3:32 a.m.
Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
From my point of view there might be two solutions:
1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
(like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
be needed.
2) Another solution might be to organize the elections once more after
some internal gaining in the Env&Stacks WG, to raise awareness of
people about the work this WG is doing.
I am open for any other ideas, helping to solve the current situation.
Please comment.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Nominations
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
1:24 p.m.
On 24 November 2015 at 02:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
From my point of view there might be two solutions:
1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
(like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
be needed.
2) Another solution might be to organize the elections once more after
some internal gaining in the Env&Stacks WG, to raise awareness of
people about the work this WG is doing.
I am open for any other ideas, helping to solve the current situation.
Please comment.
These were my comments previously:
Maybe the problem with not a lot of nominations is that no one knows
what Env & Stacks really does? When I talk with a lot of people their
opinion is that it is mostly a talking versus doing group. It doesn't
have any "power", it doesn't have any real "responsibility", and
it
doesn't have a known scope.
Now those may all be false assumptions, but those are the ones that I
see on IRC from people. Maybe explaining clearly what the group really
does, really has scope over and what it is supposed to deliver may get
people interested in it?
Looking through the history of the list.. there are 2 people who post
regularly to this list: Jan and Honza with no others posting since
maybe June or August. I don't know the exact number of people on the
list, but that would indicate that most people are working on these
problems in other locations.. possibly other Fedora lists and
definitely other CentOS lists. With that being the case, are there
reasons for keeping this group?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
3:24 a.m.
Hi Stephen,
First of all I would like to thank you for your open mail.
I will try to react on it a bit.
On 11/24/2015 08:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
But as I said, thanks for you opened email.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Tasklist
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
On 24 November 2015 at 02:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
>
> during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
> this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
> seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
> I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
>
> From my point of view there might be two solutions:
> 1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
> about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
> (like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
> its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
> be needed.
> 2) Another solution might be to organize the elections once more after
> some internal gaining in the Env&Stacks WG, to raise awareness of
> people about the work this WG is doing.
>
> I am open for any other ideas, helping to solve the current situation.
> Please comment.
>
These were my comments previously:
Maybe the problem with not a lot of nominations is that no one knows
what Env & Stacks really does? When I talk with a lot of people their
opinion is that it is mostly a talking versus doing group. It doesn't
have any "power", it doesn't have any real "responsibility", and
it
doesn't have a known scope.
I guess, that you are right. But see on Docker. It
is part of Fedora and
it works.
There are many projects around env&stack like here [1].
But If I can tell we don't have an aim for each election period, Fedora
release
or real target which we are focusing on. This could be a problem.
From my last election period, I think that we discuss and discuss a bit
more.
We should work on a new things or a visions for Fedora or what should be
an aim for E&S.
I know that there is a bunch of projects like Software Component Pipeline,
DevPI, DevAssistant, Fedora Developer Portal, Docker, Copr and another.
We are working on it.
But they are not visible so much, I guess.
We should do a meeting where should be an update about projects.
But Stephen, on the other hand. Many folks maintain several packages
or they are busy with another work. I guess, that we can not concentrate
fully on E&S projects. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now those may all be false assumptions, but those are the ones that I
see on IRC from people. Maybe explaining clearly what the group really
does, really has scope over and what it is supposed to deliver may get
people interested in it?
Looking through the history of the list.. there are 2 people who post
regularly to this list: Jan and Honza with no others posting since
maybe June or August. I don't know the exact number of people on the
list, but that would indicate that most people are working on these
problems in other locations.. possibly other Fedora lists and
definitely other CentOS lists. With that being the case, are there
reasons for keeping this group?
Group is important, but we should define aims.
Like Fedora modularization. Docker, ....
I think, other WG like Cloud, Workstation, Base have to work closely
with us.
4:33 a.m.
On 24 November 2015 at 19:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
From my point of view there might be two solutions:
1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
(like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
be needed.
That internal post was from me, and I think the idea of downgrading
Environments & Stacks from a governance body to a discussion group is
one we should seriously consider.
As part of explaining why I've started to think that, I'd like to
point out some relevant historical timelines:
* October 2013: Matthew Miller presented the "Fedora Rings" concept at
the inaugural Flock conference
* January 2014: CentOS becomes a Red Hat sponsored community project
* April 2014: Project Atomic was launched
* August 2014: OpenShift Origin v3 rearchitecture was announced
The reason I think that timeline is relevant is that at the time the
Environments & Stacks Working Group was first conceived:
1. CentOS was not yet sponsored directly by Red hat
2. Project Atomic didn't exist as a community
3. OpenShift Origin had yet to rebase their architecture on Docker & Kubernetes
What this means is that initiatives that may otherwise have been
Fedora Environments & Stacks projects have instead found homes in
other communities - the governing body for softwarecollections.org is
a CentOS SIG, the Docker integration work in Fedora is largely being
driven through the Cloud WG and Fedora Release Engineering by way of
initiatives like "Two Week Atomic", and the various pieces of the
Atomic Developer Bundle can be consumed directly from Project Atomic
by the Workstation WG, without needing additional input from
Environments & Stacks.
Containerising components of the operating system itself is a question
to be addressed by the Base WG, while authority over the package
review process rests with the Packaging Committee.
Individual pieces like the Developer Portal, DevAssistant, and COPR
are handled by the people working on them, without needing additional
oversight from Envs & Stacks.
The Software Component Pipeline idea is something I've been looking at
more recently, but like Software Collections before it, I'm starting
to think CentOS may be a better upstream home for that, since it's
aimed primarily at folks for whom the operating system is just "the
place where my code runs", rather than something they're interested in
helping to define. If the SCP ends up looking like it may also be
useful in developing Fedora itself, that would likely be a decision
for FESCo rather than us.
I think Environments & Stacks still has a useful role to play as a
discussion and advocacy group, the only part I'm questioning is the
need to be formally constituted as a working group, with elections and
formal voting procedures.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
5:33 a.m.
On 11/25/2015 11:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 19:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
>
> during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
> this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
> seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
> I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
>
> From my point of view there might be two solutions:
> 1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
> about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
> (like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
> its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
> be needed.
That internal post was from me, and I think the idea of downgrading
Environments & Stacks from a governance body to a discussion group is
one we should seriously consider.
As part of explaining why I've started to think that, I'd like to
point out some relevant historical timelines:
* October 2013: Matthew Miller presented the "Fedora Rings" concept at
the inaugural Flock conference
* January 2014: CentOS becomes a Red Hat sponsored community project
* April 2014: Project Atomic was launched
* August 2014: OpenShift Origin v3 rearchitecture was announced
The reason I think that timeline is relevant is that at the time the
Environments & Stacks Working Group was first conceived:
1. CentOS was not yet sponsored directly by Red hat
2. Project Atomic didn't exist as a community
3. OpenShift Origin had yet to rebase their architecture on Docker & Kubernetes
What this means is that initiatives that may otherwise have been
Fedora Environments & Stacks projects have instead found homes in
other communities - the governing body for softwarecollections.org is
a CentOS SIG, the Docker integration work in Fedora is largely being
driven through the Cloud WG and Fedora Release Engineering by way of
initiatives like "Two Week Atomic", and the various pieces of the
Atomic Developer Bundle can be consumed directly from Project Atomic
by the Workstation WG, without needing additional input from
Environments & Stacks.
Containerising components of the operating system itself is a question
to be addressed by the Base WG, while authority over the package
review process rests with the Packaging Committee.
Individual pieces like the Developer Portal, DevAssistant, and COPR
are handled by the people working on them, without needing additional
oversight from Envs & Stacks.
The Software Component Pipeline idea is something I've been looking at
more recently, but like Software Collections before it, I'm starting
to think CentOS may be a better upstream home for that, since it's
aimed primarily at folks for whom the operating system is just "the
place where my code runs", rather than something they're interested in
helping to define. If the SCP ends up looking like it may also be
useful in developing Fedora itself, that would likely be a decision
for FESCo rather than us.
I think Environments & Stacks still has a useful role to play as a
discussion and advocacy group, the only part I'm questioning is the
need to be formally constituted as a working group, with elections and
formal voting procedures.
Regards,
Nick.
As a previous member I agree. Maybe it's time to work on the agenda
without elected body.
Best regards,
Marcela
1:18 p.m.
On 25 November 2015 at 02:24, Petr Hracek <phracek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
First of all I would like to thank you for your open mail.
I will try to react on it a bit.
On 11/24/2015 08:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 02:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
>>
>> during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
>> this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
>> seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
>> I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
>>
>> From my point of view there might be two solutions:
>> 1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
>> about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
>> (like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
>> its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
>> be needed.
>> 2) Another solution might be to organize the elections once more after
>> some internal gaining in the Env&Stacks WG, to raise awareness of
>> people about the work this WG is doing.
>>
>> I am open for any other ideas, helping to solve the current situation.
>> Please comment.
>>
> These were my comments previously:
>
> Maybe the problem with not a lot of nominations is that no one knows
> what Env & Stacks really does? When I talk with a lot of people their
> opinion is that it is mostly a talking versus doing group. It doesn't
> have any "power", it doesn't have any real "responsibility",
and it
> doesn't have a known scope.
I guess, that you are right. But see on Docker. It is part of Fedora and it
works.
I don't see what that has to do with Env and Stacks. Yes it is an
environment and it is a stack but there is no connection to where
docker got into Fedora because of this group. It doesn't mean there
isn't a connection but it isn't obvious from emails on this list that
the work was because of this group or that it got in faster because
there was a committee.
There are many projects around env&stack like here [1].
But If I can tell we don't have an aim for each election period, Fedora
release
or real target which we are focusing on. This could be a problem.
From my last election period, I think that we discuss and discuss a bit
more.
We should work on a new things or a visions for Fedora or what should be an
aim for E&S.
I know that there is a bunch of projects like Software Component Pipeline,
DevPI, DevAssistant, Fedora Developer Portal, Docker, Copr and another. We
are working on it.
But they are not visible so much, I guess.
We should do a meeting where should be an update about projects.
But Stephen, on the other hand. Many folks maintain several packages
or they are busy with another work. I guess, that we can not concentrate
fully on E&S projects. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is true, but if the work is getting done without the committee
then why is there a committee? If we treat this like a layer in the
kernel or a library.. if the layer does not add anything or that you
are finding that you are just calling the lower layers anyway.. why is
that layer there? Should it be removed, should it be altered? What
things rely on it and would they be better with a different framework?
>
> Now those may all be false assumptions, but those are the ones that I
> see on IRC from people. Maybe explaining clearly what the group really
> does, really has scope over and what it is supposed to deliver may get
> people interested in it?
>
> Looking through the history of the list.. there are 2 people who post
> regularly to this list: Jan and Honza with no others posting since
> maybe June or August. I don't know the exact number of people on the
> list, but that would indicate that most people are working on these
> problems in other locations.. possibly other Fedora lists and
> definitely other CentOS lists. With that being the case, are there
> reasons for keeping this group?
Group is important, but we should define aims.
Like Fedora modularization. Docker, ....
I think, other WG like Cloud, Workstation, Base have to work closely with
us.
>
>
>
>
But as I said, thanks for you opened email.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Tasklist
--
Petr Hracek
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Red Hat, Inc
Mob: +420777056169
email: phracek(a)redhat.com
_______________________________________________
env-and-stacks mailing list
env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/env-and-stacks@lists.fedorapro...
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
12:41 a.m.
On 11/25/2015 08:18 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 25 November 2015 at 02:24, Petr Hracek <phracek(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> First of all I would like to thank you for your open mail.
>
> I will try to react on it a bit.
> On 11/24/2015 08:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> On 24 November 2015 at 02:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
>>>
>>> during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
>>> this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
>>> seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
>>> I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
>>>
>>> From my point of view there might be two solutions:
>>> 1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
>>> about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
>>> (like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
>>> its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
>>> be needed.
>>> 2) Another solution might be to organize the elections once more after
>>> some internal gaining in the Env&Stacks WG, to raise awareness of
>>> people about the work this WG is doing.
>>>
>>> I am open for any other ideas, helping to solve the current situation.
>>> Please comment.
>>>
>> These were my comments previously:
>>
>> Maybe the problem with not a lot of nominations is that no one knows
>> what Env & Stacks really does? When I talk with a lot of people their
>> opinion is that it is mostly a talking versus doing group. It doesn't
>> have any "power", it doesn't have any real
"responsibility", and it
>> doesn't have a known scope.
>
> I guess, that you are right. But see on Docker. It is part of Fedora and it
> works.
>
I don't see what that has to do with Env and Stacks. Yes it is an
environment and it is a stack but there is no connection to where
docker got into Fedora because of this group. It doesn't mean there
isn't a connection but it isn't obvious from emails on this list that
the work was because of this group or that it got in faster because
there was a committee.
Just for the connection, one thing we talked through few weeks back
about docker was the Fedora dockerfiles that require much more love on
https://github.com/fedora-cloud/Fedora-Dockerfiles and as a consequence
Slavek became one of the maintainer on github.
However, even that doesn't invalidate anything said above -- such small
steps are not visible and the steps are too small to be taken as big
contribution.
> There are many projects around env&stack like here [1].
> But If I can tell we don't have an aim for each election period, Fedora
> release
> or real target which we are focusing on. This could be a problem.
>
> From my last election period, I think that we discuss and discuss a bit
> more.
> We should work on a new things or a visions for Fedora or what should be an
> aim for E&S.
> I know that there is a bunch of projects like Software Component Pipeline,
> DevPI, DevAssistant, Fedora Developer Portal, Docker, Copr and another. We
> are working on it.
> But they are not visible so much, I guess.
> We should do a meeting where should be an update about projects.
>
> But Stephen, on the other hand. Many folks maintain several packages
> or they are busy with another work. I guess, that we can not concentrate
> fully on E&S projects. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
That is true, but if the work is getting done without the committee
then why is there a committee? If we treat this like a layer in the
kernel or a library.. if the layer does not add anything or that you
are finding that you are just calling the lower layers anyway.. why is
that layer there? Should it be removed, should it be altered? What
things rely on it and would they be better with a different framework?
Valid points. From my PoV, having a real committee is needed only when
there are some questionable issues where we need to dive deep, explain
several solutions and vote for one of them. During last year, many
discussions about future of Fedora happened during E&S meetings, but I
don't remember any voting, it was basically not needed. And without need
to be a decision body I don't see reasons to have E&S elections either,
maybe not even official membership.
Honza
1:07 a.m.
On 11/25/2015 11:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 19:32, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hi Env & Stacks Working Group,
>
> during the Nomination period of the Nov/Dec 2015 Fedora Elections,
> this working group has not got enough nominees to cover all the open
> seats. We have currently 4 open seats but only 2 nominees [1].
> I would like to agree on a plan, how to deal with this situation.
>
> From my point of view there might be two solutions:
> 1) On an internal mailing list in RedHat I have seen some comments
> about handover of responsibilities from Env&Stacks WG to other teams
> (like Atomic, Cloud, etc.). If this is the case, the WG might revisit
> its purpose and adapt the resources to it, so the Elections will not
> be needed.
That internal post was from me, and I think the idea of downgrading
Environments & Stacks from a governance body to a discussion group is
one we should seriously consider.
As part of explaining why I've started to think that, I'd like to
point out some relevant historical timelines:
* October 2013: Matthew Miller presented the "Fedora Rings" concept at
the inaugural Flock conference
* January 2014: CentOS becomes a Red Hat sponsored community project
* April 2014: Project Atomic was launched
* August 2014: OpenShift Origin v3 rearchitecture was announced
The reason I think that timeline is relevant is that at the time the
Environments & Stacks Working Group was first conceived:
1. CentOS was not yet sponsored directly by Red hat
2. Project Atomic didn't exist as a community
3. OpenShift Origin had yet to rebase their architecture on Docker & Kubernetes
What this means is that initiatives that may otherwise have been
Fedora Environments & Stacks projects have instead found homes in
other communities - the governing body for softwarecollections.org is
a CentOS SIG, the Docker integration work in Fedora is largely being
driven through the Cloud WG and Fedora Release Engineering by way of
initiatives like "Two Week Atomic", and the various pieces of the
Atomic Developer Bundle can be consumed directly from Project Atomic
by the Workstation WG, without needing additional input from
Environments & Stacks.
Containerising components of the operating system itself is a question
to be addressed by the Base WG, while authority over the package
review process rests with the Packaging Committee.
Individual pieces like the Developer Portal, DevAssistant, and COPR
are handled by the people working on them, without needing additional
oversight from Envs & Stacks.
The Software Component Pipeline idea is something I've been looking at
more recently, but like Software Collections before it, I'm starting
to think CentOS may be a better upstream home for that, since it's
aimed primarily at folks for whom the operating system is just "the
place where my code runs", rather than something they're interested in
helping to define. If the SCP ends up looking like it may also be
useful in developing Fedora itself, that would likely be a decision
for FESCo rather than us.
I think Environments & Stacks still has a useful role to play as a
discussion and advocacy group, the only part I'm questioning is the
need to be formally constituted as a working group, with elections and
formal voting procedures.
I have to admit I haven't thought about the changes above as something
that would influence E&S, but it does make sense to me after reading it
and giving a day to think more about it. And it's good that such things
happen, no matter where it is.
From my PoV there are still same directions where we want to go with
Fedora distro -- being more flexible, lowering barriers, etc. Even the
Component Pipeline is something I see valid for Fedora, maybe just piece
of it, not whole. But having that, it would be something that would
bring the missing flexibility.
That said, I mostly agree with the opinions here about the elections and
stuff.
honza
4:20 a.m.
On 26 November 2015 at 17:07, Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
From my PoV there are still same directions where we want to go with
Fedora
distro -- being more flexible, lowering barriers, etc. Even the Component
Pipeline is something I see valid for Fedora, maybe just piece of it, not
whole. But having that, it would be something that would bring the missing
flexibility.
Right, I still see value in Envs & Stacks as a public discussion forum
to kick around ideas like "How might the Software Component Pipeline
concept be useful to Fedora?". There are a range of folks working on,
or at least interested in, various developer experience and
modularisation related projects that have the potential to influence
Fedora's future direction, so it's good to have a place to be able to
raise those ideas that don't already have a home and ask "Hey, is this
something we think is worth pursuing further?".
However, that "preliminary sounding board" role doesn't require the
formal governance structure we have now - the mailing list and the
space on the wiki are all we need, with one of the things we discuss
being where and how to pitch ideas we decide to pursue.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
4:28 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On 26 November 2015 at 17:07, Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> From my PoV there are still same directions where we want to go with Fedora
> distro -- being more flexible, lowering barriers, etc. Even the Component
> Pipeline is something I see valid for Fedora, maybe just piece of it, not
> whole. But having that, it would be something that would bring the missing
> flexibility.
Right, I still see value in Envs & Stacks as a public discussion forum
to kick around ideas like "How might the Software Component Pipeline
concept be useful to Fedora?". There are a range of folks working on,
or at least interested in, various developer experience and
modularisation related projects that have the potential to influence
Fedora's future direction, so it's good to have a place to be able to
raise those ideas that don't already have a home and ask "Hey, is this
something we think is worth pursuing further?".
However, that "preliminary sounding board" role doesn't require the
formal governance structure we have now - the mailing list and the
space on the wiki are all we need, with one of the things we discuss
being where and how to pitch ideas we decide to pursue.
I totally agree. I also think we should be a group of people that encourages new ideas and
new ways to improve Fedora - and also tries to give guidance and helping hand to those
that come up with the ideas. IOW, if you have a crazy idea and are afraid/unsure what the
broader community would say, come talk to us first and we'll work with you to form a
solid proposal/POC/"marketing strategy" for it.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
--
Regards,
Slavek Kabrda
3071
days inactive
3073
days old
env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Bohuslav Kabrda -
Honza Horak -
Jan Kurik -
Marcela Mašláňová -
Nick Coghlan -
Petr Hracek -
Stephen John Smoogen