@@ -8,15 +8,33 @@ Everything in this report is public.
# A. VeraCrypt support in GNOME
## A.5 Add VeraCrypt support to GNOME Disks
Our merge request has been [merged](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-disk-utility/issues/84#note_222551) upstream so this deliverable is now completed.
## A.10 Port to the latest version of GNOME
We backported our glib, GTK+, GVfs, and GNOME Shell patches to the version we use in Tails and created Debian packages to use them in Tails ([#15521](https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/15521#note-4)).
# B. Additional software
## A.8 User testing & community feedback
## B.6 User documentation
We wrote a first draft of the documentation and it was tested during the
user testing.
## B.7 Beta release, user testing & community feedback
We [[published a beta version of the Additional Software feature and asked
users to test it|news/test_asp-beta]]. Bugs and remarks from users have
been collected on our bug tracker in order to improve them
[[!tails_ticket 15567]].
We completed the user testing of the beta version of this feature.
We also conducted and completed a user testing of the beta version.
We organized an in-person moderated user testing with 5 participants. We
recruited participants who are in the target audience for this feature: people
who had tried Tails a few times but who were not expert users.
To this end, we organized an in-person moderated user testing with 5
participants. We recruited participants who are in the target audience
for this feature: people who had tried Tails a few times but who were
not expert users.
The interface that we designed in January worked really well. Only one
participant had a very bad time and failed some of the missions.
(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 :)
(19:11:56) 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.
