeah, there are long-standing issues in trac related to that. 21:42:19 LaughingBuddah: I figure it was because the current site is dire and we might as well wait for the new design before we do anything big. 21:42:19 The new site can highlight important things as well as a surge of new information. 21:42:22 Fair enough 21:42:22 Anything for the old site, again, IMO is just trying to keep something dead afloat. 21:42:34 Thank you though! :-) 21:42:34 Offer still stands 21:42:43 Oh, by the way, syndie.i2p2.i2p doesn't exist, but syndie.i2p2.de does 21:42:46 inconsistency.. 21:42:55 str4d: uh.. 21:43:07 (Regarding Syndie, it'd be cool if someone could try poke it back alive, but we probably do not have the men) 21:43:16 str4d: you mean for the revamp thing or what do you mean? 21:43:20 yah, wrt syndie that really should be removed from the frontpage... unless someone has taking it back up without me noticing, its been dead for years 21:43:31 Syndie is a really cool idea. 21:43:49 welterde, IIRC you said you were reworking the mirroring scripts, and that they would be shifted out of i2p.www eventually 21:43:55 str4d: I was gonna integrate that into the main site, so the mirror sites don't depend on my site anymore 21:44:14 dg, one thing I hope to fix on the new site is that urls we know exist in i2p and in clearnet get auto-changed based on the user's location (rather than an i2p user having links to trac.i2p2.de for example). 21:44:32 welterde, ah, okay. 21:45:03 str4d: oh, yes. I was thinking about that a while ago. That'd be a small but very good change for UX. 21:45:03 good call 21:45:03 We've got all these projects that need manpower. Maybe we start assigning people to make sure they move forward? 21:45:42 dg, small from UX standpoint. %^&*ing annoying from backend standpoint >_< 21:45:53 * str4d has tried and so far failed 21:46:03 ^ this 21:47:13 are the projects organized / listed anywhere? 21:47:32 hottuna: iirc projects.i2p is one place 21:47:35 not sure 21:47:39 Perhaps we should create tickets in trac and assign them? 21:47:42 This would mean a clear, documented timeline of progress on work and to follow up who is working on it.. 21:47:45 str4d: sounds quite easy? :s. just s/$domain/$currentdomain/.. 21:47:45 str4d: Also, could do in JavaScript although not ideal. 21:47:45 hottuna: we're discussing them / and there's a topic on zzz.i2p to an extent about it but we're kind of trying to fix that 21:47:48 I propose we have trac tickets for each of the issues we've raised here, but if we can't use trac (we should though, imo since it's official) 21:47:55 we can use projects.i2p 21:48:10 trac also allows parent tickets and such, so we could have a complete way of planning this 21:48:13 What's the status on trac ---> redmine? 21:48:21 LaughingBuddah: probably not needed atm 21:48:32 LaughingBuddah: awaiting weltende.. but not needed right now 21:48:35 I see 21:48:41 haven't had time yet to give it a try yet 21:48:41 the issues with trac are more so on welt's end, not trac 21:48:44 software. 21:49:00 psi: Can you get to creating tickets for some of the issues we've raised today? 21:50:40 dg: actually it's just the monotone plugin as I said before.. other downtimes weren't *that* often to be really annoying imho.. 21:50:46 also re trac / redmine, if anyone has any experience with fossil, i would love to hear about it, im mulling over the possibility of trying to use it to make a system for actually distributed repos/bug tracking 21:50:48 dg: which and where? 21:50:57 psi: Trac, website reorganization, managing the necessary fux changes, dealing with the mirroring stuff, etc. Just general parent ones which we can assign to people so they do not forget and it's clear who we can grill if something breaks/doesn't work. 21:50:57 hasn't this "assigning jobs to people will ensure that they'll get done real quick" meme been discussed on zzz.i2p already? 21:51:04 darrob: maybe, but was it even done? 21:51:11 (or work?) 21:51:30 We've clearly got some people who can get some tasks done 21:51:33 dg: i dont get things done "fast" 21:51:33 trac is a way of documenting proress 21:51:33 dg: for me they are eventual 21:51:33 psi: neither do i, but i do get them done 21:52:47 nom: people used to run a fossil thingy.. but afair you got into trouble if two people edited the wiki at once(in two different instances that is..) 21:53:44 speaking of eventual, psi: i/others could get a lot out of you writing up your thoughts on netdb structure / your baromatrix experiences so far.. like a running blog or something 21:53:59 nom: i certainly would 21:54:14 psi: if not you, I can/someone else. I'd just like something to come out of this meeting so we can follow up on it next time. :) 21:54:14 weltende: hmm interesting... so there would have to be some sort of system for consistency 21:54:55 nom: or simply support for merging as it does for files 21:56:08 nom: current "status" of baromatrix is "being worked on" 21:56:08 nom: i have more than just i2p right now going on 21:56:15 psi: right, i understand, don't mean to pressure you or your time, just saying its always good to share your thoughts 21:56:46 i'll share thoughts when they happen nom 21:56:49 baromatrix? 21:56:57 weltende: indeed, guess i'l have to experiment with it a bit 21:57:00 statistics project 21:57:10 baromatrix is a distributed version of stats.i2p 21:57:15 ah 21:57:15 to "double check" the numbers 21:57:30 it's something that i've been meaning to do for a while 21:57:59 also to get a general demographic of the userbase too without being invasive 21:58:58 also uh... wheres the code? the git.repo seems to be .... nothing? 22:03:28 I guess we should wrap up then 22:03:35 Thanks for being involved, everyone. hopefully this can become a regular thing. 22:03:46 Anyone got any more to say/issues to raise? 22:04:07 Maybe we should schedule the next one? 22:04:26 Next Tuesday at 9PM UTC? 22:04:29 8PM seemed a little rough for some people. 22:04:45 bampf? 22:04:56 * dg bampfs the meeting closed ;-) 22:05:30 thanks dg, this seems like a good thing 22:06:00 dg: for me 7PM would be better.. 22:06:10 hottuna: Thank you, I've had a lot of support, it was a little rough at the start of this and I felt anxious about how it'd go, but it went well. Perhaps we could see more of you/others next time too! 22:06:17 weltende: 7PM UTC is ok for me, I think. 22:06:28 weltende: 8PM caused issues for str4d 22:06:43 Next Tuesday @ 7:30PM? 22:09:40 sounds good 22:10:28 +1 22:10:39 Great. 22:14:59 Cya all 22:15:02 dg: good meeting