Hi,
I’ve updated based on feedback here and added the work in progress disclaimer.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.o
I think rewording the termination spew could help as there has been
feedback on incubator coming across as “unwelcoming” etc.
Just my 2c
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:22 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > 1. Should we move disclaimer and release up instead of being the
HI,
> A couple of suggested edits to the responsibilities.
Thanks for those.
> A note about "Podlings MUST NOT perform any releases”. I think that this does
> not properly handle the reality of new Podlings like Zipkin that already have
> existing communities and need to transition their relea
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback.
> 1. Should we move disclaimer and release up instead of being the last?
> Seems like good to be upfront with these
For now I’ve just left thing in the order they were.
> 2. About “It MAY consider the termination of a Podling if violations are
> not corrected.“
It
Hi Justin,
A couple of suggested edits to the responsibilities:
- Welcoming new Podlings to become part of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF).
- Guiding Podlings to govern and grow their communities according to *the
Apache Way*, the ASF's philosophy and guidelines for collaborative developmen
Hi Justin, two thoughts
1. Should we move disclaimer and release up instead of being the last?
Seems like good to be upfront with these
2. About “It MAY consider the termination of a Podling if violations are
not corrected.“
Should we put a timeframe on the correction? It seems like violations in
Hi,
Anyone have any other feedback or shod I just commit the changes?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Hi,
And here's my attempt to update, simplify and modernise the policy. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/21/files
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional c
Hi Justin,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:26 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> I reorganised the policy pages and that can be seen here. [1]
Thanks!
> ..The next task which I think would be useful to to simply that language on
> that page...
I have slightly reworked the beginning and added a link to the
c
Hi,
I reorganised the policy pages and that can be seen here. [1]
The next task which I think would be useful to to simply that language on that
page as it’s not written in a very user friendly way. It's wordy and uses
lauaguage that non-native english speakers I assume would find difficult to
t
sure which)
- Release Management (these documents were all direct copies of foundation
wide procedures). The one call out on this one is the 2013 alternate
release voting. I'm not sure anyone has actually used it, and I'm not sure
if we should still maintain it.
Here are some of the
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mike Jumper wrote:
>
>> Is the project-specific organization option not really an option at all
>> then? Frowned upon for a TLP, and not to be considered by a podling?
>
> My chief concern so far has been ass
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> Is the project-specific organization option not really an option at all
> then? Frowned upon for a TLP, and not to be considered by a podling?
My chief concern so far has been assuring that our nascent Infra-supported
offerings do not conflict
On Sep 6, 2016 5:38 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Or, matching up with our (post-graduation) Git repo naming
> convention again:
>
> apache/guacamole
> apache/guacamole-guacd
>
> apache/guacamole:0.9.10-incubating
> apache/guacamole-guacd:0.9.10-incubating
>
> I think th
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> All, setting aside the Docker Hub vs. Apache-hosted hub vs. bintray
> discussion for the moment,
The issue of hub.docker.com/r/apache/* has been worked out in principle with
Infra. Only official releases will be be built, and `latest` will po
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
> >>
> >> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
> >> that the only artifacts allowed there would be re
thx
On 01.09.2016 21:04, John D. Ament wrote:
Reach out to infra. You can create a JIRA ticket.
John
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to have a docker
image on
Reach out to infra. You can create a JIRA ticket.
John
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
>
> But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to have a docker
> image on https://hub.docker.com/u/apache/ ?
>
> bye
Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to have a docker
image on https://hub.docker.com/u/apache/ ?
bye Jochen
On 29.08.2016 01:21, Mike Jumper wrote:
Hello all,
We, Apache Guacamole (incubating), would like to migrate our
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:30 AM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> > wrote:
> >
> >> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
> >> that the only artifacts allowed t
Jake,
I"m definitely interested in hearing more. I've been off and on trying to
get ActiveMQ Artemis builds up on docker. I haven't gotten quite enough of
an answer from infra, and don't know enough myself to get it working right.
I suspect, from my own artifactory experience, the bintray exper
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> We have our own docker registry available for projects to use, its hosted
> out of bintray. Access can be granted per project via an infra ticket
> request.
>
> Dockerhub is used in an automated builds capacity, we can set it to only
> build
We have our own docker registry available for projects to use, its hosted
out of bintray. Access can be granted per project via an infra ticket
request.
Dockerhub is used in an automated builds capacity, we can set it to only
build tagged versions.
Happy to answer any questions about either offer
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> FWIW, I say that we should just adopt a repository.apache.org approach
> and declare that nightly/snapshot Docker images can only be distributed
> from our own Docker repo. That way there's absolutely 0 chance anybody
> can get them by ac
On Aug 29, 2016 8:30 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>
> ...
> >> Note that there was a separate discussion focused on where is the right
> >> place for nightly/snapshot Docker builds to be deposited to.
> >>
> >> Sadly, that discussion bore no fruit :-(
> >>
> >
> > Was there? I would love to get
See my reply to John if you're curious to know my take on both questions.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>>
>> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
>> that the only artifacts
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
>> that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones.
>>
>> If we agree on that, I see no problem w
Sorry for a lazy question. Can you point me at the proces you have
ant/maven/shell/jenkins/whatever that builds the dockers. I would be
interested in seeing if I can apply that elsewhere.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Mike Jumper
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We, Apache Guacamole (incubating), woul
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>>
>> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
>> that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones.
>>
>> If we agree on that, I see no problem with
>>
On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>
> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
> that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones.
>
> If we agree on that, I see no problem with
>apache/incubator-foo
> naming of your *released* Docker ima
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
> that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones.
>
> If we agree on that, I see no problem with
>apache/incubator-foo
> naming of your *released* Docker
First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure
that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones.
If we agree on that, I see no problem with
apache/incubator-foo
naming of your *released* Docker images.
Note that there was a separate discussion focused on where
Hello all,
We, Apache Guacamole (incubating), would like to migrate our project's
Docker images to something beneath the ASF, but I am unsure how to
proceed, nor the form that this migration would best take.
We currently have two repositories which provide Docker images:
incubator-guacamole-clien
The following binding votes were cast in favor (+1):
Craig Russell
Bertrand Delacretaz
Martijn Dashorst
Robert Burrell Donkin
Matt Hogstrom
Jean T. Anderson
Davanum Srinivas
The following non-binding vote was cast in favor (+1):
Luciano Resende
No other votes were cast.
The vote passes. The po
+1 (non-binding)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice th
+1
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> -jean
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that there
>> has been no recent action on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
>>
>> An aff
+1
-jean
Craig L Russell wrote:
While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that
there has been no recent action on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which currently
confuses the role of the PPMC and the
+1
On Jun 26, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that
there has been no recent action on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which
currently confuses the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that there has
> been no recent action on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
>
> An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which cur
+1
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that there has
> been no recent action on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
>
> An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which
+1
--- Noel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Index: site-author/incubation/Incubation_Policy.xml...
+1 to the proposed patch, thanks for this.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that
there has been no recent action on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which currently
confuses the role of the PPMC and the incubator PMC. The patch simply
On Dec 19, 2007 1:57 PM, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache UIMA just passed its release vote; where should we post the release?
>
> A recent change to the incubator policy resulted in the page
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.
Apache UIMA just passed its release vote; where should we post the release?
A recent change to the incubator policy resulted in the page
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html saying
that distributions *must* be from www.a.o/dist/incubator/.
The www.a.o/dist site on
[X ] +1 Accept the changes
--
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For a
On May 22, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I've updated this proposal to explicitly include the possibility of
a single Mentor. Since this change affects Policy, another vote is
needed.
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to
On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[X ] +1 Accept the changes
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 07:52, Craig L Russell wrote:
> On May 22, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
> > OK, just so I understand. We have a Member who's not on the IPMC. He
> > or she agree to Mentor a candidate, but before the proposal is
> > tendered, the Member should first ask to be placed
Hi Ted,
On May 22, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator
PMC by
> virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator
PMC.
> Did that change? This language impl
On 5/22/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
> virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
> Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
> pre-existing members of the Inc
Hi Ted,
On May 22, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
pre-existing members of the Incubato
I've updated this proposal to explicitly include the possibility of a
single Mentor. Since this change affects Policy, another vote is needed.
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them. The JIRA issue has .html files
to review in
At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by
virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC.
Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be
pre-existing members of the Incubator PMC.
Is there a reason why we are saying "chosen by the
I'm pulling this vote in order to update the definition of Mentors
per Jim and Justin's request. I'm hoping that the change is ok with
everyone else.
I'll have another patch ready for a vote shortly.
Craig
On May 22, 2007, at 7:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM,
+1
On 5/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Would this be ok?
>
> Change
>
> Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling,
> guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the
> Sponsor and
+1
On May 21, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Would this be ok?
Change
Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling,
guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the
Sponsor and the Incubator PMC. All Mentors must be members of the
Incubato
Hi Martin,
On May 21, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Out of curiosity, what form does the reporting to the Sponsor
and Incubator PMC take? If it's in writing and public, where
can the rest of the podling community see it?
That detail is not documented anywhere.
Craig
Martin
Craig
Out of curiosity, what form does the reporting to the Sponsor
and Incubator PMC take? If it's in writing and public, where
can the rest of the podling community see it?
Martin
Craig L Russell wrote:
Would this be ok?
Change
Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling, gu
Would this be ok?
Change
Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling,
guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the
Sponsor and the Incubator PMC. All Mentors must be members of the
Incubator PMC. A Mentor has responsibilities toward the Incubator
On 5/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is, afaik, still some people who think that having
more than one Mentor is unwise (the old saw is more than
one mentor means no mentors)... If a podling wishes
to have just 1, we should honor that, I think.
Therefore I would think some s
Hi Bill,
On May 20, 2007, at 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Please review the changes in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept
Just an FYI - I haven't followed the jira flow terribly well,
mostly because
it takes an order of mag
On May 20, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them. Since this is Incubator
Policy, an affirmative vote is needed before changing. The JIRA
issue has .html files to review in addition
On May 21, 2007, at 8:26 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Just an FYI - I haven't followed the jira flow terribly well,
mostly because
it takes an order of magnitude longer in time to parse a Jira
incident rather
than approve a patch posted to the list. If you could at least
attach the
patch
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Please review the changes in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept
Just an FYI - I haven't followed the jira flow terribly well, mostly because
it takes an order of magnitude longer in time to parse a Jira incident rather
than approve a pa
ATOR-60 and vote to accept them. Since this is Incubator Policy,
an affirmative vote is needed before changing. The JIRA issue
has .html files to review in addition to the patch.
[ ] +1 Accept the changes
[ ] -1 Don't accept the changes because...
This vote will run until Tuesday May 23.
Thank
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Craig L. Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
> INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them.
+1
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 21 May 2007 05:12, Craig L Russell wrote:
> [x] +1 Accept the changes
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
--
Hola,
On 5/20/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them. Since this is Incubator Policy,
an affirmative vote is needed before changing. The JIRA issue
has .html files to rev
Please review the changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept them. Since this is Incubator Policy,
an affirmative vote is needed before changing. The JIRA issue
has .html files to review in addition to the patch.
[ ] +1 Accept the changes
[ ] -1 Don&#
"graduation" in
Incubator Policy
[ ] -1 don't approve the patch
I've attached the JIRA reference [1] and formatted html page [2]
so you don't need to apply the patch to see what it will do. There
are broken links because the page is not in its preferred location
+1
Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ ] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
> Incubator Policy
>
> [ ] -1 don't approve the patch
>
> I've attached the JIRA reference [1] and formatted html page [2]
On Monday 16 April 2007 04:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
[x] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
Incubator Policy
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
On Monday 16 April 2007 04:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
[x] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
Incubator Policy
Cheers
Niclas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For ad
On 4/15/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[X ] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
Incubator Policy
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
On 4/15/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Paul
On 4/15/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ ] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
> Incubator Policy
>
> [ ] -1 don't approve the
+1
Paul
On 4/15/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
Incubator Policy
[ ] -1 don't approve the patch
I've attached the JIRA reference [1] and formatted html page [2] so
you
[ ] +1 approve the patch to change "escalation" to "graduation" in
Incubator Policy
[ ] -1 don't approve the patch
I've attached the JIRA reference [1] and formatted html page [2] so
you don't need to apply the patch to see what it will do. There are
"...
>> >
>> > Craig, since I know you are a lot into Incubator docs, either tell
>> > me where to
>> > fix the 'typo' in that paragraph, or change the pluralis forms to;
>>
>> Sadly, the paragraph in question is in the Incubator poli
ust* be on the IPMC to be a mentor.
>>
>> Actually, according to Incubator policy [1] it's the other way
>> around.
>> "Upon acceptance by the Incubator PMC, the Podling's Mentor
becomes a
>> member of the Incubator PMC (should they not already
Leo Simons wrote:
> Rest assured, the whole CXF thread doesn't apply to projects like
> Wicket. Where wicket was a solid open source community already
+1
I normally would post a "me, too" e-mail like this, but I do want to
reassure the Wicket folks!
--- Noel
-
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > From the documents I have read on the policy for entering, being
> > inside and graduating from the incubator there is a lot of talk on
> > process, but not a lot of explanation on *why* the process is in
> > place, nor on how things are do
nity
which is basically put on hold whilst incubating, if you follow the
incubator policy (and some egos) to the letter.
any process can be subverted. apache trusts communities not process.
decisions are taken in public before the court of public opinion. so,
look at the people, not the proc
On Oct 6, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Steve Vinoski wrote:
Sorry, Leo, but I don't see the point of your message below making
statements about CXF that are wholly untrue.
The point was to provide some insight into the differences between
different projects under incubation and how that leads to a dif
Sorry, Leo, but I don't see the point of your message below making
statements about CXF that are wholly untrue.
First, CXF is corporate? That's incorrect, given that it's purely the
combination of two separate open source projects, Celtix and XFire.
Celtix was developed completely under the
Hey Martijn,
do keep sending these e-mails. Less replies doesn't mean that its
less valuable.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 9:38 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Just to pose an outsider view, being new to the ASF and not to hijack
the discussion on the CFX/CeltiXFire, I would like to share my views
on the
iolating code, etc) and a non-measurable component (mature enough to
be an 'apache' project). Given the sometimes extreme views expressed
here (a nice read though :-), it is for an existing project really
hard to trust such a process when you already have a healthy community
which is basi
t incubating, if you follow the
incubator policy (and some egos) to the letter.
Note that I understand the opposite views presented in the CFX case
and I sympathize with all of them. I just wanted to express a view of
someone coming from the outside, and looking at the process as it
takes place.
For
88 matches
Mail list logo
