Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <06564537-0ac0-b5eb-3ff8-60706ea268ff@artifact-software.com>
References: <03ff01d2f18e$6b24a760$416df620$@alexhitchins.com>
 <d7bc9f94-2dda-3d2a-7eb3-094ca87bbd63@artifact-software.com>
 <CAC2panpXoWc+B2WF07AwHtSa+YtEL6cHMdEbbZdxNiZXPhDv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <045401d2f1a7$7ac1f650$7045e2f0$@alexhitchins.com> <CAC2panr85ia7ywRNGSg9VML8JE9A7Uk=jYc7ULciTbkPWnPnpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <049101d2f1a9$db0a7b70$911f7250$@alexhitchins.com> <DB5PR07MB13344B40EEAB6DEEDF594AF88CD30@DB5PR07MB1334.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <322238167.3118.1498842838950@ox.pcextreme.nl> <06564537-0ac0-b5eb-3ff8-60706ea268ff@artifact-software.com>
From: Will Stevens <williamstevens@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:48:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC2panqhC1qS_t8rUhAUt=dGRaNT8EMrcadDhvO=a9LxWdqkaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113caa44740c1a055331053c"
archived-at: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:48:26 -0000

--001a113caa44740c1a055331053c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am not doing much right now because our company has many other things on
the go.

For about the first 6 months of 2016 CloudOps donated my time full time to
act as the release manager of 4.9. That is not something we or I can
sustain. Which is part of the problem.

On Jun 30, 2017 1:28 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
wrote:

> How many companies are funding staff now to work on Cloudstack? How much
> time?
> How many FTEs does that come to if one adds it all up?
>
> It is harder to get people who are working on their own time to do
> administrative tasks on a tight schedule.
>
> If someone is working for a company that is expecting the person to be
> doing "cloudstack stuff", it may be possible to convince the company to
> dedicate part of that person's time to release management.
>
> A RM doing it all may be harder to fund/organize than a Release Team. Not
> all of the tasks have to be done in sequence or by one person.
>
> Ron
>
> On 30/06/2017 1:13 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>> Op 30 juni 2017 om 18:09 schreef Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> We could probably split this topic down also....
>>>
>>> I think I may have mentioned previously =F0=9F=98=8A my view on how we =
have
>>> somewhat shot ourselves in the foot with the release process this time
>>> around.  I think that for the most part, people have been well intentio=
ned,
>>> and have been trying to 'make this release as good as possible' which i=
s
>>> counter-productive, as it's been introducing new blockers.
>>>
>>> True. But still, somebody who dedicated 5 days a week on releases and
>> keeping track of the project is still very welcome I think.
>>
>> I'm not sure we have a problem in our 'loosely-agreed' process, it's jus=
t
>>> that repeatedly people have ignored it.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say ignore it, but maybe forgotten about the process with al=
l
>> the best intentions.
>>
>> WRT a full-time release manager, I suspect that they would find that "yo=
u
>>> can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".  They would no=
t be
>>> able to compel anyone to 'hurry up and fix that bug you created', altho=
ugh
>>> I guess maybe they could pull a feature if the author(s) didn't sort it=
 out.
>>>
>>> Because ultimately a release manager, paid or otherwise should only be
>>> doing what the 'community' decides the release manager's role is.  So w=
e
>>> need to be clear about how we want releases to work before worrying abo=
ut
>>> who manages that.
>>>
>>> Somebody who reverts a PR or commit to get to a proper release is
>> probably a good thing. RM is a busy task and done in spare time. That's =
not
>> always easy.
>>
>> Other projects like Ceph have a dedicated RM who is busy the whole week
>> with just the new release.
>>
>> We could use such a person, but we would need the funding.
>>
>> How much would that cost? Well, you need to keep the overhead down. A fe=
w
>> companies donating 10k per year should probably allow you to hire a pers=
on.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Paul Angus
>>>
>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>> @shapeblue
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:alex@alexhitchins.com]
>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 15:05
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>
>>> I am in complete agreement with you. Also on your other reply regards t=
o
>>> a FT release manager.
>>>
>>> If 'we' don't go down this line, more and more people will follow the
>>> Cosmic/Schuberg Philis path or even use Cosmic instead.
>>>
>>> I'm encouraged by your response. Sounds like a few others hold the same
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>> ------------------------
>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 14:54
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>
>>> Yes, Schuberg Philis, a very active community member forked Cosmic off
>>> of CloudStack and has been developing their fork for their needs.
>>>
>>> I do think we need to have a more consistent front on this matter. I
>>> think it would make a big difference on the quality, release cadence an=
d
>>> perception of the project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2017 9:48 AM, "Alex Hitchins" <alex@alexhitchins.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Will,
>>>
>>> I understand it's something that comes with a big bag of troublesome
>>> worries.
>>>
>>> If this topic comes up again in any discussions, I'd be interested to
>>> hear their thoughts on what I see as the alternative; without a dedicat=
ed
>>> RM/PM/Captain, people will fork off CS so they can achieve the same thi=
ng,
>>> and CS ultimately looses out long term. I can't remember the name of th=
e
>>> fork, but I think I'm right that a previous large CS contributor/user
>>> forked off as they wanted greater management in the areas we are discus=
sing
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>> ------------------------
>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 14:31
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof
>>>
>>> Apache has been historically against the idea of a cloudstack foundatio=
n
>>> and there is a bit of a pandoras box there which we will want to be car=
eful
>>> about opening.
>>>
>>> Apache added direct contribution, but it was unusable for us
>>> historically because it required a minimum contribution of 50k, which n=
one
>>> of us can afford. However, there have been some changes to the board
>>> recently which are in our favour if we want to put pressure to lower th=
at
>>> to say 5-10k.
>>>
>>> Even if we do solve for smaller direct contributions, we will have to
>>> jump through hoops to be able to use those funds for a dedicated releas=
e
>>> manager. I do think this is a possibility if we manage our needs and
>>> communications very well. I had some preliminary discussions with some
>>> apache foundation folks to express these specific concerns. I played of=
f
>>> the fact that i know they dont want to entertain a cloudstack foundatio=
n
>>> and tried to see if i could get them to move on the direct contribution
>>> mechanism to make it usable for us, specifically with the goal of hirin=
g a
>>> full time release manager. I definitely had their ear and they acknowle=
dged
>>> the problems we are facing (and currently discussing).  They expressed
>>> concerns about being able to hire someone with the direct contributions=
,
>>> but brainstormed a bit to potentially hire an agency who actually does =
the
>>> hire and they pay the persons salary through the agency with the direct
>>> contribution funds.
>>>
>>> All to say, there are potential options here, but there be dragons, so
>>> we have to handle this topic with care.
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2017 9:12 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html says:
>>>> "If you have a specific target or project that you wish to directly
>>>> support, pleasecontact us <https://www.apache.org/founda
>>>> tion/contributing.html#Fundraising>and we will do our best to satisfy
>>>> your wishes."
>>>>
>>>> 1) Is Apache willing to allow projects to set up their own
>>>> foundations? I doubt but someone would need to check this out.
>>>> Does the PMC have the project charter or the agreement that was signed
>>>> when Cloudstack moved.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Has anyone tried to contact Apache about directing support to
>>>> Cloudstack.
>>>>
>>>> I am not convinced that lack of paid staff is the issue.
>>>> This discussion reminded me of this.
>>>> Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb ?
>>>> A: Only one, but the lightbulb must want to change
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lightbulbjokes.com/directory/p.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/06/2017 6:48 AM, Alex Hitchins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As per Giles's comment to the previous thread, I thought I would
>>>>> start a discussion on the subject to canvas peoples thoughts,
>>>>> opinions
>>>>>
>>>> and fears.
>>>
>>>> My question for discussion, is there is any mileage in someone
>>>>> creating a "CloudStack Foundation" as a non-profit entity, funded
>>>>> largely by key CloudStack players with the sole function of employing
>>>>> dedicated resource (part or full time) to handle all releases and
>>>>> other essential 'back office' functions. The idea being it's in
>>>>> everyone's interest to chip in a little each to fund core project and
>>>>>
>>>> release management.
>>>
>>>> The idea might be utterly irrelevant, pointless and/or straight up daf=
t.
>>>>> I urge you all to let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something for you all to think over this weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Hitchins
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> E: alex@alexhitchins.com
>>>>> W: alexhitchins.com
>>>>> M: 07788 423 969
>>>>> T: 01892 523 587
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sirett@shapeblue.com]
>>>>> Sent: 30 June 2017 09:51
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>
>>>>> All
>>>>> This thread seems to have turned into 2 quite different discussions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The use (or not) of Jira - which was the original discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Ways/means of encouraging (and paying for more structured
>>>>> contributors)
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that it could be argued that these are related. Could I
>>>>> suggest opening up a thread on "release and project management and
>>>>> funding it"  and keeping this thread to the original discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> (I will weigh in on both of these at some stage)
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> Giles
>>>>>
>>>>> giles.sirett@shapeblue.com
>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:alex@alexhitchins.com]
>>>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 18:49
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>
>>>>> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to
>>>>> market it as enterprise ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know we all know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same
>>>>> issue, what is the best way to gather experience of these projects?
>>>>> See how they handle these growing pains.
>>>>>
>>>>> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from
>>>>> cloudstack seems a good way forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler
>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
>>>>>> I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members
>>>>>> are funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on
>>>>>> Cloudstack during company time) which is often the way that Apache
>>>>>> projects get staffed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company
>>>>>> to fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not
>>>>>> do something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is
>>>>>> good for the project.
>>>>>> That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap,
>>>>>> and maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on
>>>>>> Cloudstack and it appears to have a very strong and valuable
>>>>>> code-base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers'
>>>>>> ability to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market
>>>>>> share and acceptance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be
>>>>>> treated like a product?
>>>>>> - sufficient functionality to compete
>>>>>> - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
>>>>>> - production reliability and stability
>>>>>> - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued
>>>>>> support
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may not require more effort but requires different policies and
>>>>>> different activities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
>>>>>> - This change can not be included in this release because it will
>>>>>> delay the release.
>>>>>> - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
>>>>>> - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is
>>>>>> too late to test it and fix the docs.
>>>>>> - This fix breaks the docs
>>>>>> - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it
>>>>>> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current for=
m?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming
>>>>>>> it does, fine...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has
>>>>>>> zero funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release
>>>>>>> manager or someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I
>>>>>>> have been trying to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full
>>>>>>> time release manager who can focus 100% on the project. As the
>>>>>>> release manager for 4.9, I know it is a full time job. I did my
>>>>>>> best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay on top of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They
>>>>>>> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their
>>>>>>> best with the little time they can take away from their day job or
>>>>>>> their family life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but
>>>>>>> without a solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved
>>>>>>> testing and automation, we will always struggles with release
>>>>>>> schedules and such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all
>>>>>>> the problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily
>>>>>>> solved.
>>>>>>> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take
>>>>>>> small steps towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic
>>>>>>> with our expectations because we are counting on people's
>>>>>>> generosity to move them forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to
>>>>>>> more contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one
>>>>>>> reason why I struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today.
>>>>>>> I personally don't understand what value it is giving us that the
>>>>>>> github PRs and Issues don't solve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people
>>>>>>> think is best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are
>>>>>>> trying to solve for and simplify our approach in solving it so we
>>>>>>> can get better systems in place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler"
>>>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a
>>>>>>>> project or a production quality product.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the
>>>>>>>> release schedule?
>>>>>>>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which
>>>>>>>> there seem to be many) of releases?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to
>>>>>>>> plan for upgrade windows?
>>>>>>>> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> available?
>>>
>>>> How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain
>>>>>>>> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall
>>>>>>>> vision or add too much complexity?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how
>>>>>>>> would they stop undocumented features or features that contradict
>>>>>>>> the documentation from being incorporated?
>>>>>>>> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of
>>>>>>>> the release?
>>>>>>>> Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or
>>>>>>>> evaluating Cloudstack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a
>>>>>>>> problem know that it has been fixed already in the next release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed
>>>>>>>> change before it gets coded?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a
>>>>>>>> definition of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA?
>>>>>>>> - does not change functionality?
>>>>>>>> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is
>>>>>>>> not properly handled?
>>>>>>>> - only improves code readability or future extensibility?
>>>>>>>> - does not affect documentation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have
>>>>>>>> strong management.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to
>>>>>>>> get recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the
>>>>>>>> product management side of things.
>>>>>>>> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong
>>>>>>>> technical team supporting it.
>>>>>>>> It has very little following because the documentation and
>>>>>>>> marketing collateral is very poor.
>>>>>>>> It gets by because the audience for it is largely software
>>>>>>>> developers who can read code and can test features to work out the
>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the
>>>>>>>> product management side of the project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this
>>>>>>>> takes effort and some discipline.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that
>>>>>>>>> communication? Can we not use issues in github now instead of
>>>>>>>>> jira if someone needs to open an issue but does not yet have code
>>>>>>>>> to contribute. If not, jira could still be used for that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of
>>>>>>>>> pointless. I feel like the github PRs and the cide going in
>>>>>>>>> should be the source of truth, not a random third party tool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release
>>>>>>>>> notes from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier
>>>>>>>>> and more accurate than depending on jira since it does not track
>>>>>>>>> the actual code tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thats my 0.02$.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus" <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
>>>>>>>>> It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding
>>>>>>>>> what CloudStack does and how it does it.
>>>>>>>>> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
>>>>>>>>> Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone
>>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Angus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
>>>>>>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>>>>> <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper
>>>>>>>>> + Jira
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code
>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it
>>>>>>>>> is not required for good coding practices and as we are not and
>>>>>>>>> will not function as a corporation, jira is an extra for those
>>>>>>>>> that grave for it. not a requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>> President
>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>

--001a113caa44740c1a055331053c--