cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com>
Subject Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2018 01:21:18 GMT
I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I have
been a bit slammed at the moment.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike, <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
wrote:

> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think it
> would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each one? One time
> that I was on one of these panels a couple years ago, we each reviewed the
> roughly dozen presentations that were submitted. Of course, people may not
> be able to spend that amount of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it is
> adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed to be
> sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to do a proper
> review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> Perfect…then, unless anyone has other opinions they’d like to share on
> the topic, let’s follow that approach.
> >>
> >> On 4/5/18, 9:43 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner" <rafaelweingartner@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>     That is exactly it.
> >>          On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
> >>     wrote:
> >>          > Hi Rafael,
> >>     >
> >>     > I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final
> say on how
> >>     > we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in
> >>     > Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s
> normal
> >>     > review process to gather all the feedback from the larger Apache
> Community.
> >>     >
> >>     > As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that
> mechanism
> >>     > and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on
> our users@
> >>     > and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call
> and make
> >>     > final decisions on the CFP.
> >>     >
> >>     > Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
> >>     >
> >>     > Talk to you soon,
> >>     > Mike
> >>     >
> >>     > On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner" <
> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com>
> >>     > wrote:
> >>     >
> >>     >     I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already
> signed up to
> >>     >     review.
> >>     >
> >>     >     Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache
> main
> >>     > review
> >>     >     system, and then we use that to decide which presentations
> will get in
> >>     >     CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we
> also remove
> >>     >     bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from
> Apache
> >>     > community
> >>     >     (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair
> and
> >>     > technical
> >>     >     (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
> >>     >
> >>     >     Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs
> to gather
> >>     > the
> >>     >     results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the
> ones to our
> >>     >     tracks.
> >>     >
> >>     >     What do you (Mike) and others think?
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >     On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> >>     > Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
> >>     >     wrote:
> >>     >
> >>     >     > Hi Ron,
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have
> currently
> >>     > signed
> >>     >     > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present,
> I’m only
> >>     > aware of
> >>     >     > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks.
> We’re still
> >>     > quite
> >>     >     > early in the process.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     > Thanks for your feedback,
> >>     >     > Mike
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <
> rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> >>     > wrote:
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     I don't think that scheduling is part of the review
> process and
> >>     > that
> >>     >     > can
> >>     >     >     be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on
> behalf of
> >>     > the PMC.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     To me review is looking at content for
> >>     >     >     - relevance
> >>     >     >     - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to
> content,
> >>     > English,
> >>     >     >     graphics, etc.)
> >>     >     >     This should result in a consensus score
> >>     >     >     - Perfect - ready for prime time
> >>     >     >     - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> >>     >     >     - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer
> could
> >>     > volunteer
> >>     >     >     to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> >>     >     >     - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     The reviewers could also make non-binding
> recommendations about
> >>     > the
> >>     >     >     balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> >>     >     >     Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap,
> etc.
> >>     > based on
> >>     >     >     what they have seen.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     This should be used by the organizers to make the
> choices and
> >>     > organize
> >>     >     >     the program.
> >>     >     >     The organizers have the final say on the choice of
> presentations
> >>     > and
> >>     >     >     schedule
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     I would be worried that you do not have enough
> reviewers rather
> >>     > than
> >>     >     > too
> >>     >     >     many.
> >>     >     >     Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     When planning meetings, I would recommend that you
> clearly
> >>     > separate the
> >>     >     >     roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings
> about
> >>     > review. Get
> >>     >     >     the list of presentation to present to the reviewers
> and decide
> >>     > if
> >>     >     > there
> >>     >     >     are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> >>     >     >     I would recommend that you keep the organizing group
> small.
> >>     > Membership
> >>     >     >     should be set by the PMC and should be people that are
> committed
> >>     > to the
> >>     >     >     ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can
> request
> >>     > help for
> >>     >     >     specific tasks from others in the community who are not
> on the
> >>     >     > committee.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     I would also recommend that organizers do not do
> reviews. They
> >>     > should
> >>     >     >     read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be
> a
> >>     > suggestion of
> >>     >     >     favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also
> ensures that
> >>     > the
> >>     >     >     organizers are not getting heat from rejected
> presenters - "it
> >>     > is the
> >>     >     >     reviewers fault you did not get selected".
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so
> that no one
> >>     > is
> >>     >     >     essential and each reviewer has a limited number of
> >>     > presentations to
> >>     >     >     review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple
> people.
> >>     > Also
> >>     >     > bear
> >>     >     >     in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to
> review
> >>     > each
> >>     >     >     presentation.
> >>     >     >     Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary
> comments given
> >>     > to the
> >>     >     >     presenter. Reviewers of a presentation should be able
> to discuss
> >>     > the
> >>     >     >     presentation during the review to make sure that
> reviewers do
> >>     > not feel
> >>     >     >     isolated or get lost when they hit content that they
> don't
> >>     > understand
> >>     >     > fully.
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     Ron
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     On 01/04/2018 12:20 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >>     >     >     > Thanks for the feedback, Will!
> >>     >     >     >
> >>     >     >     > I agree with the approach you outlined.
> >>     >     >     >
> >>     >     >     > Thanks for being so involved in the process! Let’s
> chat with
> >>     > Giles
> >>     >     > once he’s back to see if we can get your questions answered.
> >>     >     >     >
> >>     >     >     >> On Mar 31, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Will Stevens <
> >>     > wstevens@cloudops.com>
> >>     >     > wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> In the past the committee was chosen as a relatively
> small
> >>     > group in
> >>     >     > order
> >>     >     >     >> to make it easier to manage feedback.  In order
to
> make it
> >>     > fair to
> >>     >     > everyone
> >>     >     >     >> in the community, I would suggest that instead
of
> doing it
> >>     > with a
> >>     >     > small
> >>     >     >     >> group, we do it out in the open on a scheduled
call.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> We will have to get a list of the talks that
are
> CloudStack
> >>     >     > specific from
> >>     >     >     >> ApacheCon, but that should be possible.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Once we have the talks selected, then a smaller
> number of us
> >>     > can
> >>     >     > work on
> >>     >     >     >> setting up the actual ordering and the details.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> I have been quite involved so far.  Giles and
I have
> been
> >>     >     > organizing the
> >>     >     >     >> sponsors, website and dealing with ApacheCon
so far.
> >>     > Obviously,
> >>     >     > Mike is
> >>     >     >     >> also working on this as well.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> I think we are headed in the right direction
on this.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Cheers,
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Will
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> On Mar 31, 2018 11:49 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <
> >>     >     > Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
> >>     >     >     >> wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Hi Ron,
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> I am definitely open to working this however
makes
> the most
> >>     > sense.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> It looks like Will’s e-mail indicates that
the
> process I
> >>     > suggested
> >>     >     > has been
> >>     >     >     >> followed in the past (which is how I recall,
as
> well).
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Let’s make sure I understood Will correctly.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Will – Are you, in fact, indicating that what
I was
> >>     > suggesting is
> >>     >     > how we
> >>     >     >     >> have reviewed the CFP in the past? If so, are
you
> able to
> >>     > address
> >>     >     > Ron’s
> >>     >     >     >> concerns?
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Also, Will – I am not sure about a hackathon.
Let’s
> chat with
> >>     > Giles
> >>     >     > once
> >>     >     >     >> he’s back from vacation since he’s been the
most
> involved with
> >>     >     > organizing
> >>     >     >     >> the CloudStack track within ApacheCon.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Thanks!
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> Mike
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >> On 3/31/18, 9:00 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <
> >>     > rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> >>     >     > wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     I am not sure about your concern in that
case.
> >>     >     >     >>     I am not sure why people not interested in
> Cloudstack
> >>     > would
> >>     >     > volunteer as
> >>     >     >     >>     reviewers and want to pick bad presentations.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     I would be more worried that there are not
> enough good
> >>     >     > presentations
> >>     >     >     >>     proposed rather than some meritorious
> presentation will
> >>     > get
> >>     >     > rejected due
> >>     >     >     >>     to "outsiders" voting it down in favour of
less
> useful
> >>     >     > presentations.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     It may be tricky to get balance if that means
> taking "bad"
> >>     >     > proposals
> >>     >     >     >>     that can not be fixed that cover topics that
are
> in areas
> >>     > that
> >>     >     > are not
> >>     >     >     >>     otherwise covered at the expense of great
> presentations
> >>     > that
> >>     >     > are in
> >>     >     >     >>     areas with many choices.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     We should wait to see how many presentations
> have to be
> >>     >     > rejected and the
> >>     >     >     >>     number of reviewers before getting too exercised
> over the
> >>     >     > loyalty of
> >>     >     >     >>     reviewers.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     Getting more reviewers is likely the most
> effective way
> >>     > to see
> >>     >     > that a
> >>     >     >     >>     wider range of topics is covered.
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>     Ron
> >>     >     >     >>
> >>     >     >     >>>     On 31/03/2018 7:15 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>> Hi Ron,
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>  From what I understand, the CloudStack proposals
> will be
> >>     > mixed in
> >>     >     >     >> with all of the ApacheCon proposals.
> >>     >     >     >>> In the past when I’ve participated in these
> CloudStack
> >>     > panels to
> >>     >     >     >> review proposals, we had to compare each proposal
> against the
> >>     >     > others to
> >>     >     >     >> arrive at a balance of topics (i.e. not all
> networking
> >>     > focused, not
> >>     >     > all
> >>     >     >     >> XenServer focused, etc.) and to suggest improvements
> for
> >>     > proposals
> >>     >     > that we
> >>     >     >     >> did not accept for other reasons.
> >>     >     >     >>>  From what I understand (but Giles can comment
> further on
> >>     > this), we
> >>     >     >     >> have a track at ApacheCon and will need to fill
it
> with X
> >>     > number of
> >>     >     >     >> presentations. To do this, it seems like a
> CloudStack-focused
> >>     > panel
> >>     >     > would
> >>     >     >     >> be a good approach, but I am definitely open
to
> another
> >>     > approach.
> >>     >     > We don’t
> >>     >     >     >> want to exclude anyone (in or out of the CloudStack
> >>     > Community) who
> >>     >     > might
> >>     >     >     >> like to provide input. Anyone who is interested
> would, of
> >>     > course,
> >>     >     > be free
> >>     >     >     >> to join us in combing through the proposals.
> >>     >     >     >>> We don’t need to get started on this right
away.
> The CFP just
> >>     >     > closed
> >>     >     >     >> yesterday. Let’s wait for feedback from Giles
(who is
> >>     > currently on
> >>     >     >     >> vacation) and go from there.
> >>     >     >     >>> Thanks!
> >>     >     >     >>> Mike
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>> On 3/31/18, 6:59 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <
> >>     > rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> >>     >     > >
> >>     >     >     >> wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>>      Is this a real concern?
> >>     >     >     >>>      Why would a large number of Apache
> contributors who are
> >>     > not
> >>     >     >     >> interested
> >>     >     >     >>>      in Cloudstack (enough to outvote those
"part
> of the
> >>     > Cloudstack
> >>     >     >     >>>      community") get involved as reviewers
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      Reviewing involves some commitment of
time so
> I am hard
> >>     >     > pressed
> >>     >     >     >> to guess
> >>     >     >     >>>      why some Apache contributor would volunteer
to
> do the
> >>     > work in
> >>     >     >     >> order to
> >>     >     >     >>>      veto a presentation that they have not
yet
> seen or have
> >>     > no
> >>     >     >     >> interest in
> >>     >     >     >>>      seeing.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      Are we guaranteed a fixed number of
hours of
> >>     > presentations or
> >>     >     > is
> >>     >     >     >> the
> >>     >     >     >>>      review process part of the allocation
of
> overall time?
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      On what basis can some group veto a
> presentation?
> >>     >     >     >>>      That would seem to be a very strong
action and
> I would
> >>     > hope
> >>     >     > that
> >>     >     >     >> it
> >>     >     >     >>>      requires a strong reason.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      OTOH if a large??? number of Apache
> contributors
> >>     > (regardless
> >>     >     > of
> >>     >     >     >> their
> >>     >     >     >>>      affiliation) say that a presentation
has
> serious issues
> >>     > or
> >>     >     > very
> >>     >     >     >> limited
> >>     >     >     >>>      interest, that would seem to be a red
flag
> that the
> >>     >     > presentation
> >>     >     >     >>>      requires improvement or needs to be
dropped in
> favour of
> >>     >     > another
> >>     >     >     >>>      Cloudstack presentation, if it can not
be
> fixed.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      We should also be aware that this is
an
> opportunity to
> >>     >     > "market"
> >>     >     >     >>>      Cloudstack to the broader Apache community.
> >>     >     >     >>>      Outside reviewers might have valuable
input
> into how
> >>     >     >     >> presentations can
> >>     >     >     >>>      attract new adopters or be clearer to
the
> broader DevOps
> >>     >     >     >> community.
> >>     >     >     >>>      We also need to remember that we do
have an
> active
> >>     > community
> >>     >     > and
> >>     >     >     >> other
> >>     >     >     >>>      opportunities during the year to present
> presentations
> >>     > that do
> >>     >     >     >> not get
> >>     >     >     >>>      selected for this conference.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      If their is a real fear that a lot of
> "outsiders" are
> >>     > going to
> >>     >     >     >> disrupt
> >>     >     >     >>>      the review process, a more reasonable
response
> would
> >>     > seem to
> >>     >     > be
> >>     >     >     >> to get
> >>     >     >     >>>      more reviewers from the community.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      I have volunteered already.
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>      Ron
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>      On 30/03/2018 11:11 PM, Tutkowski,
Mike wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>>> Hi Rafael,
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>> It’s a little bit tricky in our particular
> situation. Allow
> >>     > me
> >>     >     >     >> to explain:
> >>     >     >     >>>> As you are likely aware, the CloudStack
> Collaboration
> >>     >     >     >> Conference will be held as a track in the larger
> ApacheCon
> >>     >     > conference in
> >>     >     >     >> Montreal this coming September.
> >>     >     >     >>>> It is true, as you say, that anyone who
wishes to
> do so can
> >>     >     >     >> contribute to reviewing the CFP for ApacheCon.
> >>     >     >     >>>> What is a bit of a concern, however,
is that we
> might get
> >>     >     >     >> certain CloudStack CFP proposals vetoed by people
> who are
> >>     > not, per
> >>     >     > se, a
> >>     >     >     >> part of our community.
> >>     >     >     >>>> That being the case, I have contacted
the
> organizers for
> >>     >     >     >> ApacheCon to see if there is some way we can
section
> off the
> >>     >     > CloudStack CFP
> >>     >     >     >> from the larger ApacheCon CFP for review purposes.
> >>     >     >     >>>> Assuming we can do this, the panel that
I am
> proposing here
> >>     >     >     >> would handle this review task.
> >>     >     >     >>>> I hope that helps clarify the situation.
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>> Thanks!
> >>     >     >     >>>> Mike
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>> On 3/30/18, 8:38 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner"
<
> >>     >     >     >> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>>>      Are we going to have a separated
review
> process?
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>      I thought anybody could go here
[1] and apply
> for a
> >>     >     >     >> reviewer position and
> >>     >     >     >>>>      start reviewing. Well, that is what
I did. I
> have
> >>     > already
> >>     >     >     >> reviewed some
> >>     >     >     >>>>      CloudStack proposals (of course
I did not
> review
> >>     > mines).
> >>     >     >     >> After asking to
> >>     >     >     >>>>      review presentations, Rich has giving
me
> access to the
> >>     >     >     >> system. I thought
> >>     >     >     >>>>      everybody interest in helping was
going to do
> the same.
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>      [1]
> >>     >     >     >> https://cfp.apachecon.com/conference.html?apachecon-
> >>     >     > north-america-2018
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>      On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:05 AM,
Swen -
> swen.io <
> >>     >     >     >> me@swen.io> wrote:
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> congrats!
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> I can help sort through presentations.
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Best regards,
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Swen
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Von: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2018
21:40
> >>     >     >     >>>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
> >>     >     >     >> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Betreff: Committee to Sort through
CCC
> Presentation
> >>     >     >     >> Submissions
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> As you may be aware, this coming
September in
> Montreal,
> >>     >     >     >> the CloudStack
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Community will be hosting the CloudStack
> Collaboration
> >>     >     >     >> Conference:
> >>     >     >     >>>>> http://ca.cloudstackcollab.org/
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Even though the event is six months
away, we are
> on a
> >>     >     >     >> tight schedule with
> >>     >     >     >>>>> regards to the Call For Participation
(CFP):
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> https://www.apachecon.com/acna18/schedule.html
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> If you are interested in submitting
a talk,
> please do
> >>     >     >     >> so before March 30th.
> >>     >     >     >>>>> That being said, as usual, we will
have need of a
> small
> >>     >     >     >> committee to sort
> >>     >     >     >>>>> through these presentation submissions.
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> If you are interested in helping
out in this
> process,
> >>     >     >     >> please reply to this
> >>     >     >     >>>>> message.
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Thanks!
> >>     >     >     >>>>> Mike
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>      --
> >>     >     >     >>>>      Rafael Weingärtner
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>>
> >>     >     >     >>>
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >     --
> >>     >     >     Ron Wheeler
> >>     >     >     President
> >>     >     >     Artifact Software Inc
> >>     >     >     email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> >>     >     >     skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >>     >     >     phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >     --
> >>     >     Rafael Weingärtner
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>               --
> >>     Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message