Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.vote > #644 > unrolled thread

having public irc logs?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.vote

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  having public irc logs? Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> - 2017-04-06 10:50 +0200
    Re: having public irc logs? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2017-04-06 12:00 +0200
    Re: having public irc logs? Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2017-04-06 18:10 +0200
      Re: having public irc logs? Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> - 2017-04-07 10:00 +0200
        use matrix.org if you want logs (was: having public irc logs?) martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2017-04-07 10:10 +0200
        Re: having public irc logs? Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2017-04-07 13:30 +0200
          Re: having public irc logs? Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> - 2017-04-07 16:40 +0200
            Re: having public irc logs? Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2017-04-08 10:00 +0200
            Re: having public irc logs? Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> - 2017-04-08 10:00 +0200
    Re: having public irc logs? Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2017-04-06 21:30 +0200
    Re: having public irc logs? Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2017-04-08 08:00 +0200
      Re: having public irc logs? Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> - 2017-04-08 12:20 +0200
        Re: having public irc logs? Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2017-04-09 10:50 +0200
    Re: having public irc logs? Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> - 2017-04-08 09:50 +0200
      Re: having public irc logs? Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2017-04-09 07:20 +0200

#644 — having public irc logs?

Hello Mehdi and Chris,



Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.


However we don't have a public irc log system, and most


of the conversations between us are happening there.



How do you relate to that issue? Do you see it as a problem,


or do you think people should join irc to read our conversations?


(channels protected by a passphrase are of course out of this question).


thanks


Gianfranco

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#645

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:44:20AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.

I think you are misremembering. "We dont hide problems and we promise that we
will operate our bug tracking system in public forever". And that's from the 
social contract (#3 of it), not the constitution.

Debian never said we would make everything public.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#649

On 14634 March 1977, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
> However we don't have a public irc log system, and most
> of the conversations between us are happening there.

> How do you relate to that issue? Do you see it as a problem,
> or do you think people should join irc to read our conversations?
> (channels protected by a passphrase are of course out of this question).

If you follow your way of thinking (which is wrong here, btw :) ), you
end up requiring that every time two Developers meet and speak about
Debian things - they need to transcribe them and put that online
somewhere. Or we hide... Every conversation at DebConf, as soon as it
goes beyond "Want another beer?" needs to be scribbled down and put
online. Or we hide...

Silly?

Yes, but thats what you started. We as a project aren't saying that
everything will be available for everyone everywhere, and thats good.

-- 
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657

Hello,


>If you follow your way of thinking (which is wrong here, btw :) ), you
>end up requiring that every time two Developers meet and speak about

[...]

>Most of our IRC channels are public, and that's how it should be.
>However, there's a difference between "anyone can join and follow the
>conversation now", and "anyone can read me being in a bad mood and
>saying things I'll regret later for all eternity". For one thing, if you
>see me being in a bad mood and ranting aloud, you might want to ask
>what's going on, and I could realize that I'm misbehaving (as per our
>CoC). Not so with public IRC logs.

[...]


your points are clear, but still most of conversations are *useful* to people
not having an irc bouncer
e.g. I think Release Team channel is useful to know if something bad is going on,
also Ftp channel or Buildd one. e.g. I can spot the need of a give back, I can check
the log to see if it has been already requested, and then go in the channel to

request it.

Knowing that a place is logged, should prevent people from grumping (too much) or giving
inappropriate answers.

I see two scenarios:
1) now everybody thinks irc is private and privacy protected, so people are encouraged
to "say what they think without doing it in an appropriate way"
2) irc becomes publicly logged, and people starts behaving more appropriately.

You want to protect privacy but you know privacy doesn't exist on public places.

(it would be nice if some removed developer going away after some bad flame war over Debian would
publish *all* the logs just for fun)
How will you protect the privacy then?

People should be responsible for what they say, regardless where they say.
We are not kids anymore.

This is obviously a general question :)

(most of this might apply to -private mail list, but in this case join rules are clear in advance, while over irc they arent).

thanks for sharing your point of view, it has been appreciated.

Gianfranco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#658 — use matrix.org if you want logs (was: having public irc logs?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

also sprach Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> [2017-04-07 09:51 +0200]:
> your points are clear, but still most of conversations are
> *useful* to people not having an irc bouncer

This is getting off-topic, but you could consider using matrix.org
with its IRC bridges. Sign up using e.g. http://riot.im/app and then
join the room #_oftc_#debian-release:matrix.org and you'll be able
to interact through Matrix, which keeps history for you.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
unix, because rebooting is for adding new hardware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

(Replies redirected to debian-project, since this has nothing to do
with the DPL election anymore.)

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 07:51:21AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> e.g. I think Release Team channel is useful to know if something bad
> is going on, also Ftp channel or Buildd one. e.g. I can spot the
> need of a give back, I can check the log to see if it has been
> already requested, and then go in the channel to request it.

I guestion the usefulness of IRC logs for that kind of thing. The log
shows that, say, a package was discussed three hours ago. Has the
situation changed? It might have, but without anyone mentioning it on
IRC, and therefor in the log. The kinds of things that are discussed
on IRC tend be quickly changing. Logs are not useful for those. In my
opinion and experience.

> I see two scenarios:
> 1) now everybody thinks irc is private and privacy protected, so
> people are encouraged to "say what they think without doing it in an
> appropriate way"
> 2) irc becomes publicly logged, and people starts behaving more
> appropriately.

This does not match my observations of reality. People seem happy to
behave quite badly using their own names in public fora as it is.
Making IRC channels public is unlikely to have much effect on
behaviour.

If it did, nobody would be an ass on Facebook, Google+, or Twitter
unless they've taken care to hide their identity well. Yet people are
posting, using their real names, sexist and racist slurs, even death
threats. Not to mention newspapers and TV.

If there's a problem with how people behave on IRC, that should be
addressed directly.

> You want to protect privacy but you know privacy doesn't exist on
> public places.

I disgree strongly.

If I sit on a park bench with a friend and we discuss something, we
have an expectation of privacy. If you record our conversation and
play it on the radio, you've violated our privacy.

> (it would be nice if some removed developer going away after some
> bad flame war over Debian would publish *all* the logs just for fun)
> How will you protect the privacy then?

You're suggesting that someone publish non-public discussions? Becuase
it would be fun? Seriously?

> People should be responsible for what they say, regardless where
> they say. We are not kids anymore.

I'll be sending a handyman to install a webcam and microphone in your
bathroom and bedroom. I've also engaged a private investigator firm to
follow you and record all discussions you have with friends. The ones
that mention or refer to Debian will be posted to
meetings-archive.debian.net. A team of volunteers will transcribe them
and post them to identi.ca. After all, ýou need to be responsible for
anything you say, at any time, in any place, in any context.

More constructively... if you have a point that specific disucssions
about, say, release management should be made more public, then make a
specific suggestion about that, with justificiations why it's a good
idea. Saying that all Debian IRC channels should be logged publically
is too broad to be acceptable to a large number of people.

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660

(this question was on debian-vote by purpose, and was directed to DPL,
I'll drop -vote on the next email)

>(Replies redirected to debian-project, since this has nothing to do
>with the DPL election anymore.)


sigh, I agree
(I would have used -devel to have a public discussion, this wasn't
the case, but meh, it is nice to discuss such things anyway)

>I guestion the usefulness of IRC logs for that kind of thing. The log
>shows that, say, a package was discussed three hours ago. Has the
>situation changed? It might have, but without anyone mentioning it on
>IRC, and therefor in the log. The kinds of things that are discussed
>on IRC tend be quickly changing. Logs are not useful for those. In my
>opinion and experience.


I had many times written something just some minutes after somebody else.
You might question it, I might agree with you, but in my life I have a lot
of use-cases of this being useful
(e.g. my uploads not being accepted, a quick look on -ftp channel logs
can show signs of dak sadness).

But anyway, I don't see any added value of discussing what I find useful
and what you find useful :)
>This does not match my observations of reality. People seem happy to
>behave quite badly using their own names in public fora as it is.
>Making IRC channels public is unlikely to have much effect on
>behaviour.


completely correct, this was an answer to some "hey we can't public
logs because people are using bad words here".
>If it did, nobody would be an ass on Facebook, Google+, or Twitter
>unless they've taken care to hide their identity well. Yet people are
>posting, using their real names, sexist and racist slurs, even death
>threats. Not to mention newspapers and TV.


sigh, true, unfortunately nobody seems responsible anymore for
his behaviour.

>If there's a problem with how people behave on IRC, that should be
>addressed directly.


sure, but this is not something I have to discuss, I don't have such
problem, I just think logs are useful :)

>> You want to protect privacy but you know privacy doesn't exist on
>> public places.
>I disgree strongly.
>
>If I sit on a park bench with a friend and we discuss something, we
>have an expectation of privacy. If you record our conversation and
>play it on the radio, you've violated our privacy.


true
>> (it would be nice if some removed developer going away after some
>> bad flame war over Debian would publish *all* the logs just for fun)
>> How will you protect the privacy then?
>
>You're suggesting that someone publish non-public discussions? Becuase
>it would be fun? Seriously?


I didn't suggest that, but privacy online is seriously something that
*doesn't* exist, and people not understanding that are simply wrong.
you can have some false idea of privacy online, the website gets
hacked, or a bug shows logs on the server, or somebody else hacks
your pc.
In a park the damage you can do is limited, online is really worse the situation

(I remember some leaks of some websites for adults, leaking real email addresses
and real passwords)


so, saying "somebody violating my privacy is wrong", when "somebody" can be "null" or
"really difficult to track because vpn/tor", doesn't protect you much more.
>> People should be responsible for what they say, regardless where
>> they say. We are not kids anymore.
>I'll be sending a handyman to install a webcam and microphone in your
>bathroom and bedroom. I've also engaged a private investigator firm to
>follow you and record all discussions you have with friends. The ones
>that mention or refer to Debian will be posted to
>meetings-archive.debian.net. A team of volunteers will transcribe them
>and post them to identi.ca. After all, ýou need to be responsible for
>anything you say, at any time, in any place, in any context.


well, bathroom and bedroom are more private than irc I would say, but
sometimes even the context has to be considered when saying something

>More constructively... if you have a point that specific disucssions
>about, say, release management should be made more public, then make a
>specific suggestion about that, with justificiations why it's a good
>idea. Saying that all Debian IRC channels should be logged publically
>is too broad to be acceptable to a large number of people.


And finally the point is there.
If you look closely to my first email I never said "all", and specially
I don't care about many channels (even -devel or -mentors might be useless
when not connected to the internet).
I even provided a list, -release, -ftp, -buildd.

so, the question still stands.
Dear DPL candidate, how do you feel about having *some* irc channels of public
interest being available for offline users?

Gianfranco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#666

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> having *some* irc channels of public interest being available for offline users?

FYI, #debian on both OFTC and freenode are publicly logged:

http://ibot.rikers.org/%23debian/
http://irclogs.thegrebs.com/debian/

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667

On 07/04/2017 16:21, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> (this question was on debian-vote by purpose, and was directed to DPL,
> I'll drop -vote on the next email)
> 
>> (Replies redirected to debian-project, since this has nothing to do
>> with the DPL election anymore.)
> 
> 
> sigh, I agree
> (I would have used -devel to have a public discussion, this wasn't
> the case, but meh, it is nice to discuss such things anyway)
> 
>> I guestion the usefulness of IRC logs for that kind of thing. The log
>> shows that, say, a package was discussed three hours ago. Has the
>> situation changed? It might have, but without anyone mentioning it on
>> IRC, and therefor in the log. The kinds of things that are discussed
>> on IRC tend be quickly changing. Logs are not useful for those. In my
>> opinion and experience.
> 
> 
> I had many times written something just some minutes after somebody else.
> You might question it, I might agree with you, but in my life I have a lot
> of use-cases of this being useful
> (e.g. my uploads not being accepted, a quick look on -ftp channel logs
> can show signs of dak sadness).
> 
> But anyway, I don't see any added value of discussing what I find useful
> and what you find useful :)
>> This does not match my observations of reality. People seem happy to
>> behave quite badly using their own names in public fora as it is.
>> Making IRC channels public is unlikely to have much effect on
>> behaviour.
> 
> 
> completely correct, this was an answer to some "hey we can't public
> logs because people are using bad words here".
>> If it did, nobody would be an ass on Facebook, Google+, or Twitter
>> unless they've taken care to hide their identity well. Yet people are
>> posting, using their real names, sexist and racist slurs, even death
>> threats. Not to mention newspapers and TV.
> 
> 
> sigh, true, unfortunately nobody seems responsible anymore for
> his behaviour.
> 
>> If there's a problem with how people behave on IRC, that should be
>> addressed directly.
> 
> 
> sure, but this is not something I have to discuss, I don't have such
> problem, I just think logs are useful :)
> 
>>> You want to protect privacy but you know privacy doesn't exist on
>>> public places.
>> I disgree strongly.
>>
>> If I sit on a park bench with a friend and we discuss something, we
>> have an expectation of privacy. If you record our conversation and
>> play it on the radio, you've violated our privacy.
> 
> 
> true
>>> (it would be nice if some removed developer going away after some
>>> bad flame war over Debian would publish *all* the logs just for fun)
>>> How will you protect the privacy then?
>>
>> You're suggesting that someone publish non-public discussions? Becuase
>> it would be fun? Seriously?
> 
> 
> I didn't suggest that, but privacy online is seriously something that
> *doesn't* exist, and people not understanding that are simply wrong.
> you can have some false idea of privacy online, the website gets
> hacked, or a bug shows logs on the server, or somebody else hacks
> your pc.
> In a park the damage you can do is limited, online is really worse the situation
> 
> (I remember some leaks of some websites for adults, leaking real email addresses
> and real passwords)
> 
> 
> so, saying "somebody violating my privacy is wrong", when "somebody" can be "null" or
> "really difficult to track because vpn/tor", doesn't protect you much more.
>>> People should be responsible for what they say, regardless where
>>> they say. We are not kids anymore.
>> I'll be sending a handyman to install a webcam and microphone in your
>> bathroom and bedroom. I've also engaged a private investigator firm to
>> follow you and record all discussions you have with friends. The ones
>> that mention or refer to Debian will be posted to
>> meetings-archive.debian.net. A team of volunteers will transcribe them
>> and post them to identi.ca. After all, ýou need to be responsible for
>> anything you say, at any time, in any place, in any context.
> 
> 
> well, bathroom and bedroom are more private than irc I would say, but
> sometimes even the context has to be considered when saying something
> 
>> More constructively... if you have a point that specific disucssions
>> about, say, release management should be made more public, then make a
>> specific suggestion about that, with justificiations why it's a good
>> idea. Saying that all Debian IRC channels should be logged publically
>> is too broad to be acceptable to a large number of people.
> 
> 
> And finally the point is there.
> If you look closely to my first email I never said "all", and specially
> I don't care about many channels (even -devel or -mentors might be useless
> when not connected to the internet).
> I even provided a list, -release, -ftp, -buildd.
> 
> so, the question still stands.
> Dear DPL candidate, how do you feel about having *some* irc channels of public
> interest being available for offline users?
> 

I feel bad about that. As explained elsewhere, it is not the spirit of
usage of IRC, at least in Debian. But ultimately, I think it is a project
decision if (for example) we want to make a #debian-recorded channel but
I would not support it, personally.

There are simple technical measures that you could personally put in place
to follow some channels.

-- 
Mehdi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:44:20AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello Mehdi and Chris,
> 
> 
> 
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
> 
> However we don't have a public irc log system, and most
> 
> of the conversations between us are happening there.
> 
> How do you relate to that issue? Do you see it as a problem,
> 
> or do you think people should join irc to read our conversations?
> 
> (channels protected by a passphrase are of course out of this question).

Please no.

Most of our IRC channels are public, and that's how it should be.
However, there's a difference between "anyone can join and follow the
conversation now", and "anyone can read me being in a bad mood and
saying things I'll regret later for all eternity". For one thing, if you
see me being in a bad mood and ranting aloud, you might want to ask
what's going on, and I could realize that I'm misbehaving (as per our
CoC). Not so with public IRC logs.

We do have meetbot, whichi is useful for meetings. Some of us (me
included) do keep their IRC client running "always"[1], and keep
private logs pretty much forever. I have been known to sometimes quote
from that IRC log publicly[2]. There is a world of difference between
doing that and making *all* our IRC conversations public, however.

Transparency is a good thing, but so is privacy.

[1] Servers do get rebooted, and sometimes you forget to restart the
clint. That's a detail, obviously.
[2] See my .sig ;-)

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661

Dear Gianfranco,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

> we don't have a public irc log system, and most of the
> conversations between us are happening there.

Personally, I wouldn't say "most conversations" here, but I am
trying to avoid this conversation becoming a debate on the minutiæ…

I would concede that that there are some advantages to having public
IRC logging, but I don't see anywhere near enough advantage to warrant
the Leader pushing it as a policy, as well as many disadvantages and,
naturally, an extremely high switching cost.

This is despite me veing very much in favour of asking questions in
public — which admittedly isn't exactly same as logging — even going
so far as to write a blog post about it:

  https://chris-lamb.co.uk/posts/dont-ask-your-questions-in-private

Did you have specific types of conversations in mind when you addressed
your question? Perhaps ensuring those become transparent in another way
would assuage your concerns.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670

Hello Chris!
>Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.


lol, apologies not accepted :p
The new queue is nearly empty, so thanks to all of you ftpmasters!

>Personally, I wouldn't say "most conversations" here, but I am
>trying to avoid this conversation becoming a debate on the minutiæ…


yeah, I might have written something like
"a lot of useful conversations" :)

>I would concede that that there are some advantages to having public
>IRC logging, but I don't see anywhere near enough advantage to warrant
>the Leader pushing it as a policy, as well as many disadvantages and,
>naturally, an extremely high switching cost.


this is a valid point, thanks

>This is despite me veing very much in favour of asking questions in
>public — which admittedly isn't exactly same as logging — even going
>so far as to write a blog post about it:
>
>  https://chris-lamb.co.uk/posts/dont-ask-your-questions-in-private
>


nice reading, thanks for sharing it!

>Did you have specific types of conversations in mind when you addressed>your question? Perhaps ensuring those become transparent in another way

>would assuage your concerns.

As said, a lot of times I have to read #-ftp #-buildd #-logs and maybe #-devel-changes
(or whatever is called).

e.g. bugs on #-devel-changes are useful to have a track of new bugs, new unblock requests
(during freeze times), or just to know which packages have interest in the community.

#-ftp is a nice place to know how dak is happy (and yeah, probably such logs are useful in
a context of some hours after somebody wrote that stuff)
same for #-buildd, to know chroot issues, or toolchain related sadness (e.g. all the recent
binutils failures on mips/powerpc)

#-release... well it is our main goal to release, so reading conversations there is a must for us :p

(also, I can know how fast I have to fix RC bugs, or see opinions by our RT team on various
topics).

thanks

Gianfranco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675

Gianfranco,

> > Did you have specific types of conversations in mind when you
> > addressed your question? Perhaps ensuring those become transparent
> > in another way would assuage your concerns.
> 
> As said, a lot of times I have to read #-ftp #-buildd #-logs and
> maybe #-devel-changes (or whatever is called).

It would seem to me that there are many other ways of being appraised of
the current status of these services that do not require the channels to
be publically logged.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665

On 06/04/2017 10:44, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello Mehdi and Chris,
> 
> 
> 
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
> 
> 
> However we don't have a public irc log system, and most
> 
> 
> of the conversations between us are happening there.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you relate to that issue? Do you see it as a problem,
> 
> 
> or do you think people should join irc to read our conversations?
> 
> 
> (channels protected by a passphrase are of course out of this question).
> 

To be honest, I also wondered why IRC channels were not logged when I
started contributing to Debian. Later, I understood that people used
IRC to communicate like they would do in real life. As such, we will
not try to record every conversation held between two contributors.

I understand it is not easy to follow IRC channels. Many things are
said out there. Many of what is said there can be found on mailing
lists as well. You may install a permanent IRC client that would
record some targeted IRC channels' activity, as pointed out by martin.

I also agree what others have said in this thread.

-- 
Mehdi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674

Mehdi Dogguy dijo [Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:47:38AM +0200]:
> To be honest, I also wondered why IRC channels were not logged when I
> started contributing to Debian. Later, I understood that people used
> IRC to communicate like they would do in real life. As such, we will
> not try to record every conversation held between two contributors.

I'm surprised nobody has said so far something along the following
lines, which I feel to be quite obvious.

Our goals by archiving our communications via mailing lists is not
"just" to prove everything we do is done in public. A mailing list
message is usually a self-sustaining piece of information, even as a
part of a conversation. They are easy to situate, and our usual
practices (i.e. inline quoting, preserving threading, the way we
handle Cc and Reply-to, etc.) help make each bit of information
meaningful and indexable.

IRC is just a shouting room. OK, sometimes it's way quieter, but each
channel just a stream of messages that hold very little "state" - If
you try to reconstruct what was said in an IRC conversation, if
anything, you will have the destinatary of some lines (as we hold the
convention of starting a line with <nickname><colon>).

IRC is great for live communication, but is a very very lousy
referential or citational material. Of course, that's one of the main
drivers behind bots such as Meetbot, which organizes what is said
during a specific interval by adding topicality and salient points. Of
course, Meetbot logs are publicly accessible.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.vote

csiph-web