Diffstat (limited to 'wiki/src/contribute/meetings/201806/logs.txt')
1 files changed, 237 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/wiki/src/contribute/meetings/201806/logs.txt b/wiki/src/contribute/meetings/201806/logs.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+(19:00:37) intrigeri: meeeeeting tiiiiime
+(19:00:45) intrigeri: sajolida: good idea!
+(19:00:51) u: hi!
+(19:00:53) intrigeri: I'll be taking notes.
+(19:00:58) intrigeri: u is our amazing facilitator today.
+(19:01:13) u: oh really?
+(19:01:17) intrigeri: and on https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/monthly_meeting/ the lines of the table are empty for the rest of the year.
+(19:01:21) u: i forgot about that.
+(19:01:49) u: firing up my browser.
+(19:02:33) u: drwhax, drebs, muri, kibi, emmapeel: anybody of you here for the meeting?
+(19:03:04) u: Let's start with Volunteers to handle Hole in the roof tickets: https://labs.riseup.net/code/versions/198
+(19:03:29) u: not me.
+(19:03:52) sajolida: not me
+(19:03:54) spriver: me neither
+(19:03:59) intrigeri: I *think* I took one (that therefore because target version = 3.x). Don't remember which one. That'll be enough anyway.
+(19:04:54) u: Next point on the agenda: Volunteers to handle important tickets flagged for next release, but without assignee
+(19:05:01) intrigeri: there's none.
+(19:05:24) u: There is only one: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/15592
+(19:05:26) Tailsbot: Tails ☺ Bug #15592: Installation instructions link on Tails installer gives 404 - Tails - RiseupLabs Code Repository https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/15592
+(19:05:38) u: ah but fix committed. good.
+(19:06:03) u: What about our next point: Availability and plans until the next meeting
+(19:06:51) u: I will do some Tails work this month: translation platform, an important accounting meeting, Debian work. Otherwise I want to continue work on another project.
+(19:07:28) spriver: me: Translation platform, German translations
+(19:07:40) intrigeri: availability: ~half time or slightly more. plans: keep the FT boat afloat, RM 3.8, finish my ASP deliverables, stay on top of the VeraCrypt project since I'm now more involved than I used to.
+(19:08:23) u: sajolida: what about you?
+(19:08:52) sajolida: Availability: "Full" expect June 11-15.
+Plans: User testing for VeraCrypt, bug fixing for Additional Software, kickoff the collaboration with Simply Secure, hopefully do some work on donations (#14558, #14559).
+(19:08:53) Tailsbot: Tails ☺ Feature #14558: Analyze donations from the 2017 campaign https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/14558
+(19:08:53) Tailsbot: Tails ☺ Feature #14559: Have a permanent incentive to donate on /home https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/14559
+(19:09:05) u: yeah!
+(19:09:33) u: Next point: Please add your bits to the monthly report: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/monthly_report/report_2018_05/
+(19:09:38) intrigeri: done.
+(19:10:01) u: me too.
+(19:10:07) u: sajolida: too i think.
+(19:10:20) spriver: nice (: thanks!
+(19:10:29) u: so i guess we just miss the translation metrics
+(19:10:44) u: Next: discussions!
+(19:10:47) sajolida: spriver: do you mind adding a line about the Additional Software beta?
+(19:11:05) u: sajolida: ah let me do that.
+(19:11:11) spriver: sajolida: that it was released?
+(19:11:17) spriver: okay then
+(19:11:29) sajolida: spriver: the beta → https://tails.boum.org/news/test_asp-beta/index.en.html
+(19:11:36) u: spriver: yes and there was a call for testing. but i should take care of this I think :)
+(19:11:48) u: Let's discuss: Strategic planning We'll discuss "Containers/separated identities without rebooting [R, +1-1]".
+(19:11:56) u: who put this on the agenda? I guess intrigeri?
+(19:11:59) intrigeri: that's for me. I didn't prepare it much, we'll see.
+(19:12:05) sajolida: meta: we're not reporting ongoing code work very often but this one is big enough for me to realize it's missing...
+(19:12:08) intrigeri: yeah, I committed at the summit to ensure we discuss these things.
+(19:12:20) u: intrigeri: stage is yours.
+(19:12:27) u: sajolida: indeed!
+(19:12:28) intrigeri: so, that one was added as a R goal, that is: R for relevance & usefulness goals, expressed in numbers or facts e.g. "triple userbase in 3 years", "you use Tails in Tibet"
+(19:12:49) intrigeri: so the question is: is this a Tails goal to support this?
+(19:13:35) intrigeri: We can first brainstorm why it should be a goal and then why it shouldn't.
+(19:13:50) intrigeri: if my process is too shitty and badly prepared, just tell me and we'll skip it. sorry.
+(19:14:21) intrigeri: Does everyone understand what "Containers/separated identities without rebooting" means, first?
+(19:14:40) jvoisin: (yes)
+(19:14:41) spriver: e.g. something similar to Qubes?
+(19:14:57) intrigeri: I don't think Qubes offers any such thing in line with Tails' goals.
+(19:15:21) intrigeri: I understand this as: Tails should make it safe to use >1 identities on the same running Tails at the same time.
+(19:15:32) intrigeri: i.e. isolating them from each other.
+(19:15:35) spriver: ah
+(19:16:03) u: intrigeri: sounds like a good plan.
+(19:16:09) intrigeri: For now I'd rather not discuss technical details nor feasibility. I bet this will pop up when we brainstorm the "why not?".
+(19:17:21) u: do we know how many users request such a thing?
+(19:17:28) u: or how many people use Tails like this already?
+(19:17:55) intrigeri: I'll start with the obvious one: since we don't support this, despite our warnings etc., people keep doing this because rebooting takes time. So "you should not do that and we don't support it" is a nice theoretical position but in practice many (?) people do exactly what we expect them not to do.
+(19:18:35) intrigeri: u: I don't know.
+(19:19:27) intrigeri: (and "New identity" works well for people who don't use tabs, but apart of them it's just too painful so even web browsing is affected by the problem)
+(19:19:31) u: so should we start with discussing why it shold be a goal?
+(19:19:46) intrigeri: u: yes ("We can first brainstorm why it should be a goal and then why it shouldn't.")
+(19:20:00) intrigeri: u: sorry I was unclear. let's do this now. that's what I started to do.
+(19:20:38) sajolida: i would fully agree on a goal to make it easier to switch between my regular identity and Tails. which is something that was mentioned in interviews, especially with journalists
+that could be a different understanding of "Containers/separated identities without rebooting"
+but then "rebooting" would be too limiting, for example having Tails running on cheap tablets, or booting faster, or being able to hibernate and resume quickly could achieve similar results
+i'm otherwise not interested in "make it safe to use >1 identities on the same Tails"
+(19:20:40) u: i think it would allow a smoother user experience to have such a feature, since rebooting would not be necsesary.
+(19:21:30) intrigeri: (/me refrains from commenting since it's a brainstorming, for now)
+(19:21:36) intrigeri: spriver: ?
+(19:21:50) spriver: intrigeri: I'm still thinking
+(19:22:01) intrigeri: u: (oops, I'll let you facilitate this discussion too :)
+(19:22:13) sajolida: in the interviews i did and in the personas that we sketched, we only have users with: 1 regular identity and 1 secret or special identity or context
+(19:22:13) u: intrigeri: no that's fine.
+(19:22:30) sajolida: that's the target for me if we want to grow our user base
+(19:22:40) u: hm, but are we only talking about identities or is this also about containerizing from a security point of view?
+(19:22:48) intrigeri: identities
+(19:22:49) u: sajolida: ack
+(19:23:23) spriver: I agree with u. it'd also allow to keep configured applications configured the way they're (without needing to reconfigure them after a reboot)
+(19:23:39) intrigeri: more "pros"?
+(19:23:53) intrigeri: (not me)
+(19:25:14) u: i think if such a feature existed, first of all it would be very innovative, it's not like something like this already exists elsewhere really.
+(19:26:05) u: i'm unsure what impact such a feature would have yet.
+(19:26:36) u: would more people be encouraged to construct different identies? Maybe they did not do that until now because it was complicated. or they did do it but mix them up all the time.
+(19:26:48) intrigeri: spriver: While taking notes I realized I'm not sure I understand what you wrote.
+(19:27:20) intrigeri: spriver: do you mean something like "using the same persistent config for >1 identities"? i.e. having base config (without identity-specific data) shared accross >1 identities?
+(19:27:20) u: intrigeri: i think she means that if one identity has x-z bookmarks, the other one could have their own bookmarks for example.
+(19:27:25) u: and other dotfiles.
+(19:27:54) spriver: intrigeri: ack
+(19:28:30) spriver: but both could apply, yes
+(19:29:13) intrigeri: tell me when you're ready to switch to the "why not"
+(19:29:37) ***sajolida is having a hard time arguing "why" :)
+(19:29:38) u: without talking about implementation details, one could think about sharing a config or having separate configs not only for persistence but also for single applications.
+(19:29:38) u: ready
+(19:29:54) u: sajolida: me too.
+(19:29:59) spriver: ready
+(19:30:16) intrigeri: OK, let's switch to the "why not" then.
+(19:30:59) intrigeri: I think sajolida put it really well above: this is only one possible solution to the main problem that's been identified, and it may not be the best one.
+(19:32:01) sajolida: "why not": i think that the main problem is to better support switching between the real world and Tails (2 identities)
+(19:32:11) intrigeri: My main concern with putting this as a goal, apart of the fact it may not be the best solution, is: it implies basically a full redesign of Tails, its implementation, how it presents itself to the user, etc. I'm not convinced the cost/benefit is worth it.
+(19:32:25) sajolida: supporting better 3 and more identities would only bring us a slight improvement but not x3 user base
+(19:32:30) intrigeri: (well, wait: actually I'm convinced it is *not* worth it)
+(19:32:57) spriver: intrigeri: ack
+(19:32:59) u: intrigeri: i understood exactly that
+(19:33:17) u: hm, i also have the feeling that the cost/benefit ratio is too high.
+(19:33:27) spriver: me too
+(19:33:38) u: and would indeed argue in sajolida's sense that it would be nicer to be able to switch faster.
+(19:33:55) jvoisin: (I completely agree with intrigeri)
+(19:34:30) u: sounds like we have a consensus.
+(19:34:35) sajolida: yeah!
+(19:35:10) cbrownstein entered the room.
+(19:35:19) sajolida: cbrownstein: hey!
+(19:35:27) cbrownstein: hello!
+(19:35:33) intrigeri: would it be a consensus to say: we drop this as a goal but we replace it with a new one i.e. "make it easier to switch between a Tails contextual identity and another identity outside of Tails"?
+(19:35:35) intrigeri: cbrownstein: yo
+(19:36:02) intrigeri: cbrownstein: context: we're discussing whether "Containers/separated identities without rebooting" should be a Tails goal, as part of our https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/strategic_planning/ process.
+(19:36:03) cbrownstein: intrigeri: hello!
+(19:36:21) spriver: cbrownstein: hey!
+(19:36:35) cbrownstein: spriver: hello!
+(19:36:57) sajolida: intrigeri: yes!
+(19:37:07) u: hi cbrownstein
+(19:37:09) ***drebs scheduled wrong time for meeting, sorry for that <-- just watching, anyway
+(19:37:19) u: intrigeri: sounds good to me!
+(19:37:20) spriver: intrigeri: ack
+(19:37:21) intrigeri: (I'm happy to see this new goal rephrased and improved but I'd like to know if we agree on the fact we've identified real problems we don't solve, and dropping this goal merely because it's probably not the best solution would not cut it)
+(19:37:24) u: hi drebs :)
+(19:37:32) cbrownstein: u: hello!
+(19:37:50) intrigeri: so sajolida and u agree.
+(19:38:06) intrigeri: what about spriver, jvoisin and others who just joined the meeting?
+(19:38:14) spriver: I agree, too
+(19:38:24) jvoisin: I do too
+(19:39:14) intrigeri: (/me is happy: I expected we would merely drop that tentative goal, but in the end we got something better!)
+(19:39:42) u: ok!
+(19:39:45) intrigeri: let's give cbrownstein and drebs a few minutes if they need them
+(19:40:03) u: and then we can switch to the next topic.
+(19:40:06) intrigeri: cbrownstein, drebs: want a couple minutes to read the backlog and tell us what you think of this proposal?
+(19:40:22) cbrownstein: intrigeri: reading right now.
+(19:40:48) intrigeri: great
+(19:42:13) sajolida: .
+(19:43:08) drebs: i think it's great, thanks for asking
+(19:43:20) intrigeri: drebs: thanks for reading and commenting!
+(19:43:23) cbrownstein: i should be added to the consensus.
+(19:43:32) cbrownstein: and thank you also for asking.
+(19:43:34) intrigeri: alright, u: the floor is yours
+(19:43:36) u: ack :)
+(19:43:37) u: Next point, prepared by sajolida: Gather comments on our draft personas Chapter 2: Cris, the sensitive information gatherer
+(19:43:45) sajolida: yeah yeah!
+(19:43:55) sajolida: so please read the description of this point on the meeting agenda:
+(19:43:58) sajolida: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/monthly_meeting/
+(19:44:07) sajolida: below "Gather comments on our draft personas"
+(19:45:00) sajolida: once you're done reading that, please go on and read the skeleton we have for "Cris, the sensitive information gatherer"
+(19:45:26) sajolida: the idea is to do a brainstorming, so feel free to start commenting as soon as you're done reading
+(19:45:53) sajolida: people who need more time can take their time meanwhile and won't loose any discussion...
+(19:46:47) u: sajolida: I would formulate this sentence differently: "Turn public opinion against these people."
+(19:47:01) sajolida: the idea is to focus on who is Cris and what they need to achieve, not so much about the technical solutions or tools that they would need in Tails
+(19:47:08) u: maybe "inform the public about the wrongdoings of these people"
+(19:47:13) sajolida: u: great!
+(19:47:33) u: well, i just realize the previous sentence is a bit similar
+(19:47:53) intrigeri: sajolida: something is not clear to me: Cris is a journalist who publishes under a pseudonym, right? I have no clue how common practice it is. Have you?
+(19:48:18) u: maybe "make it possible to legally accuse these people / put them in front of a court" ?
+(19:49:00) sajolida: intrigeri: good point! that's something to check indeed and i agree with you. maybe Cris is working under their realname
+(19:49:05) u: as cris is a mexican refugee i'm unsure how they can enter mexico
+(19:49:13) drebs: sajolida, why is "hide information about myself" different from "hide my identity"? (sorry if it's a silly question)
+(19:49:15) sajolida: and hiding what they are working on only until it's published
+(19:49:50) intrigeri: sajolida: indeed, that would relate to many more real-life cases I'm aware of but I don't know the press world well.
+(19:50:17) sajolida: i used "refugee" but i think that Cris might just be too scared to live in Mexico (bad stuff happens there to journalists) but not legally prohibited to enter Mexico
+(19:50:19) u: drebs: i think hiding your identity is basically only about your name while information about yourself can be many other things like where you live, where you currently are etc.
+(19:50:20) intrigeri: s/is Mexican refugee/is a Mexican refugee/
+(19:50:41) u: sajolida: ok, then maybe we shoudl use another word than refugee?
+(19:50:48) intrigeri: sajolida: I'm not sure how I should take notes about this. You'll want to process the raw logs anyway, no?
+(19:50:55) u: emigrant/immigrant?
+(19:51:03) sajolida: drebs: under "hide information about myself" we also put location for example
+(19:51:24) drebs: ok, thanks
+(19:51:57) sajolida: u: ok for replacing "refugee" (we'll find a better word elsewhere)
+(19:52:06) intrigeri: sajolida: but if you want I can just dump all the comments and your replies.
+(19:52:07) sajolida: intrigeri: don't take notes! i'll do that myself, thanks!
+(19:52:16) intrigeri: works for me :p
+(19:52:49) sajolida: do you know any people like Cris? either in America or elsewhere?
+(19:53:06) sajolida: any stories we could learn from?
+(19:53:11) u: sajolida: https://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/ayotzinapa/
+(19:53:19) sajolida: u: ok!
+(19:53:37) sajolida: definitely on target, i wonder how these people were working for example..
+(19:53:46) intrigeri: sajolida: no name pops up but I'm sure I've talked with a few such people at OTF summit and other similar places.
+(19:54:16) sajolida: ok, then if you remember names later on these might be people we could interview
+(19:54:19) u: well this work by forensic architecture is basically people reconstructing a mass murder case, because the government deleted all evidence.
+(19:54:20) intrigeri: (and not having personas makes it hard to know who I should focus on. so having personas will be great.)
+(19:54:23) sajolida: even if they are not using Tails (yet!)
+(19:54:32) sajolida: u: i've seen the expo :)
+(19:54:36) u: :)
+(19:55:39) u: sajolida: have you heard about gaby weber? she is a german journalist and has researched quite a bit on nazi past in argentina, involving mercedes benz.. she's a tails user by the way, and she might slightly fit Cris' description.
+(19:55:58) spriver: gaby weber <3
+(19:56:02) sajolida: wooo! that's *super* interesting!
+(19:56:07) sajolida: i should talk to her!
+(19:56:18) sajolida: any more Crises you know?
+(19:56:18) u: sajolida: i have a direct contact to her :)
+(19:56:23) sajolida: niiiice!
+(19:57:03) u: sajolida: let's talk in private to schedule a meeting at some point :)
+(19:57:11) sajolida: ok
+(19:57:22) intrigeri: my "raw subjectivity" comment: it's an important persona and one of the things we know at least some people use for. It's an extreme/minority one though. Thankfully the other personas balance things so the draft set of personas does not err to far on the "Tails for 2000 people" side :)
+(19:57:42) sajolida: exactly
+(19:57:51) u: intrigeri: ack.
+(19:58:22) sajolida: my plan is to review each skeleton individually but after that we should take a step back and see which ones we want to first more or first, etc.
+(19:58:31) intrigeri: (I had to zoom out to check if I thought this persona should be less extreme, but now I don't think it should. maybe a tiny bit but not much.)
+(19:58:40) sajolida: so looking at them in the big picture of the full set is important as well
+(19:59:10) sajolida: but Cris could also be anybody carrying sensitive information across borders for example
+(19:59:19) intrigeri: OK, so without zooming out my subjective feeling is: this persona is super extreme.
+(19:59:22) u: sajolida: right.
+(19:59:45) sajolida: intrigeri: thanks!
+(19:59:49) intrigeri: (because there's so many life/death threats on the same person & relationships)
+(19:59:59) sajolida: we had similar comments on the first persona last month :)
+(20:00:10) intrigeri: I have nothing to add.
+(20:00:15) sajolida: ok
+(20:00:18) sajolida: time is up
+(20:00:26) sajolida: if someone has something to add i'm happy to stick around
+(20:00:29) sajolida: otherwise, see you next month!
+(20:00:31) u: sajolida: i don't think this persona is extreme, but it's maybe more rare.
+(20:00:34) intrigeri: but hey, I guess the point is also that these personas should be different enough from each other, which tends to specializing them I guess.
+(20:00:44) sajolida: right
+(20:00:57) intrigeri: u: that's what I mean I guess. in a gaussian distribution, extreme == more rare :)
+(20:01:10) u: sajolida: but cris need not be a journalist, they can be a human rights advocate, diplomat, doctor
+(20:01:11) sajolida: but specialize doesn't mean making them super extreme in terms of threats (which was the point last month)
+(20:01:27) intrigeri: sajolida: yep
+(20:01:41) intrigeri: sajolida: you fine with stopping now?
+(20:01:50) sajolida: yes, i'm fine with stopping
+(20:01:57) intrigeri: alright
+(20:02:00) intrigeri: foood
+(20:02:07) intrigeri: u: we're done?
+(20:02:13) u: ack, so meeting is over! cheers! if you want to add your names to be a note take or facilitator next months: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/monthly_meeting/