teor transcribed 0.7K bytes: > I'm sorry, I didn't get Isis' original email, I think my spam folder ate it. > > Can you please re-send? Of course! I actually didn't get a copy either; not sure what happened there. ----- Forwarded message from isis agora lovecruft <isis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ----- > From: isis agora lovecruft <isis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [tor-dev] [prop-meeting] [prop#267] "Tor Consensus Transparency" > Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:31:03 +0000 > Message-ID: <20180217063103.GF28876@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Reply-To: isis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > isis agora lovecruft transcribed 2.9K bytes: > > Hello, > > > > Let's schedule a proposal discussion for prop#267 "Tor Consensus > > Transparency" [0] sometime between 14 - 16 Feb. If you're CCed, it's > > because you put your name down on the pad as being interested in this > > discussion. If anyone has requests or concerns, or if I forgot to take your > > timezone into account, please let me know. > > > > https://doodle.com/poll/a6ih5a4dqr9bdsie > > > > Note that this meeting will likely run longer than an hour. I'll try to > > keep it as short as possible… but in the past this discussion has been long. > > > > [0]: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/267-tor-consensus-transparency.txt > > Oh no! > > I'm so sorry; I totally messed up and forgot to choose the best time > for people and announce it! I knew this was going to happen at some > point; way more meetings to keep track of than I or probably any of us > are used to. > > I was thinking about this a bit before: we generally seem to have two > disjoint sets of groups of people where no one "has to draw the short > straw" i.e. attend a work meeting at a super unreasonable time: > > 1. americas + europe > 2. australia + americas > > I'm not sure how to do this, but perhaps there a way to vote such that > we determine which set we're in, and then we simply have > pre-determined meeting times each week for both groups, and we arrange > the meetings for the interested groups at those set times? Would that > work with most people's schedules? Or would it be too much of a > burden to guarantee another weekly meeting? We could also > duplicate/rehash meeting notes between meetings, if both sets are > equivalently interested in a topic. > > (Also, there is a potential third set of "australia + europe" which > we've missed due to cognitive biases of having too many people in the > americas.) > > Please let me know your thoughts! I'm not totally sold on this idea, > but I want to find a way to make discussions easier and better for > everyone. Especially remembering that they are happening. *blush* > > I propose the following meeting times, for each group, respectively: > > 1. Tuesdays @ 18:00 UTC (10:00 PST/13:00 EST/20:00 CET/05:00+1 AEDT) > 2. Tuesdays @ 22:00 UTC (14:00 PST/17:00 EST/00:00+1 CET/12:00+1 AEDT) > > Please feel free to request alternate times! Especially for people in > Europe, these times aren't quite fair. (However, I'm also not seeing > as much participation for european residents according to the pad and > doodles.) > > Best regards, > -- > ♥Ⓐ isis agora lovecruft > _________________________________________________________ > OpenPGP: 4096R/0A6A58A14B5946ABDE18E207A3ADB67A2CDB8B35 > Current Keys: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- ♥Ⓐ isis agora lovecruft _________________________________________________________ OpenPGP: 4096R/0A6A58A14B5946ABDE18E207A3ADB67A2CDB8B35 Current Keys: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev