I2P dev meeting, February 5, 2013 @ 20:00 UTC

Quick recap

  • Present:

    christoph3, darrob, dg, eche|on, hottuna, KillYourTV, Meeh, str4d, zzz

  • Next Meeting

    The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 12 @ 20:00 UTC (8:00PM)

Registo Completo do IRC

19:59:45  <dg> str4d: thoughts wrt IPv6 in mtg?
20:01:00  <str4d> Bring it up if you want. I know there are real issues that are holding that back, but it could be a good idea to verify what they currently are.
20:01:03  <str4d> I'll also be bringing up the website revamp.
20:01:14  <dg> Sweet.
20:01:22  <str4d> (So poke that in somewhere ^_^)
20:01:33  <dg> Will do :)
20:01:36  <dg> We'll put crypto last, if at all
20:01:44  <dg> I don't want to kill the movement but I don't know where we are going wit hit
20:01:55  <dg> I don't know enough about it to try .. push for it
20:05:01  <str4d> Yeah, last is a good idea, as long as the earlier sections of the meeting stay on track.
20:05:28  <str4d> And we already are in a much better place - the crypto review page has some interesting data (provided by "guest" so I have no idea who ^_^)
20:05:41  <dg> I was thinkign about that
20:14:16  <str4d> dg: ain't it meeting time now?
20:14:48  <dg> oh yeah
20:14:55  <dg> okay then
20:14:58  <darrob> i was going to ask that. i'm confused to see you *plan* a meeting at 08:05.
20:15:36  <dg> the agenda today is:
20:15:36  <dg> (0) - Hi!
20:15:36  <dg> (1) - Primary domain
20:15:36  <dg> (2) - IPv6 progress, blockers
20:15:39  <dg> (3) - Site revamp
20:15:42  <dg> (4) - Crypto
20:15:57  <dg> didn't realize the time
20:16:20  * str4d sends a CTCP TIME message to dg
20:16:34  * str4d watches it bounce off the I2P IRC tunnel.
20:16:41  <hottuna> Hello everybody!
20:16:48  <str4d> Hi!
20:16:55  <dg> We'll start off then?
20:17:25  <dg> So, (1) - primary domain
20:17:28  <dg> (also, hi)
20:17:46  <dg> The current primary domain (used in most places) is i2p2.de
20:17:49  <dg> There's a few problems with it
20:17:53  <str4d> www.i2p2.de
20:18:00  <str4d> (not i2p2.de)
20:18:00  <dg> (1) - It's not attractive or memorable.
20:18:11  <dg> (2) - SEO issues due to the country based TLD
20:18:29  <dg> (3) - Conflicts with other domains (we use geti2p.net on stickers, for example)
20:19:03  <eche|on> I do use www.i2p2.de on I2P stickers
20:19:06  <hottuna> (3) was my fault, it's just a more memorable domain
20:19:13  <dg> I'm proposing we use geti2p.net for all matters from now on but keep the old sites up with a redirect or some SEO magic to tell sites that we've moved without a full redirect
20:19:16  <str4d> (2) isn't a direct problem for Google at least.
20:19:54  <dg> i2p2.net is the better out of the pick though, there's ones like i2p-projekt.de that IMHO are too obscure for project usage
20:20:01  <dg> geti2p.net is kind of motivational too
20:20:16  <str4d> Their support page on geolocation says that geotargeting doesn't specifically affect page rank unless the search is limited by country.
20:20:40  <str4d> But then they also say that they use the geotargeting along with a heap of other things they look at to decide on regionalization.
20:20:43  <hottuna> I prefer geti2p.net, but I think we would need to have an official vote to change it
20:20:49  <KillYourTV> iRelay: web title i2p2.net
20:20:52  <dg> I concur, hottuna
20:20:55  <iRelay> Home - Contractor Safety Program Manuals - Downloadable and Turn-Key Custom-Written
20:21:23  <dg> i2p.net would be ideal, simple & the original domain but we can't have that for years. No promise we'll get it when it expires, either.
20:21:34  * KillYourTV was curious what was there, typo or not
20:22:01  <str4d> What about i2p.com and i2p.org?
20:22:16  <str4d> (Or one of the other generic TLDs?
20:22:16  <str4d> )
20:22:35  <str4d> Were they long-time registered?
20:23:10  <dg> Believe so. AFAIK, we were lucky to get .net when the project started but I'm not sure.
20:23:10  <eche|on> 1. i2p.net is registered til 2016 and will be grabbed by some machines after wards
20:23:21  <eche|on> 2. do NOT change the domain again. Thats a pain in the ass. really.
20:23:39  <eche|on> user credability is not to be raised with a domain change
20:23:42  <dg> It's not going to be an emergency change this time.
20:23:50  <dg> We already have 5 or so domains floating about
20:23:57  <eche|on> it was a looong 3 year phase to get www.i2p2.de into the game after i2p.net was dead
20:24:08  <str4d> eche|on: that's because you didn't have access to i2p.net
20:24:15  <dg> totally different circumstances
20:24:27  <dg> (and a totally different process)
20:24:30  <str4d> With access to both the old and new domains, either leave the content at the old one, or (better) do a 301 redirect.
20:24:45  <dg> it's not like we're recovering from such a major blow this time, just changing the default domain we refer to
20:25:50  <zzz> Back in the day, com/net/org were the best. But not true now, plus the whole issue of the U.S. can and does shut those down as they please. You really want to go back to a .net?
20:26:24  <dg> It's not like the U.S. can't get .de. If keeping things safe was as simple as being foreign, we wouldn't need I2P.
20:26:49  <hottuna> i2p.{aero|af|ag|ai|am|asia|bz|cat|cm|coop|cx|gg|gr|gs|gy.|hk|hn|ht|im|io|je|ki|la|lc|li|lt|lv|me|mg|mn|ms|mx|name|nf|nu|pt|re|tel|tv} are available
20:27:07  <dg> the "2" makes it unclean which bugs me
20:27:26  <dg> hottuna: i2p.io sounds groovy
20:27:41  <eche|on> I want i2p.xxx
20:27:44  <hottuna> the 2 is nonsensical for any newbie
20:28:11  <str4d> i2p.coop
20:28:14  <dg> I believe in the CCC talk, the guy speaking actually called i2p "i2p2"
20:28:17  <str4d> i2p.coup? ^_^
20:28:18  <christoph3> the list gets probably a lot shorter by removing inacceptably expensive domains ;-)
20:28:24  <zzz> dg you're greatly underestimating the difference in US-shutdown-ability of .de vs .net
20:28:24  <dg> "to i2p or not to i2p" (or something)
20:28:55  <str4d> zzz: i2p.net is out of the question anyway =)
20:29:09  <dg> zzz: really? I'm not so sure. If the US wanted it down, they could surely exercise their US-shutdown-abilities.
20:29:09  <hottuna> zzz, agreed. Also a valid point.
20:29:24  <dg> str4d: but geti2p.net is the alternative I proposed at least, so I guess he is referring to that
20:29:27  <hottuna> until now only us domestic domains have been taken down
20:29:57  <eche|on> even .at domains were not taken down though being spam and virus spreading domains
20:30:17  <christoph3> zzz is probably not talking about worst-case where the US really really really wants to shut it down
20:30:28  <christoph3> but just would like to
20:30:31  <str4d> Since this was started off by geotargeting issues: what are the actual generic TLDs?
20:30:31  <dg> Pretty sure if the US started shouting it was terrorist related, it could be taken down too
20:31:12  <hottuna> how are .org domains controlled?
20:31:12  <str4d> Ooh, just found a list.
20:31:12  <eche|on> str4d: a lot of them,also including some local russian, asian, chinese... one
20:31:19  <str4d> https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1347922
20:31:34  <str4d> Google treats all of those ^ as gTLDs.
20:31:38  <eche|on> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-Level-Domain
20:31:41  <iRelay> Title: Top-Level-Domain – Wikipedia (at de.wikipedia.org)
20:31:49  <christoph3> .org was verizon just like .com and .net wasn't it?
20:31:52  <eche|on> i2p.int would be nice.
20:31:59  <eche|on> and it would be possible.
20:32:18  <eche|on> or a .nato?
20:33:05  <hottuna> int sounds nice, but is controlled by IANA which is us government
20:33:27  <str4d> hottuna: aren't all TLDs eventually controlled by IANA?
20:33:46  <str4d> (excluding the new raft of TLDs that companies are allowed to buy now)
20:34:04  <dg> new proposal: we buy .i2p
20:34:11  <hottuna> more or less directly? .int being directly?
20:34:11  <hottuna> :P
20:34:14  <hottuna> i2p.i2p?
20:34:21  <dg> project.i2p
20:34:36  <dg> download.i2p
20:34:39  <darrob> hottuna: obviously the main page would have to be www.i2p2.i2p. :)
20:34:54  <hottuna> :P
20:35:12  <str4d> But I just went to all this effort of double-tagging the entire website revamp >_<
20:35:59  <hottuna> str4d, I did some translations. About 70k words left though.
20:37:10  <str4d> There were about 70k words to start with =P
20:37:13  <darrob> how immediate is this US shutdown threat though? instead of worrying about it we could just wait and see. worst case: we'd have to go piratebay-crazy with proxies and media attention and all.
20:37:36  <eche|on> so far it is a no brainer, as tor is still alive.
20:37:47  <dg> oh. yeah. Tor, of course.
20:38:19  <darrob> dg: go on?
20:38:38  <hottuna> realistically we will still have the mirrors, so a specific tld being lost isnt much of an issue
20:38:53  <dg> darrob: about Tor??
20:38:56  <dg> darrob: as for the discussion, I think we're still talking
20:39:03  <dg> So, do we want to put this down to a vote?
20:39:18  <dg> If so, what would be the options?
20:39:18  <dg> (and when?)
20:39:22  <hottuna> i would like geti2p.net to be an option
20:39:28  <dg> We could do it now if you guys wanted, I don't know if we have enough people
20:39:35  <KillYourTV> +1 for new TLD. Often they're a steal at $185,000 for registration then $6,250 each quarter. Surely we have enough funds available for that.
20:39:35  <hottuna> next meeting?
20:39:50  <dg> Hell yeah!
20:39:53  <dg> hottuna: sure
20:39:53  <hottuna> and announce it on the forums
20:39:53  <darrob> dg: sorry, never mind. your tor comment was not clear to me but it's irrelevant now.
20:40:04  <eche|on> KillYourTV: ^^ oerfect solution, but hosting is another topic.
20:40:35  <hottuna> would anyone like to propose a change to a domain other than geti2p.net?
20:40:38  <darrob> KillYourTV: we'd just need to sell our bitcoins at the right time.
20:41:00  <dg> hottuna: I have none but then again, I don't know the other ones we have.
20:41:55  <str4d> i2p.io sounded quite good, but .io is still country-specific
20:42:42  <dg> ideal world: we would have i2p.org
20:43:34  <hottuna> ok, then we have 2 alternatives. i2p.io and geti2p.net
20:43:45  <str4d> i2p.int?
20:43:48  <str4d> i2p.info?
20:43:56  <str4d> i2p.jobs =P
20:43:59  <dg> is i2p.info available?
20:44:18  <dg> i2p.transformers?
20:44:30  <eche|on> i2p.onion
20:44:45  <hottuna> i2p.info is taken
20:45:00  <str4d> i2p.co - that's a country one that is treated (by Google at least) as generic.
20:45:23  <hottuna> i2p.co is taken
20:45:30  <str4d> i2p.me?
20:45:37  <dg> i2p.me is cool.
20:45:58  <str4d> (another gccTLD)
20:46:09  <darrob> and cool is gimmicky if i may say so. i'd rather see i2p2.org or something.
20:46:09  <hottuna> suggestions: i2p.io i2p.int i2p.me geti2p.net
20:46:28  <dg> I want to drop the "2".
20:46:31  <str4d> darrob: I'd rather see i2p.something
20:46:53  <str4d> Why wasn't i2p.de chosen originally? Taken?
20:47:01  <str4d> s/originally/at the time/
20:47:04  <iRelay> str4d meant: Why wasn't i2p.de chosen at the time? Taken?
20:47:12  <hottuna> i2p2.org taken
20:47:16  <hottuna> i2p.de taken
20:47:31  <str4d> Mmm.
20:47:50  <KillYourTV> i2p.ispent185000dollarsandalligotwasthisstupidtld
20:48:00  <str4d> I agree that we don't want something gimmicky.
20:48:07  <str4d> It needs to make sense.
20:48:22  <dg> cool == workable in this context
20:48:24  <dg> (too)
20:49:13  <hottuna> i2p.int is available btw
20:50:52  <hottuna> dg, will you add i2p.io i2p.int i2p.me geti2p.net to the alternatives of the vote?
20:51:18  <dg> hottuna: Yup. Making a note of it now.
20:51:27  <hottuna> danke
20:54:10  <str4d> Anything else here, or next topic dg?
20:54:40  <dg> was writing up the topic
20:54:40  <dg> yeah, next
20:54:43  <dg> Alright, IPv6!
20:54:53  <dg> From what I understand, welt* was working on this and then.. ??? happened
20:55:04  <dg> I don't know the blanks, maybe someone can fill them in
20:55:21  <dg> There's a bounty right now for IPv6 support in I2P
20:55:42  <dg> It's 100 EUR
20:55:45  <hottuna>  http://zzz.i2p/topics/109
20:55:48  <dg> http://www.i2p2.i2p/bounty_ipv6
20:55:55  <iRelay> Title: zzz.i2p: IPV6 TODO (at zzz.i2p)
20:55:56  <iRelay> Title: Bounty I2P IPv6 native - I2P (at www.i2p2.i2p)
20:56:04  <dg> I think after/alongside the crypto doup, this is important
20:56:43  <dg> I could do with zzz or welt*
20:56:57  <dg> It'd be fantastic if welt* took it up again
20:59:01  <dg> Meeh is seemingly OK with helping
20:59:12  <dg> If zzz is going to, he needs SSH
20:59:42  <Meeh> I can provide zzz with SSH
20:59:45  <Meeh> to a dev server
21:00:09  <Meeh> we should also start using mailing lists now that it's up :)
21:00:20  * dg nods
21:00:44  <dg> I'm not aware of mailing list etiquette but I can start posting there
21:00:51  * dg crickets
21:01:54  <str4d> Meeh: is it I2P-internal as well, or should we use @i2pmail.org?
21:02:17  <dg> i2p-internal I assumed but..
21:02:20  <Meeh> @i2pmail.org for now... haven't figured out howto bring it inside i2p yet
21:03:16  <str4d> Meeh: you'd need some sort of rewriting. Maybe talk to postman?
21:03:36  <Meeh> yepp, I will
21:04:34  <dg> Should we move on or wait?
21:04:49  <str4d> Back to IPv6, zzz provided a nice summary in the dev forum post
21:05:20  <str4d> It sounds like the next step is to compare and contrast the three possible options.
21:05:43  <str4d> Do we want to do that here/now? In the dev thread? On a Trac wiki page like the crypto one?
21:06:17  <dg> Trac, I say
21:06:52  <Meeh> dg, str4d :
21:06:52  <Meeh> 22:05:27 <postman> if the mailinglist server resides in the internet
21:06:52  <Meeh> 22:05:40 <postman> all people use their @i2pmail.org adress for signup
21:06:52  <Meeh> 22:06:14 <postman> teh mails will be automatically rewritten when transferred to / from internet
21:06:52  <Meeh>                    and i2p
21:07:34  <Meeh> 22:07:02 <postman> ( i think it would be best to have a ml server public)
21:07:56  <Meeh> 22:07:16 <postman> so people without mail.i2p adresses can subscribe
21:08:12  <Meeh> so I suggest current setup, since many that's not on i2p can join the list
21:08:37  <str4d> Meeh: alright.
21:08:54  <dg> <+dg> Should we move on or wait?
21:08:54  <str4d> Oh, and also, if the domain name changes, what happens to the list email?
21:09:04  <dg> CNAME the MX?
21:09:14  <str4d> Ah, true.
21:09:25  <str4d> dg: move on, I think. I don't think we are going to have in-depth IPv6 discussions today,.
21:09:40  <dg> Yeah.. seems that way. I'm dubious about crypto too? :|
21:09:51  <dg> Okay, website revamp!
21:10:07  <dg> str4d has been chugging away at tagging and eliminatin the blockers
21:10:14  <dg> I think we're getting closer to being able to put it live
21:10:17  * dg hands mic to str4d 
21:10:50  <str4d> Okay, the site is edging closer and closer to being ready.
21:11:02  <str4d> I've nearly tagged the entirety of docs/
21:11:36  <str4d> I'm just working on docs/spec/* now, and then docs/discussion/* (though I'm not sure if that one is needed?)
21:12:03  <str4d> docs/spec/ is somewhat hard to fully tag though, as there is a lot of <pre>-formatted stuff which translating will just break.
21:12:36  <str4d> URL-wise, aside from docs/spec/* and docs/discussion/* the entire site should have working URLs.
21:12:51  <str4d> If someone wants to test that (manually or automated) that would be good.
21:13:37  <str4d> Structurally, I don't think there is much more needed for the site - can anyone think of anything?
21:14:55  <hottuna> No
21:15:06  <hottuna> and if flaws are found they can be fixed
21:15:24  <dg> I don't think there's any.. let alone critical
21:15:31  <str4d> Design-wise, I'm still not entirely happy, but that's not critical.
21:15:53  <str4d> The mobile CSS I added *does* have flaws, but it is far easier to use/read than the desktop CSS.
21:16:27  <str4d> So I think the only thing left is to wait for the translations to start coming in.
21:17:10  <str4d> (I'd like to at least have some of the main pages translated before launch, so that Google doesn't think I'm lying to it in the sitemap.xml)
21:19:52  <str4d> And here's an idea: If/when we decide on a new domain, we launch the new site there, so we can test it live, and then inform Google/users via 301 redirect that the new site is the new domain?
21:21:03  <hottuna> the translation is a very big job
21:21:03  <hottuna> one that will take a lot of time
21:21:03  <hottuna> why not update sitemap.xml when translations are available?
21:22:56  <str4d> hottuna: the sitemap is somewhat recursively generated.
21:22:59  <hottuna> Would that be better?
21:23:02  <hottuna> ok
21:23:28  <str4d> It's to do with the whole reflang thing that Google requires.
21:23:51  <str4d> Every page in the sitemap has to list as a lang link every other language page, including itself.
21:24:06  <str4d> And that has to be repeated for each lang variant of a page.
21:24:25  <str4d> I've already split it up into a /sitemapindex.xml and /lang/sitemap.xml pages.
21:24:41  <dg> Would Google really care?
21:24:41  <hottuna> but we're always going to lack translations for some languages?
21:24:45  <str4d> But we also have a Language dropdown, which Google is going to find.
21:25:23  <str4d> hottuna: the list of Languages on the revamp is taken from the current site - there are partial translations for all of them.
21:25:26  <str4d> dg: no idea really.
21:25:59  <dg> It could take a long time to get us translations
21:26:06  <str4d> The sitemap language thing is there so that Google doesn't use the pages themselves to determine language (as in that case, every language variant would be called "English" currently)
21:26:33  <str4d> Hmm... I'll go check whether Google defers to the sitemap entirely, or if it still uses its own observations.
21:26:39  <str4d> I could just be needlessly worrying.
21:26:47  <hottuna> dg: I think it will, historically that has been the case for most languages.
21:27:02  <hottuna> maybe str4d, but ultimately this is your call
21:27:06  <str4d> And if having "lang-specific" pages which aren't translated isn't going to affect our pagerank, then it's not a blocker.
21:29:44  <dg> Hm, ok
21:31:22  * dg waits
21:32:56  <str4d> Okay, just did some reading, and it looks like Google defers to the sitemap
21:33:25  <str4d> Since one usage is translating only the template of the page, and leaving the content in a single language (like forum posts).
21:33:44  <str4d> So, translations are not a blocker, and can be updated as we go.
21:33:51  <str4d> In which case, the site could go live, now.
21:33:51  <dg> Any other bugs?
21:33:58  <dg> Oh. Sweet.
21:34:01  <str4d> (Well, now + time it takes to check all remaining URLs)
21:34:04  <dg> Anyone got any views on putting it live?
21:37:48  <hottuna> alright. if now is an option, i would vote for now
21:37:59  <dg> me too
21:38:34  <str4d> Putting it live requires some help from whoever is running the server (welterde IIRC)
21:38:45  <str4d> And the mirrors.
21:39:20  <hottuna> alright, at next sighting of the welterde/weltende, let's ask?
21:39:34  <str4d> Propagating back to i2p.www is simple. But the server ops need to run the setup script and then configure their WSGI setup to use the virtualenv.
21:40:15  * str4d will prop i2p.www onto the revamp now so that merges etc. can be handled now.
21:42:53  <dg> Huzzah
21:43:12  <hottuna> Yep
21:46:43  <str4d> Okay, so that's the revamp done. dg?
21:46:50  <dg> str4d: Yup.
21:47:21  <dg> I was avoiding moving on
21:47:22  <dg> due to the IPv6 discussion (or lack of..)
21:47:25  <dg> Wanna call it a night?
21:47:25  <dg> I think it's the best choice
21:47:33  <hottuna> Sure
21:47:59  <str4d> Yeah, 1.75 hours can be enough for today
21:48:10  <dg> Heh.
21:48:10  <dg> Alright,
21:48:13  * dg bamfs the meeting closed
21:49:21  <dg> http://zzz.i2p/topics/1343
21:49:28  <iRelay> Title: zzz.i2p: Meeting [6th February] (at zzz.i2p)
21:50:31  <hottuna> the next meeting is the 12/2 not 6/2
21:50:42  <hottuna> wut
21:50:42  <hottuna> ok
21:50:49  <hottuna> or am I confused
21:51:47  <dg> my mistake
21:52:10  <dg> ;_;
21:55:01  <iRelay> <str4d@freenode> ping weltende
23:39:54  <zzz> um, was it just me, or did the meeting totally skip the final decision that changing our URL was definitely a good idea?
23:40:30  <zzz> I saw some pros and cons on changing and then 'lets post a vote for which new one to pick'
23:40:50  <iRelay> <jenkins@kytv> Project Syndie HSQLDB2 build #9:SUCCESS in 15 sec: http://eotfca7qexthbireor6ae7g4hbj5hwuhe4gkzxdx3l3g2t5gzn7q.b32.i2p/job/Syndie%20HSQLDB2/9/
23:41:54  <zzz> nor did I see anybody volunteer to do all the work req'd to implement such a change
23:45:25  <zzz> or is the (unstated) plan to vote on the best name first, and only then decide whether to do it and how?
23:45:29  <zzz> ^^ dg
23:45:55  <dg> Correct, sorry if it wasn't clear
23:46:03  <dg> I'll outline more next time
23:46:49  <zzz> might be me, I was just skimming.
23:46:55  <zzz> so was there a decision made or not?
23:47:37  <dg> We're having a vote next week
23:48:03  <zzz> a vote on what? whether to change, or what to change it to?
23:48:33  <dg> What to change it to
23:48:56  <zzz> so was there a decision made or not on whether to change it at all?
23:48:59  <dg> We could certainly have people abstain though
23:49:06  <dg> which would be a "no change"
23:49:42  <dg> We were in agreement that a change would be nice but unable to agree on what *to*
23:49:52  <zzz> is the decision to change at all a) already made or b) deferred until after the vote?
23:50:14  <dg> b)
23:50:54  <zzz> that wasnt clear to me either from the mtg or from http://zzz.i2p/topics/1343
23:51:01  <iRelay> Title: zzz.i2p: Meeting [12th February] (at zzz.i2p)
23:51:18  <str4d> zzz: What I gathered is that, of the people present at the meeting, the majority were for a change.
23:51:25  <zzz> and to me, imho "would be nice" is far far short of "it's definitely a good idea AND we have volunteers to do the work"
23:51:28  <str4d> But, not all relevant people were at the meeting.
23:51:38  <dg> (e.g. you)
23:52:04  <dg> welt wasn't there either, I may be forgetting someone but was anyone else missing?
23:52:37  <zzz> sure, I was in and out, my bad. But my review of the logs is the pros were saying 'would be nice' and the cons had significant objections.
23:53:04  <str4d> zzz: I don't recall significant objections. Care to elaborate?
23:53:07  <zzz> but dg says it hasn't been decided yet,
23:53:25  <str4d> The only major one was eche's about linkage loss, but that is easily solved with a 301 redirect
23:53:28  <dg> The big one was from ech, saying it would cause big issues
23:53:31  <dg> and that was't true
23:53:45  <dg> s/was't true/debunked
23:53:52  <str4d> (So can't really be fairly compared to the i2p.net -> i2p2.de migration, which *was* an issue)
23:53:58  <zzz> <eche|on> 2. do NOT change the domain again. Thats a pain in the ass. really.
23:53:58  <zzz> <eche|on> user credability is not to be raised with a domain change
23:54:09  <zzz> there's the US-controlled issue I raised
23:54:19  <zzz> there's the amount of work required, which nobody raised
23:54:30  <str4d> "pain-in-the-ass" was referring to above.
23:54:46  <dg> There's links on the main site (how much of that can be done with regex?), some in the source code (same again?)
23:54:46  <dg> What else?
23:54:53  <zzz> there's the SEO issue, which you apparently think is managable, but I'm not so sure
23:55:16  <str4d> User credability - that is rather wishy-washy and IMHO changing from i2p2.* to i2p.* is going to make it easier for users.
23:55:16  <zzz> there's links in our docs and code
23:55:35  <str4d> Links on the site are all relative, so no issues there.
23:55:35  <dg> s/http://www.i2p2.de/http://geti2p.net/
23:55:38  <iRelay> Title: Not found - I2P (at www.i2p2.de)
23:55:38  <dg> s/http://www.i2p2.de/http://geti2p.net/g
23:55:41  <iRelay> Title: Not found - I2P (at www.i2p2.de)
23:55:50  <str4d> Docs and code and SEO - again, a 301 redirect solves all that.
23:56:05  <dg> 301 is perm redirect, yeah?
23:56:08  <str4d> (The docs and code of course should be updated, but the links would not break)
23:56:11  <str4d> Yes.
23:56:21  <dg> If so, I'd assume that's what it was created for - that kind of thing anyway.
23:56:21  <str4d> It's what the revamp has for all the old page locaions
23:56:24  <zzz> if it's not decided yet, (and dg says it isn't) then we can talk about it next week. my reading from the logs and zzz post was that it was decided, but apparently not
23:56:42  <str4d> e.g. /debian.html --[301]--> /en/download/debian
23:56:57  <str4d> zzz: yep, not decided yet, this was just getting the ball rolling.
23:57:04  <zzz> ok
23:57:19  <zzz> also a lot of this requires welt's tme which is in short supply
23:57:24  <str4d> Nothing is going to happen without informed consensus.
23:57:44  <zzz> ok great. guess I misread the logs
23:57:55  <str4d> Yeah, which is why I'd like to sort out the revamp and push it live at the same time.
23:58:29  <str4d> Or rather, I'll keep on working on site stuff and whenever welt turns up we can push it live.
23:59:15  <dg> I'll edit the post to make it clear
23:59:18  <zzz> maybe. trying to change 6 things at once increases the risk too. I'd recommend incrementalism
00:00:16  <zzz> also beware of becoming overly google-focused as there are other search engines too, who may behave differently
00:00:31  <zzz> or at least more slowly
00:00:34  <str4d> zzz: mmm, which is why I suggested putting the revamp on the "new" url to test it.
00:00:42  <str4d> And then apply the 301.
00:00:53  <str4d> (Assuming the url is changed)
00:01:30  <str4d> Yeah, I'll do some checking up of other search engines, but Google seems to use reasonably standard technology (e.g. the sitemap stuff)
00:02:05  * str4d is currently checking and fixing old/broken URLs.
00:03:24  <dg> Edited my post. http://zzz.i2p/topics/1343
00:03:31  <iRelay> Title: zzz.i2p: Meeting [12th February] (at zzz.i2p)
00:05:36  * dg waits for ech to come back
00:05:43  <dg> That'll be tomorrow, right?
00:08:17  <zzz> re: incrementalism, e.g. you may wish to consider using 302s for a few days on the live site until you're sure it's all good before switching to 301s, as you really don't want to mess up 301s
00:08:28  <str4d> Mmm, yep.
00:08:40  <str4d> Do you mean for the legacy pages as well?
00:09:16  <zzz> maybe. something to think about
00:09:43  <str4d> I'm pretty sure all the old pages are good (I manually checked most of them)
00:09:53  <dg> As for domains, https://twitter.com/i2p/status/298485275053666304 - I can't be the only one who thinks that's messy
00:10:00  <str4d> But probably worth checking again at some stage.
00:10:28  <dg> str4d: No reply from zab.
00:12:36  <iRelay> <jenkins@kytv> Starting build #43 for job Cobertura Coverage Reports
00:13:41  <zzz> not saying it's a bad idea to switch (and if we do, geti2p.net is the only choice). Just that we do it purposefully if we do. You made a proposal and held discussion but never called for a decision, or even identified how or when a decision would be made.
00:14:59  <dg> <+hottuna> I prefer geti2p.net, but I think we would need to have an official vote to change it
00:15:02  <dg> <+dg> I concur, hottuna
00:15:13  <dg> only geti2p.net?
00:15:20  <dg> So fuck the vote and just have a y/n?
00:15:27  <dg> that's fine but tell me now :p
00:16:10  <zzz> so the vote to change it and the vote on what to change it to got conflated
00:17:01  <zzz> "only choice" just imho
00:17:12  <dg> Everyone attending was up for changing it (ech was the only one who disagreed and he.. went quiet.. I don't know what that means, no?) so I skipped that step
00:20:04  <zzz> well, run the meeting how you want, but not sure you want to discount people who only object once, especially if you don't have an obvious call for the end of discussion and a decision
00:20:13  <dg> no, i see your opint
00:20:16  <dg> point*
00:20:26  <dg> i do need to outline things more