| adamw
|
#startmeeting Fedora QA meeting
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
Meeting started Mon Dec 3 16:01:56 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
|
16:01
|
| adamw
|
#meetingname fedora-qa
|
16:02
|
| zodbot
|
The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
|
16:02
|
| jreznik
|
and a good afternoon/evening for the rest :)
|
16:02
|
| adamw
|
#topic roll call
|
16:02
|
| * kparal still here
|
16:02
|
| * mkrizek is here
|
16:02
|
| * tflink is here
|
16:02
|
| * pschindl is here
|
16:02
|
| * jreznik is here
|
16:02
|
| * nirik is lurking, ping if needed.
|
16:02
|
| * jskladan still lurks
|
16:02
|
| adamw
|
morning everyone
|
16:03
|
| * maxamillion is here
|
16:04
|
| * Viking-Ice fetches coffee
|
16:04
|
| adamw
|
#topic previous meeting follow-up
|
16:05
|
| adamw
|
oooh. coffee. good idea.
|
16:05
|
| maxamillion
|
+1
|
16:05
|
| adamw
|
so we have a giant pile of stuff here
|
16:05
|
| adamw
|
"tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow"
|
16:05
|
| adamw
|
i believe that got done?
|
16:05
|
| * jreznik thinks so too
|
16:06
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I'm starting to get a bit worried upgrading encrypted partitions
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
yeah, it got mostly done
|
16:07
|
| Viking-Ice
|
mean upgrading + encrypted partitions
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
done enough for beta, anyways
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: yeah, I want to give that a test - it sounds like there may be dragons in there
|
16:07
|
| kparal
|
I didn't see any problems except for the timeout
|
16:08
|
| adamw
|
#info this was done - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F
|
16:08
|
| adamw
|
gr
|
16:08
|
| adamw
|
#undo
|
16:08
|
| zodbot
|
Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2b6039d0>
|
16:08
|
| adamw
|
#chair kparal tflink viking-ice
|
16:08
|
| zodbot
|
Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink viking-ice
|
16:08
|
| adamw
|
#info "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow" - this was done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F
|
16:08
|
| tflink
|
there are some issues with the release notes, but I think those are getting taken care of
|
16:08
|
| * tflink will check on that
|
16:09
|
| adamw
|
"tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - did that happen?
|
16:09
|
| * satellit late and listening
|
16:09
|
| tflink
|
not so much and it shows - it looks like many people are using old instructions for testing
|
16:09
|
| adamw
|
okay
|
16:10
|
| adamw
|
do you want to take it again or should I?
|
16:10
|
| adamw
|
or anyone else?
|
16:10
|
| tflink
|
either way, I'm not so sure who the best people to ping are
|
16:10
|
| Viking-Ice
|
kparal, the timeout issue is present in current GA afaik ( unless it has been fixed have not tested it recently ) just wait entering the password for let's say 5 minutes ( cant remember what the default is ) and you get dropped to systemd shell
|
16:11
|
| tflink
|
I think that's known, though
|
16:11
|
| tflink
|
there are multiple bugs filed about it
|
16:11
|
| adamw
|
yeah, one for dracut and one for systemd.
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
two for systemd, I think
|
16:12
|
| kparal
|
Viking-Ice: it's present in Beta, yes. and the timeout is much shorter, I think 1-2 minutes
|
16:12
|
| jreznik
|
that's #881670 at least
|
16:12
|
| adamw
|
#info "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - this was not done yet
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
one for regular, one for fedup
|
16:12
|
| adamw
|
#action adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
it shouldn't cause problems that aren't workaround-able by rebooting, though
|
16:12
|
| adamw
|
it's a bug party!
|
16:12
|
| Viking-Ice
|
the problem with fedup is that people start upgrade and go doing something else
|
16:12
|
| adamw
|
"adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - yeah, so, oops.
|
16:13
|
| adamw
|
dgilmore just poked me about this this morning, so i guess we'll work it out after the meeting. but we probably should start doing TCs this week. any objections to that?
|
16:13
|
| tflink
|
none here
|
16:13
|
| * jreznik is ok with TCs this week
|
16:13
|
| Viking-Ice
|
not the more the merrier ;)
|
16:13
|
| Viking-Ice
|
mean no
|
16:13
|
| adamw
|
#info "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - not done yet, will do today, TCs likely to land this week
|
16:15
|
| adamw
|
"jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates"
|
16:15
|
| adamw
|
jskladan?
|
16:15
|
| * jskladan is skilled in delegation
|
16:15
|
| jskladan
|
pschindl did it
|
16:16
|
| pschindl
|
adamw: I did it, but haven't yet sent the mail
|
16:16
|
| jskladan
|
he just needs to send the email IMHO
|
16:16
|
| pschindl
|
I'm going to send it after this meeting
|
16:16
|
| adamw
|
damnit, petr, stop slacking on jskladan's work ;)
|
16:16
|
| pschindl
|
:)
|
16:16
|
| adamw
|
#info "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates" - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email
|
16:17
|
| * jskladan is good at training up good interns ;)
|
16:17
|
| tflink
|
or slacking off, depends on how you look at it :-P
|
16:18
|
| adamw
|
truly, you are on the road to project colada
|
16:18
|
| adamw
|
#info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - speaking of projects, how is bloodfromastone going?
|
16:18
|
| adamw
|
alternatively: project excalibur
|
16:18
|
| tflink
|
not a whole lot of change as of late
|
16:18
|
| Viking-Ice
|
we need booze lot of booze to get that information
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
someone from design (I don't remember who off the top of my head) has started to look @ the gui for gedup-client
|
16:19
|
| Viking-Ice
|
not the cheap stuff I might add ;)
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
as far as a design document goes, the current "design document" is ... (searching for a link)
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/
|
16:20
|
| adamw
|
#info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - currently rejoicing in the title of 'design document' is http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/
|
16:20
|
| tflink
|
there has been some initial work to change mirror manager such that --instrepo won't be required anymore and the .treeinfo will be signed
|
16:20
|
| * tflink is a little behind on fedup bugs right now - too much blocker bug happy fun time
|
16:21
|
| jreznik
|
btw do we have a list of required work that has to be done for fedup for final?
|
16:21
|
| tflink
|
nothing official, no
|
16:21
|
| * jreznik will start working on it as we really need it (and also opinion from FESCo what they require for final - gui is known...)
|
16:22
|
| adamw
|
sounds like a plan
|
16:22
|
| jreznik
|
to avoid late surprises...
|
16:22
|
| adamw
|
#action jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final
|
16:22
|
| adamw
|
fffff
|
16:23
|
| adamw
|
okely dokely
|
16:23
|
| adamw
|
#topic Fedora 18 Final status/planning
|
16:23
|
| tflink
|
jreznik: late surprises? we never get those :)
|
16:23
|
| adamw
|
not sure what tflink meant by 'beta docs status'?
|
16:23
|
| adamw
|
we have a release announcement which mentioned fedup (yay) and kparal and I worked on commonbugs
|
16:23
|
| tflink
|
followup from last week to make sure we got everything
|
16:24
|
| jreznik
|
adamw: thanks for help with the announcement!
|
16:24
|
| tflink
|
at some point, we might want to think about coordinating better with docs about release notes - there was a mention of a bz flag for highlighting issues but that doesn't need to happen today
|
16:25
|
| tflink
|
better/differently
|
16:25
|
| adamw
|
yeah, there is one, i kinda assume people know about it, but maybe not.
|
16:26
|
| adamw
|
i use it now and again.
|
16:26
|
| * tflink had never heard of it before that devel@ thread
|
16:26
|
| adamw
|
welp, the 'fedora_requires_release_note' flag is it, folks.
|
16:27
|
| adamw
|
i think you set it to ? .
|
16:27
|
| adamw
|
okay, the other thing was "Final: potential sore points, areas that need testing?", which i guess we've kind of been covering :)
|
16:31
|
| adamw
|
anything else we didn't cover yet?
|
16:31
|
| Viking-Ice
|
bootup + black screen
|
16:32
|
| tflink
|
fedup is mostly what I'm worried about
|
16:32
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I think I saw people mentioning that it was not only happening with the ati drivers
|
16:32
|
| Viking-Ice
|
i'm free of it with 3.7 rc kernels
|
16:33
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: well, i mean, as i explained in a mail, 'it boots to a black screen' is one of the most generic symptoms we *have*.
|
16:34
|
| adamw
|
a few people seeing that alone doesn't tell us much useful - could be five different bugs.
|
16:34
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yeah they need to ssh into the machine and grap the log
|
16:35
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, anyway I dont think those are 5 different bugs thou I think they all relate to that grub gfxpayloud stuff that we changed between releases
|
16:36
|
| adamw
|
what changed there?
|
16:38
|
| adamw
|
don't think i'm up on that one
|
16:38
|
| Viking-Ice
|
the gfxpayload settings
|
16:39
|
| adamw
|
i mean, what changed specifically
|
16:39
|
| adamw
|
or are you just talking about that we put in the theming for grub2?
|
16:40
|
| adamw
|
we were modesetting in f17, i think, but without theming
|
16:40
|
| tflink
|
I thought that there was a theme in F17 but it might have been added post-release
|
16:40
|
| adamw
|
okay, anyhow, in general: if we have people hitting black screens, we need more data.
|
16:42
|
| Viking-Ice
|
hm looks like I never mentioned that on the bug report
|
16:44
|
| Viking-Ice
|
well I mentioned it to airlied
|
16:44
|
| Viking-Ice
|
in anycase the "it boots to a black screen" is a regression in my case
|
16:45
|
| adamw
|
oh, you're hitting it yourself? well, should be easy enough to mess with the grub config and see if that fixes it?
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
F16/F17 ( and pre 3.6 kernel ) worked just fine
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, I know it fixes it
|
16:46
|
| Viking-Ice
|
well removing that line atleast does
|
16:46
|
| adamw
|
ah, okay.
|
16:46
|
| adamw
|
well, if it looks like other people have the same problem, elevate it to proposed blocker...
|
16:46
|
| adamw
|
moving on, in the interests of time
|
16:47
|
| adamw
|
#topic Test case / criteria revision
|
16:47
|
| adamw
|
do we have much here?
|
16:47
|
| adamw
|
i don't see any proposals since memory test
|
16:47
|
| adamw
|
i'm still not getting to the partitioning criteria :(
|
16:47
|
| tflink
|
it sounds like we're waiting a bit on petr's email
|
16:48
|
| * kparal didn't manage to write up the kickstart proposal
|
16:48
|
| kparal
|
somewhere in the queue
|
16:49
|
| adamw
|
#info no new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all have some in pipeline
|
16:49
|
| adamw
|
#topic Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length
|
16:51
|
| adamw
|
tflink, want to take this one?
|
16:51
|
| tflink
|
sure
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
there have been some complaints/suggestions around the blocker meetings recently
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
one was the time is inconvenient for some people and it might better to not always use the same time if we want more participation
|
16:54
|
| tflink
|
which may be true, but I'm tempted to leave that one alone for now
|
16:54
|
| tflink
|
ie, leave the discussion around that for post-f18
|
16:54
|
| tflink
|
the other is about frequency and duration
|
16:54
|
| tflink
|
any thoughts on whether the current format of 3 hour meetings at least once a week vs. 1 hour meetings several times per week?
|
16:55
|
| adamw
|
i prefer getting it done in one go
|
16:55
|
| adamw
|
there's quite a bit of 'overhead' which gets multiplied with multiple meetings
|
16:55
|
| tflink
|
yeah, but we tend to lose people after a while
|
16:55
|
| adamw
|
obviously, though, 3x3 hour meetings is the worst of the worst :)
|
16:56
|
| jskladan
|
^ :)
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
?
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
?
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"
|
16:56
|
| jreznik
|
but seriously - is that even possible? looking on proposed blocker bugs list?
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, do you have any clue on the enterprise storage part of anaconda
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
yeah, I don't think anyone likes the current method
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: that seems to be a bit off topic
|
16:57
|
| Viking-Ice
|
you where speaking of the criteria to begin with
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
but installing to iSCSI, FC, FCoE etc. is not in F18, will return in F19 IIUC
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
I was?
|
16:58
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: like half an hour ago?
|
16:58
|
| adamw
|
so we tried this thing this week where tflink categorized the bugs for on-bug voting
|
16:58
|
| adamw
|
what did everyone think about that?
|
16:58
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, more like 10 minutes
|
16:58
|
| Viking-Ice
|
and I'm the actual one that was proposing we go for one hour meetings
|
16:58
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: still, we moved on to a new topic since then...there's always open floor if you want to bring up something from before
|
16:58
|
| adamw
|
otherwise we just get confused
|
16:58
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw aha
|
16:58
|
| * maxamillion is almost always confused anyways
|
16:59
|
| adamw
|
=)
|
16:59
|
| Viking-Ice
|
more frequently
|
16:59
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: since we're discussing the length of blocker meetings now, talking about enterprise storage criteria seems a bit out of place :)
|
16:59
|
| * maxamillion is just getting worse at multi tasking ... $day_job is more busy than $old_day_job
|
16:59
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, you weren't when I asked those questions
|
16:59
|
| Viking-Ice
|
you conveniently ignored it
|
16:59
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: er - i set the topic at xx:51 to "Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length"
|
17:00
|
| adamw
|
you asked your questions at xx:56
|
17:00
|
| adamw
|
after there had already been several minutes of discussion on the blocker meeting length topic
|
17:00
|
| Southern_Gentlem
|
move on and deal with this later
|
17:00
|
| tflink
|
yep
|
17:00
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, no I re-asked those question at that time
|
17:00
|
| tflink
|
the blocker meeting is supposed to be starting soon
|
17:00
|
| kparal
|
(now)
|
17:01
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yeah I proposed for 3x1 hour or 5x1 meeting instead of 3 hours meeting
|
17:01
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: oh. i never got the originals. maybe they were affected by that netsplit i see in the history. sorry
|
17:01
|
| tflink
|
I didn't see them either
|
17:01
|
| * jreznik does not have that question neither...
|
17:01
|
| Southern_Gentlem
|
perfer we dont have that many blockers so 1 -1 hr meeting can deal
|
17:01
|
| adamw
|
that's obviously the best
|
17:02
|
| adamw
|
but it seems unrealistic
|
17:02
|
| tflink
|
especially right now
|
17:03
|
| adamw
|
how can we have such a low blocker count without evaluating proposed blockers and rejecting some? which is...what we do in the meeting? :)
|
17:03
|
| jreznik
|
clean-up in tickets should help a little - /me voted in several bugs today
|
17:04
|
| adamw
|
yeah, i think that was a good idea
|
17:04
|
| adamw
|
is anyone worried about covering at least 'obvious' bugs with in-bug voting?
|
17:04
|
| adamw
|
it seems like the best way to reduce the load a little
|
17:04
|
| tflink
|
yeah, I need to go through and modify the ones that have enough -1s or +1s
|
17:04
|
| adamw
|
ah, i was about to ask if you'd done that
|
17:04
|
| tflink
|
I'm making the list for today's meeting from bugs that weren't on the 'more obvious' list
|
17:05
|
| tflink
|
we have enough to go through that it shouldn't be an issue
|
17:05
|
| adamw
|
sounds good
|
17:05
|
| adamw
|
shall we take a vote on the 'many short meetings' proposal?
|
17:05
|
| adamw
|
or more discussion on it?
|
17:05
|
| Viking-Ice
|
should we have it 1 hour or 1 and half hour
|
17:06
|
| kparal
|
if the obvious list is compiled by someone and sent to the list, I'm OK. just going randomly though blocker list doesn't seem great
|
17:06
|
| Viking-Ice
|
( takes 10 minutes to start )
|
17:06
|
| tflink
|
kparal: I sent the list out to test@ on friday
|
17:06
|
| kparal
|
tflink: yeah, I know
|
17:06
|
| tflink
|
ok, you meant in general
|
17:06
|
| adamw
|
right, you're saying it should always be done that way, make it a process?
|
17:06
|
| kparal
|
yes, something like that
|
17:07
|
| kparal
|
it's better to have a list of obvious blockers, and then people can vote in the bugzilla or say "no this is not obvious"
|
17:07
|
| adamw
|
maybe we should have some kind of threshold at which the 'formal on-bug voting' process kicks in - >20 proposed blockers or something
|
17:07
|
| kparal
|
if we don't have the list, each person have a different opinion what is obvious
|
17:07
|
| adamw
|
sure
|
17:08
|
| jreznik
|
kparal: but you can still vote and other people can say no
|
17:08
|
| tflink
|
yeah, but I think that's a bit unavoidable for now
|
17:08
|
| kparal
|
jreznik: without the list I don't know they voted
|
17:08
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: i'd prefer 1.5 to 1, yeah, the 10 minute overhead is significant
|
17:08
|
| tflink
|
the point of going through and doing some sorting is to reduce the number of bugs to discuss in meetings - I don't see a way to do that without one person doing the initial sorting
|
17:08
|
| jreznik
|
would it be possible to parse the bug for "-1/+1 blocker" in the current blocker bug list and show it?
|
17:09
|
| tflink
|
which is unavoidably biased to a certain point
|
17:09
|
| Viking-Ice
|
so try 3x1.5 ( monday/wednesday/friday )
|
17:09
|
| jreznik
|
tflink: but yeha, someone has to do the initial sort
|
17:09
|
| tflink
|
jreznik: yeah, that wouldn't be too hard in principle - the hard part is making sure to catch all the minor variations in +/-1
|
17:10
|
| tflink
|
it might be interesting to add some support for flagging "obvious" bugs in the tracker app
|
17:10
|
| tflink
|
but there is no way I'm going to get to that until after F18
|
17:10
|
| adamw
|
okay, so sounds like we're broadly on board with the in-bug voting, i'm not hearing much discussion of 'multiple short meetings'
|
17:11
|
| adamw
|
and we're 10 minutes over time
|
17:11
|
| tflink
|
I think it's an interesting idea but I also think we need to get through the monster list sooner than later
|
17:11
|
| Viking-Ice
|
so should we discuss in-bug the gray area we might be hitting
|
17:11
|
| tflink
|
so for now, I'm -1 on the idea of shorter meetings
|
17:12
|
| * tflink emphasizes "for now" as in at least until we get through the initial list
|
17:12
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I'm not so sure that maintainers will be happy about the bug spam we introduce by voting in the bugs themselves
|
17:12
|
| * adamw is +/-0 - personally i prefer longer-but-fewer, but i certainly acknowledge the problem of losing people as the meetings go on
|
17:12
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: that's a good point, actually, hadn't thought of that
|
17:13
|
| adamw
|
maybe we should check on devel@
|
17:13
|
| adamw
|
#info viking-ice points out that a drawback of in-bug voting is bugzilla spam
|
17:13
|
| jreznik
|
let's go through the current list and we will see how many left - we can be flexible
|
17:13
|
| adamw
|
#info aside from that, general support for in-bug voting on 'obvious' blockers when the blocker count is high, but it should be a defined process
|
17:13
|
| adamw
|
#info no-one seems to have strong feelings either way on the multiple-short-meetings plan, but we don't have time to thrash it out further today
|
17:14
|
| tflink
|
I think that the blocker process could use some work, but that doesn't help for now
|
17:14
|
| adamw
|
anyone want to take an action item for considering a formal in-bug-review process further?
|
17:14
|
| tflink
|
I'm not against the idea, but I don't really want to do it right now
|
17:15
|
| * tflink won't stop anyone else from doing it, though
|
17:15
|
| adamw
|
i guess everyone's a bit overloaded at present
|
17:15
|
| adamw
|
let's go on to open floor so we can discuss viking's missed question and get to blocker review
|
17:16
|
| adamw
|
#topic open floor
|
17:16
|
| kparal
|
I'm not really against in-bug voting, but I really like meeting voting more
|
17:16
|
| adamw
|
Viking-Ice: sorry your criteria question got missed earlier, what was it again?
|
17:16
|
| Viking-Ice
|
adamw, let's just add enterprise storage support in anaconda ( if any ) to next meeting item and start working on the blocker bugs
|
17:17
|
| adamw
|
okay
|
17:17
|
| adamw
|
#info viking-ice is concerned about storage support in newUI but meeting has overrun so we'll cover it next week
|
17:17
|
| adamw
|
#action adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda
|
17:17
|
| Viking-Ice
|
*enterprise*
|
17:17
|
| adamw
|
yeah, got it in the action item :)
|
17:17
|
| Viking-Ice
|
;)
|
17:17
|
| adamw
|
anything else for open floor?
|
17:18
|
| mel-
|
what does 'open floor' mean?
|
17:19
|
| adamw
|
topics that weren't covered elsewhere in the meeting
|
17:19
|
| adamw
|
though we'd like to finish quickly to get on to the blocker review meeting
|
17:19
|
| adamw
|
did you have something to bring up quickly?
|
17:19
|
| jreznik
|
blocker fun! any other topic could be re-raised after it... if not serious one
|
17:20
|
| mel-
|
adamw: well, i need to fill a fedup bug. dunno of that is appropriate here
|
17:20
|
| mel-
|
s/of/if/
|
17:20
|
| adamw
|
mel-: are you having trouble filing it in bugzilla?
|
17:21
|
| mel-
|
adamw: no, i think will be fine :)
|
17:23
|
| adamw
|
okay, let's move on to blocker review, we can help mel outside of the meeting
|
17:23
|
| adamw
|
thanks for coming everyone!
|
17:23
|
| adamw
|
#endmeeting
|
17:23
|
