# Basic info * Time: Wednesday 21 October 2026 at 14:00 CEST (12:00 UTC) * Place: #openvpn-meeting channel on !LiberaChat IRC network # Topics - **Updated: community meetup 2026** The community meetup has concluded. One of the main takeaways was a potential for 2.8 release in Q1 2027. Meeting notes here: https://community.openvpn.net/Meetups/2026-Paderborn The location for the next community meetup is set to Zagreb. * **Updated: 2.7.x release** Version 2.7.9 is planned for 4 November. # Backlog * **Updated: 2.7.x release** Originally 2.7.8 was planned for last week, but a last moment fix for Windows DCO driver made us decide to postpone till today. 2.7.8 with the Windows DCO driver update will go out today. Version 2.7.9 is now planned for 4 November. - **test latency and MTU in openvpn** A new feature is proposed for adding to master; ability to do latency and MTU tests in the OpenVPN protocol. This would allow for a client to for example select the best available server based on test results. This is currently under review: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/q/topic:%22oob-server-probe%22 The design document is here: https://github.com/lstipakov/openvpn/blob/server-probe-design/design-server-probe.md - **2.7 security audit** The security audit was completed for 2.7.0 and results are available internally. We are working to publish this in an official blog post. ordex and novaflash are driving this in OpenVPN Inc. internally. * **Coordinating big changes** A related discussion is how to handle big changesets (e.g. currently the multipeer changes from plaisthos and the oob changes from lev). There was some unhappiness that these changesets are dropped without sufficient context and that makes it hard to keep track of all the developments. One advise is that developers that want to have big (or many) changes merged are encouraged to write a mail to the mailing list to provide a "cover letter" for the patch set and a convenient place to discuss the overall direction without getting bogged down in the discussion of individual changes. We have lost this practice since not generally using mail-based patchsets anymore. That can be also a good opportunity to point out dicussions happening in PRs for the RFC document.