=== Varka_ is now known as Varka
=== bigon is now known as bigon`
=== _czessi is now known as Czessi
=== aRyn_ is now known as aRyn
=== aRyn is now known as aRyn1
=== aRyn1 is now known as aRyn
=== \sh_away is now known as \sh
=== doko_ is now known as doko
=== mvo_ is now known as mvo
=== asac_ is now known as asac
=== \sh is now known as \sh_away
=== \sh_away is now known as \sh
=== \sh is now known as \sh_away
=== \sh_away is now known as \sh
=== Pricey is now known as PriceChild
=== mvo__ is now known as mvo
=== nxvl_ is now known as nxvl
=== mdz_ is now known as mdz
=== \sh is now known as \sh_away
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 15:46:16 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 9 hours 13 minutes15:46
ubotuSorry, I don't know anything about now - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi15:46
Hobbsee@schedule sydney15:46
ubotuSchedule for Australia/Sydney: 16 Jan 12:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 23:00: Edubuntu meeting | 18 Jan 01:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 23:00: MOTU | 24 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 23:00: Edubuntu meeting15:46
=== emonkey-t is now known as emonkey
=== bigon` is now known as bigon
=== mc44_ is now known as mc44
=== mc44_ is now known as mc44
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 16:19:13 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 8 hours 40 minutes16:19
Seveas@schedule Amsterda,16:19
Seveas@schedule Amsterdam16:19
ubotuSchedule for Europe/Amsterdam: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting16:19
=== \sh_away is now known as \sh
=== Ju is now known as ju`
=== ju` is now known as Ju
=== bigon is now known as bigon`
=== bigon` is now known as bigon
mr_pouit@schedule Paris19:00
ubotuSchedule for Europe/Paris: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting19:00
nxvl_work@schedule Lima19:36
ubotuSchedule for America/Lima: 15 Jan 20:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 09:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 07:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 15:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting19:36
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 20:01:52 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 4 hours 58 minutes20:01
Lure@schedule Ljubljana20:02
ubotuSchedule for Europe/Ljubljana: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting20:02
Keybukmdz: TB time?20:03
mdzKeybuk: yep20:06
MootBotMeeting started at 20:06. The chair is mdz.20:06
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]20:06
mdzsabdfl sent apologies20:07
mdz[TOPIC] Component status of Xubuntu (main vs. universe)20:07
MootBotNew Topic:  Component status of Xubuntu (main vs. universe)20:07
mdzthere has been some discussion about whether it would be a good idea to build Xubuntu from main+universe rather than only main20:08
mdzmeaning that Xubuntu-specific packages could move to universe20:08
mjg59Doing so would seem a fairly clear clarification of what's already the status-quo - Canonical don't support Xubuntu20:09
Keybukthe obvious advantage being that more people could work on Xubuntu-specific packages?20:09
mdzin my view, this would benefit the Xubuntu community by enabling more people to contribute (any MOTU), and benefit Canonical by clarifying its support status20:09
mjg59(Unless my misunderstanding is correct)20:09
mdzmjg59: ...20:09
mjg59Understanding. Incorrect.20:09
mdzmjg59: your first message to this channel during the meeting is factually correct20:09
Keybukmdz: that is it Evening? :)20:09
LureKeybuk: depending on TZ20:10
mdzKeybuk: see a few lines below for the start of the meeting ;-)20:10
mdzanyway, I talked with mr_pouit and gpocentek in #ubuntu-devel before the meeting20:10
mdzI'm happy for them to chime in here if they have more to say20:10
mdzbut here's what I got:20:10
mdz<gpocentek> mdz: mr_pouit is the leader, so I'd like to ear from him20:11
mdz<mr_pouit> I don't have a strong opinion against that. If there are these facilities to build from universe, why not?20:11
mdzthat's about it20:12
somerville32I'm a member of the xubuntu-team20:12
somerville32and I'd like to raise a few issues I see with migrating to Universe20:12
mdzsomerville32: by all means20:12
gpocenteklike mdz said, having xfce in main was mainly because universe iso builds were not supported20:12
gpocentek(during dapper dev cycle that was)20:13
somerville32I think the issue is bigger than just moving Xubuntu to universe. I have serious concerns about designating "main" as the archive that holds packages supported by Canonical.20:13
mdzindeed, I did raise the point that Xubuntu originally migrated from universe to main because our derivative-building system only worked that way.  that's now changed, and Ubuntu Studio is happily building from universe20:13
mjg59somerville32: That's always been the traditional distinction made20:13
mjg59In some cases it's been less true, due to technical issues with building releases that way20:13
mdz[LINK] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components20:14
MootBotLINK received:  http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components20:14
=== bigon is now known as bigon`
somerville32To help set the stage, I'd like to ask a few questions to help validate my premise20:15
somerville32Ubuntu is a separate entity from Canonical, correct? Canonical is a third-party that supports the development of the Ubuntu distribution.20:15
mdzmain means "will get critical fixes" and (with the exception of Xubuntu) "commercial support available from Canonical"20:15
mdz"will get critical fixes" is credible because Canonical provides them20:16
somerville32What if other companies wish to fill a similar role to Canonical? How would the Ubuntu developers facilitate that?20:16
somerville32Would their packages be promoted to main as well?20:17
mdzsomerville32: Ubuntu is a project.  Canonical is a commercial company which provides backing for Ubuntu, and occupies a privileged position in the ecosystem because of that20:17
mjg59somerville32: Certain key parts of infrastructure are run by Canonical or only available to Canonical employees. As a result, as Matt says, their status is special20:18
mdzsomerville32: I think that if there were such a company, we would need some way to distinguish their guarantees from Canonical's20:18
mdz"main" isn't specific enough in that scenario20:19
=== bigon` is now known as bigon
mdze.g. if you buy a support contract from company X, it covers foo/bar/baz, but from Canonical it covers bleem/snue/etc.20:19
mdzand when a security vulnerability is found, who is expected to provide a fix?20:20
=== Lure_ is now known as Lure
gpocentekI don't think that a company wants to xupport xubuntu now anyway20:21
mdzsomerville32: the way it works today, there are other companies which provide services for Ubuntu, but there has been no conflict in how they define their offerings20:21
gpocentekso it's maybe a bit OT20:21
Luremdz: it would be good to improve this page: http://www.canonical.com/projects20:21
Luremdz: it is still not clear what is supported in derivatives20:22
mdzLure: I agree20:22
Lureand it would probably make sense to introduce "offical" derivatives - like approved by TB/CC side20:22
Lurexubuntu maybe being first candidate20:23
mdzCanonical offers "support" to the community developing Xubuntu, through hosting for example, but doesn't "support" Xubuntu (with commercial support contracts)20:23
Luremdz: something like that20:23
somerville32My concern, the first of a small number, is that the main repository for Ubuntu, a community project, is actually a commercial company's repository. This concern asks me if maybe the model in which we do things (ie. see Keybuk's proposal to merge universe and main) needs to be re-thinked instead of moving Xubuntu to universe.20:23
mdzLure: thanks for pointing that out; I will follow it up with the folks responsible for that site20:23
Keybuksomerville32: I haven't made a proposal yet, just a strawman20:23
mdz[ACTION] mdz to follow up regarding http://www.canonical.com/projects20:24
MootBotACTION received:  mdz to follow up regarding http://www.canonical.com/projects20:24
Luremdz: I talked with cjwatson before, so he opened bug 17267220:24
ubotuLaunchpad bug 172672 in canonical-website "http://www.canonical.com/projects claims that Xubuntu is supported by Canonical" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/17267220:24
mdzsomerville32: I think there is definitely room for reconsidering how we organize the repository, but it is orthogonal to this issue20:25
somerville32It would seem more community orientated if the focus was taken off the commercial support that Canonical provides and more to the support the community is willing to provide when determining the taxonomy of our packages.20:25
mdzwhether Xubuntu is built from main or universe, it won't matter if we reorganize the repository20:25
somerville32mdz, I'm just wondering if that issue should be tackled first before we decide to move Xubuntu to universe20:25
Keybuksomerville32: I don't see a particular ordering constraint hee20:25
mdzLure: thanks20:25
mdz[LINK] https://launchpad.net/bugs/17267220:25
somerville32Because the rationale for moving Xubuntu to universe is that Canonical does not offer support for it20:25
MootBotLINK received:  https://launchpad.net/bugs/17267220:25
Keybuksomerville32: and that the move would allow more developers to work on it20:26
mdzsomerville32: that is one half of the rationale20:26
Luresomerville32: what is your concern with the move - I see lots of benefits (motu's can contribute, less push on getting core-dev's)20:26
ubotuLaunchpad bug 172672 in canonical-website "http://www.canonical.com/projects claims that Xubuntu is supported by Canonical" [Undecided,New]20:26
mdzLure: no more MIRs...20:26
_MMA_Lure: Its not of a technical nature.20:26
somerville32As I said earlier, the standards level for Universe is not parallel to that of Main.20:27
Keybukstandards level?20:27
Keybukuniverse is certainly supposed to be the same standard of package as main20:27
gpocentekwil we stop working on xfce packages because it's in universe?20:27
mr_pouitand we won't stop testing either20:27
_MMA_somerville32: Then as a team, I would challenge you guys to do QA on the packages you care about.20:27
Luresomerville32: being in main just raises expectations of commercial support that is not there20:27
mdzsomerville32: while it's possible for us to define overlapping levels of commitment to different packages (commercial support, security updates, ...) we would much prefer to keep it simple, and have just "main" and "not main"20:28
mjg59somerville32: Unless you think people who were previously working on XFCE are going to drop their standards, I don't see this as a problem20:28
mdzand everyone agree on what that means20:28
Luresomerville32: or are you concerned that other non-xubuntu motu's would mess with your packages?20:28
mdzI think it's important for the services around Ubuntu to be easily understood by users20:29
mdzin many cases, it's already an uphill battle because in some cases, users need to understand the free software model20:29
somerville32There is a perception that Universe has lower standards and that it is okay to not test it like you would a package in main.20:29
mdz(one of those clauses could go)20:29
somerville32Do I think that the people contribution now will contribute at a lower level of quality, no20:30
somerville32But part of the rationale for the move is that more people can get involved.20:30
somerville32Do I really believe that MOTUs are you going to install the xubuntu-desktop so that they can properly test changes? No. If anything, people will just be trying to up their upload count like mr_pouit said.20:30
mdzsomerville32: are you concerned that the quality of Xubuntu will change for the worse?20:31
somerville32I feel moving any package to Universe currently puts it's quality in question, unfortunately.20:31
gpocenteksomerville32: that's something that can be handled by the xubuntu team, keeping the package in main just mean that we don't trust people20:31
Luresomerville32: if you think that, then we have more generic problem and should be solved20:32
somerville32Lure, i agree with you.20:32
mdzthe only reason to be more relaxed about universe is that there is not a strong support and maintenance commitment behind it20:32
mdzand that's already not the case with Xubuntu20:32
Luresomerville32: personally I think that universe is as good as much as particular motus care about particular packages20:32
Luresomerville32: since xubuntu-team would still care for xubuntu packages, I do not see that this should mean lower quality though20:33
mdzwe are discussing, for post-8.04, ways to classify packages in a finer-grained way20:34
somerville32Is Xubuntu the only packages in Main right now that do not have Canonical support?20:34
mdze.g., this set of software is covered by a standard support contract, this (super)set carries a commitment to updates, this (super)set has active maintainers, etc.20:34
somerville32Because I heard from someone in Montreal that main has became populated with a number of packages that do not carry actual support.20:35
mdzsomerville32: support isn't defined strictly in terms of packages20:35
mdzbut the XFCE desktop is not covered20:35
mdzsomerville32: we very much want to say that all of the software in main is covered20:36
mdzand we want to correct the small number of cases where that is not true20:36
mdzfor 8.04 and beyond20:36
somerville32The stem of my argument comes from my disagreement that main should not be composed of packages supported by Canonical and instead by packages supported by core-dev20:37
mdzthis is what I mean when I talk about making it simple for users20:37
Luremdz: I think int would be good to clean it up then completely and not just xubuntu20:37
Keybuksomerville32: how would you instead define the difference between main and universe?20:37
mdzright now it's hard to understand what's covered and what's not, they need to talk to us about it20:37
Lureand probably there should be note on http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components about commercial support20:37
mjg59somerville32: I don't believe that's something the TB clearly have the power to change20:37
mdzsomerville32: packages in main come with a guarantee20:37
gpocentekcould we come to a decision about Xubuntu for the moment? :)20:39
somerville32And thats why I question the entire model at this time but since that is a tangent of this discussion, I can only say that perhaps you should move forward with moving Xubuntu to universe but I doubt that it will actual result in more contributors besides the odd individual looking to get their package count increased. mr_pouit and gpocentrek have been very responsive when dealing with the xubuntu related packages in the ubuntu-20:40
mdzgpocentek: somerville32 has raised some concerns, and I would like to include him in the consensus20:40
somerville32so I don't see it as lowering the barrier20:40
somerville32The only thing I see this move doing is satisfying Canonical's current model20:41
Luresomerville32: it makes it more clear also for users20:41
mdzsomerville32: I commend them on their responsiveness, but in universe, any new developers who might want to work on Ubuntu would have an easier time joining MOTU than joining core-dev20:41
somerville32mdz, Yes, it would be beneficial to me in that regard as I move forward to apply for MOTU-ship in a few months20:42
Luresomerville32: currently, users might be mislead and expecting for something which is not there20:42
somerville32However, I'd ask that the TB do not drop the ball on evaluating the current model and usefulness of some of the strawmans that have been presented.20:43
mdzI think that the induction process for MOTU is strong, and enabling MOTU developers to contribute to Xubuntu is appropriate20:43
mdzdo you object to allowing MOTU to upload XFCE packages?20:43
mdzsomerville32: I definitely acknowledge that the model is confusing, and part of the justification for this proposal is that we want to simplify it20:44
somerville32It isn't so much allowing MOTUs to upload Xfce4 packages, it is the the current perception of some developers20:44
mdzI'm open to further discussion about how we organize and communicate about our commitments (as a project, and on behalf of Canonical)20:44
mdzbut I do think it's a separate issue20:44
mdzwhat we're aiming for here is that users get what they expect20:45
mdzand it's much easier to change what we do to match their expectations than to change their expectations20:45
somerville32mdz, Are you saying that Canonical is frequently getting support requests for Xfce4 packages?20:46
mdzsomerville32: not specifically, but we do get the question "what is supported and what isn't?"20:46
mdzwhich is a question which should have a simple answer20:46
mdzI don't know how often we get inquiries about Xubuntu specifically20:47
somerville32By fear, that I think is a true one, is that because there is a big push to distinguish certain packages as Canonical supported (ie. main) a stigma has developed for Universe20:48
mdzbut I can say that it's very likely not enough to justify the cost of providing the support, or it would be offered20:48
somerville32By putting the expectation that main has high standards than Universe, Universe _will_ have lower standards20:48
somerville32s/By fear/My fear20:48
Luresomerville32: but having security patch commitment actually means higher standards20:49
mdzI think it's OK for universe to have less rigidity20:49
mdzdevelopers should be able to work freely except where there is an overriding concern20:49
Luresomerville32: but it does not mean that you cannot provide security patches for xubuntu, afair20:49
mdzin the case of main, the overriding concern is that users demand a commitment20:49
mdzparticularly commercial users20:49
mdzusers do not demand such a commitment for all of the software in Ubuntu, only a subset20:50
mdzand we try to codify the subset for which that commitment is justified, in main20:50
somerville32Then to help keep the focus on community, I hope we move to a different model so that "main ubuntu packages" is not synonymous to "canonical support packages".20:50
mdzI sympathize with your position, but I think it's very difficult to tease apart "backed by a commitment from Ubuntu" with "backed by a commitment from Canonical"20:51
mdzbecause, fundamentally, someone needs to take commercial responsibility for that commitment20:51
mdzand presently, that is Canonical20:52
somerville32To me, I find that somewhat demoralizing as a _community_ contributor.20:52
mdzsomerville32: how so?20:53
somerville32First off, I'm very thankful for Canonical's commitment and support to help make Ubuntu awesome20:53
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 20:53:42 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 4 hours 6 minutes20:53
somerville32But I take pride and ownership in Ubuntu too as a community contributor since Ubutnu is a community project.20:53
mdzwhen Canonical commits to support something, it means that even if it is abandoned by its maintainers, Canonical is prepared to devote resources to filling the gap20:54
mdzwe owe a lot to the developers of Linux, but they simply don't care anymore about Linux 2.6.15.  Canonical, however, backports patches to it week after week, to ensure continuous maintenance for Ubuntu users20:55
mdzsomerville32: as well you should!20:55
somerville32So I'm naturally concerned when things are shifted away from the community and into commercial hands20:55
mdzsomerville32: but that doesn't mean that Ubuntu users can hold you responsible for everything you do20:56
mdzif they have a problem, and you can't help them, or don't want to, that's your choice20:56
mdzCanonical doesn't have that choice20:57
Luresomerville32: in which point you feel things are shifted from community to commercial?20:57
mdzand Canonical pays its staff to be on call to respond, 24x720:58
somerville32If Ubuntu, the community, was able to give commitment to a number of packages (ie. main) and Canonical was easily able to tag packages/software solutions that they support, I feel the focus would still be on the community resolving my concerns20:58
Luresomerville32: fact is that Canonical has from its position (historical and present) more control over the project, but that does not mean it should impact community work much20:58
mdzthat doesn't make the contributions of the community any less valuable20:58
mdzwe wouldn't even have a product without the community20:58
mdzbut the community can't have customers, while Canonical can20:59
mdzand the fact that Canonical exists to service those customers is a key part of the vision of Ubuntu20:59
mdzin some ways, Canonical is just another contributor to Ubuntu20:59
mdzbut in other ways, it's a fundamental part of the project20:59
somerville32I see where you're coming from mdz and I think all your points are completely legitimate but my concern is with the focus on the "It is either supported by Canonical or it is not"21:00
mdzand there wouldn't be an Ubuntu without Canonical either21:00
_MMA_mdz: Then this is where it might be better to have 1 repo and a list of packages Canonical supports.21:00
Luremdz: + strong commercial support/funding by Canonical brings more trust to community that it worth contributing as there is some logivity expected behind21:00
somerville32la_petite_Gogole, ugh... yes?21:00
mdz_MMA_: and that is something we are actively looking at, but it is a long term idea21:00
mdz_MMA_: there's nothing we can do in that direction for 8.0421:01
mjg59somerville32: Rationalising the current situation doesn't prevent us from altering things in the long run21:01
mdzand decisions we make with 8.04 will be with us through 201321:01
mjg59But with an LTS release coming up, we do need to make it clear what's supported now21:01
_MMA_mdz: Understandable.21:01
mdz_MMA_: Keybuk's proposal is a step in the right direction, and I'd like to see our repositories match the way we think about software21:02
mdzbut we're stuck with main+universe for 8.04, and so the best we can do is make main+universe easy to understand21:02
somerville32fair enough21:02
mdznot that it's that bad21:03
mdz(or else I'd have myself to blame in no small part...)21:03
Luremdz: ;-)21:03
mdzsomerville32: would you feel more confident in this if we set an explicit goal to revisit how we define the repository for 8.10+?21:04
mdzwhen we have some freedom to make changes?21:04
somerville32mdz, Yes, very much so21:04
_MMA_Im honestly a little shocked to hear such a low opinion of Universe from Cody as all the Ubuntu Studio packages are there and I know the work we and other MOTU put into them. Id put 'em up aginst any Main package. :P21:04
mdzmjg59,Keybuk: would you be OK with us making such a commitment on behalf of the project?21:05
somerville32I think things are changing for the better, _MMA_21:05
_MMA_We've even found bugs in Main packages because our packages (based on Ubuntu-Main ones) were rejected by archive admins. :P21:05
Keybukmdz: given rearranging the repository is my own pet mission, yes ;-)21:05
mjg59I'm unwilling to commit to it happening for 8.10 (or any specific release), but yes, I think this does need fixing21:06
mdzmjg59: for 8.10, we will hold a proper discussion about the right way to do it in the long term, and work toward that21:06
mdzwe can't commit to reaching such a goal in one release cycle, I agree21:07
mdzok then21:07
Keybuksounds like we have our first UDS ML session ;)21:07
Keybuk(ML: Mystery Location)21:07
somerville32That gives me a good reason to try and get there21:08
somerville32I'd be very interested in seeing us move forward with an innovative solution for this issue21:08
somerville32For now, moving Xubuntu to Universe I'm sure won't hurt too much ;]21:08
somerville32As _MMA_ and I already said, the situation for Universe _is_ improving.21:09
somerville32Especially with the recent additions of such MOTUs like Emmet Hickory21:09
mdz[VOTE] 1) packages seeded for Xubuntu are not required to be in main, 2) Xubuntu will continue to be built as usual but including packages from universe, and 3) in the Ubuntu 8.10 planning cycle (including UDS), we will discuss in depth how the repositories are organized with respect to project commitments and make plans to improve this21:10
MootBotPlease vote on:  1) packages seeded for Xubuntu are not required to be in main, 2) Xubuntu will continue to be built as usual but including packages from universe, and 3) in the Ubuntu 8.10 planning cycle (including UDS), we will discuss in depth how the repositories are organized with respect to project commitments and make plans to improve this.21:10
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:10
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:10
MootBot+1 received from mdz. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 121:10
MootBot+1 received from mjg59. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 221:10
MootBot+1 received from Keybuk. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 321:11
mdzeek, I'm lagged21:11
mdz[TOPIC] AOB21:12
MootBotVote is in progress. Finishing now.21:12
MootBotFinal result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 321:12
MootBotNew Topic:  AOB21:12
Keybuk--- Ping reply from mdz : 0.47 second(s)21:13
Keybukno OB from me21:13
mdz--- Ping reply from mdz : 15.98 second(s)21:13
Keybukyou ping'd yourself? :)21:13
mdznote that there is a minor question about mailing lists from Corey Burger which I redirected to technical-board@21:13
mdzplease have a look and weigh in21:13
mdzKeybuk: don't you?21:14
mdzok, thanks everyone21:14
MootBotMeeting finished at 21:14.21:14
Keybukmdz: xchat-gnome does it all the time itself21:14
somerville32Is the TB still approving all the MC's MOTU application approvals?21:15
pochusomerville32: nope, the MC now approves them and changes the status in LP21:18
somerville32Awesome. Anyhow, thanks a bunch Keybuk, mdz, and mjg59 for hearing me out :)21:22
* mdz catches up with TeamReporting21:22
mdzsomerville32: thanks for your input21:22
no0tic /j #quadratoufficiali22:45
LjLno0tic: se non altro non ci hai dato anche la password23:17
no0ticLjL, non la conosco23:18
=== cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!