#182: GNOME 3.12 pushes Google and other commercial, non-FOSS "apps" at users
----------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: sparks | Owner: somebody
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: Fedora Project | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by rdieter):
Josh called me out for referencing a non-public irc conversation, so after
getting everyone's permission, here's the #fedora-advisory-board log.
{{{
[04/09/14 07:04] <number80> mmm, I still don't have access to the board
trac :/
[04/09/14 07:04] * number80 wants to follow the gnome shell proprietary
services integration ticket
[04/09/14 07:05] <number80> rbergeron: you registered me on the board-
private m-l, not on the trac ;)
[04/09/14 08:06] <Sparks> number80: If you're keeping up with the FESCo
ticket, that's really where it is.
[04/09/14 08:07] <number80> yup
[04/09/14 08:08] <number80> I wish that discussion actually happened
*upstream*
[04/09/14 08:08] <Sparks> number80: It did. The original complaintant
filed a BZ ticket.
[04/09/14 08:09] <number80> :/
[04/09/14 08:10] <number80> I think that we won't be more disliked by the
desktop team as we already are :)
[04/09/14 08:10] <number80> s/think/guess/
[04/09/14 08:12] <Sparks> number80: Maybe I'm crazy but I don't think it's
very FOSS of us to be pushing Google Docs in Fedora.
[04/09/14 08:13] <number80> I agree, but I understand the workstation
people who want to bring an "usable" desktop to end-users
[04/09/14 08:14] <number80> Besides, technically, we're not shipping
proprietary code nor making GNOME unusable without proprietary services
[04/09/14 08:14] <Sparks> So it's not usable without Google or Dropbox
or...
[04/09/14 08:14] <number80> is it ?
[04/09/14 08:15] <number80> it might be crippled experience compared to
stock GNOME, but not compared to older version ?
[04/09/14 08:15] <Sparks> I've been running Fedora for many years and I've
never thought "you know what this thing needs? A link to Google and other
non-FOSS stuff."
[04/09/14 08:16] <number80> Yeah, I can't help thinking that the
workstation product will end up being an independant downstream project
[04/09/14 08:17] <number80> They could do an awesome FOSS based desktop,
and we won't have to worry to keep it the fedora way
[04/09/14 08:18] <number80> (If it happens, I would still use the good ol'
Fedora desktop)
[04/09/14 08:19] <number80> Breaking the nvidia drivers with the 4k kernel
was the feature who kept me on Fedora ;)
[04/09/14 08:19] <mjg59> Sparks: Is it any more or less FOSS to include a
Twitter client?
[04/09/14 08:20] <Sparks> mjg59: Like Pidgin?
[04/09/14 08:21] <Sparks> err... not like Pidgin
[04/09/14 08:21] <Sparks> mjg59: AFAIK, we don't have a Twitter client.
We have software that *can* integrate with Twitter but also integrates
with other services, too.
[04/09/14 08:22] <Sparks> mjg59: The point is that we aren't pointing
people to Twitter on the desktop when they are trying to pull up terminal
(or another T).
[04/09/14 08:23] <mjg59> Sparks: No, we definitely ship applications that
do nothing but speak to Twitter
[04/09/14 08:24] <Sparks> mjg59: Oddly enough, when I type "twitter" into
my computer they don't come up.
[04/09/14 08:24] <mjg59> Sparks: That's not the question I was asking
[04/09/14 08:25] <Sparks> mjg59: That's the question I was answering
[04/09/14 08:25] <Sparks> mjg59: I see how you are trying to frame the
arguement but that's not the question.
[04/09/14 08:25] <mjg59> If these appeared in the software center but not
in the activities overview, would you have an objection?
[04/09/14 08:26] <Sparks> yes
[04/09/14 08:26] <Sparks> for several reasons
[04/09/14 08:26] <Sparks> These "apps" are bypassing the normal review
process for software.
[04/09/14 08:26] <mjg59> What distinction are you drawing between a Free
Software web browser that points to a non-free web service and a Free
Software Twitter client that points to a non-free web service?
[04/09/14 08:27] <mjg59> Well, no, they're not. All the code running on
the user's system has been reviewed.
[04/09/14 08:27] <Sparks> Oh really? Show me the review for Google DOcs
[04/09/14 08:28] <mjg59> I believe Firefox was part of core before the
review process was implemented
[04/09/14 08:28] <mjg59> But ok, you make a distinction there. Where's the
review for Google.com?
[04/09/14 08:28] <Sparks> I'm looking in the software thingy and see
Google Docs. Where is the review for that?
[04/09/14 08:29] <Sparks> We aren't shipping google.com.
[04/09/14 08:29] <mjg59> Sparks: We're not shipping Google Docs, either.
Have you actually installed it?
[04/09/14 08:29] <Sparks> We are shipping something called Google Drive
(sorry, not Google Docs).
[04/09/14 08:30] <mjg59> Sparks: Click install. Run it. What happens?
[04/09/14 08:30] <Sparks> Yes, I know what it does. It's pointing people
to a proprietary alternative to FOSS software that we already ship.
[04/09/14 08:30] <mjg59> Yes. Just like Firefox does.
[04/09/14 08:30] <Sparks> No
[04/09/14 08:31] <mjg59> We ship Firefox configured to use a proprietary
web search engine
[04/09/14 08:31] <Sparks> You have to opt-in to get Firefox to do non-FOSS
stuff. This solutions are being pushed to the user.
[04/09/14 08:31] <mjg59> Open firefox. Type some words (not a URL) into
the address bar. Hit enter. What happens?
[04/09/14 08:31] <Sparks> Yes, I dislike the search function in Firefox
and think it should be changed/fixed.
[04/09/14 08:32] <mjg59> Ok. So why is shipping any software that uses a
non-free web service acceptable?
[04/09/14 08:32] <Sparks> Right now the software center is pushing non-
FOSS stuff. Firefox isn't advertising non-FOSS stuff.
[04/09/14 08:32] <mjg59> Why is the Google Drive web app any less free
than Mitter?
[04/09/14 08:33] <Sparks> I've don't know what mitter is (neither does the
software center).
[04/09/14 08:33] <Sparks> So where is Microsoft Office Live in here?
[04/09/14 08:34] <mjg59> Ok. Birdie.
[04/09/14 08:34] <Sparks> I mean, if we're offering up Google Drive then
why not Microsoft's solution?
[04/09/14 08:34] <mjg59> That's a separate question
[04/09/14 08:34] <mjg59> I'm trying to figure out the distinction you draw
between one set of proprietary web services and another set
[04/09/14 08:34] <Sparks> They are both on equal footing WRT licensing,
EULA, and restrictive access.
[04/09/14 08:36] <mjg59> How is the existence of Birdie not pushing
proprietary web services?
[04/09/14 08:39] <Sparks> The distinction is that we aren't pushing a
proprietary solution simply by having an application that can access that
proprietary solution. But when we start showing in our software store
proprietary software (SaaS) then we're actively pointing people away from
the FOSS that we already ship.
[04/09/14 08:39] <Sparks> mjg59: Birdie is GPLv3. What's Google Docs?
[04/09/14 08:40] <Sparks> mjg59: The distinction is that GNOME is now
pushing SaaS. I'll extend my view to the end product, not the metadata
file that points people to that solution.
[04/09/14 08:40] <mjg59> Sparks: The bit of Google Docs that ends up on
the user's system is GPLv2
[04/09/14 08:42] <Sparks> mjg59: I thought it was CC0?
[04/09/14 08:42] <mjg59> Epiphany? No.
[04/09/14 08:42] <Sparks> no
[04/09/14 08:43] <Sparks> the metadata that points people to these
solutions is CC0. The link (which all programs have) should be
negligable.
[04/09/14 08:44] <mjg59> I don't understand.
[04/09/14 08:44] <mjg59> In both cases (Drive and Twitter) the actual
client code running on the user system is GPL
[04/09/14 08:44] <Sparks> When GNOME started pushing SaaS solutions they
changed the very way we have to start thinking about what we ship.
[04/09/14 08:45] <Sparks> This isn't about epiphany. It's about how
epiphany knows where to go.
[04/09/14 08:45] <mjg59> In both cases that client code does nothing
meaningful without a proprietary web service
[04/09/14 08:46] <mjg59> Why is Birdie acceptable to you?
[04/09/14 08:46] <Sparks> In one case the software is proprietary SaaS.
[04/09/14 08:46] <mjg59> Which software?
[04/09/14 08:46] <Sparks> The software is properly licensed.
[04/09/14 08:46] <Sparks> Birdie
[04/09/14 08:46] <mjg59> And Epiphany is also properly licensed for
distribution in Fedora
[04/09/14 08:47] <Sparks> Google Drive is not
[04/09/14 08:47] <mjg59> But in both cases under discussion, the free
software does not do what the user wants without the presence of a non-
free web service
[04/09/14 08:47] <Sparks> Again, Google Drive is not. That's what I see
on my system.
[04/09/14 08:47] <mjg59> But Google Drive doesn't end up on your system.
[04/09/14 08:48] <mjg59> All the software on your system continues to be
free
[04/09/14 08:48] <number80> The point is to know if you're compelled to
use proprietary services or run proprietary code in your own box :/
[04/09/14 08:48] <mjg59> Well, arguably this is an improvement
[04/09/14 08:48] <number80> if it's no, the only thing we could object is
using logo or trademarks :/
[04/09/14 08:48] <Sparks> But you are actively advertising a proprietary
solution. Birdie isn't doing that.
[04/09/14 08:48] <mjg59> The software center makes it clear that the web
apps are proprietary
[04/09/14 08:49] <mjg59> But we make no such clarification for tools that
depend on proprietary web services
[04/09/14 08:49] <mjg59> Sparks: How is Birdie not actively advertising a
proprietary solution?
[04/09/14 08:49] <Sparks> And if they are proprietary then they have no
business being in the software center by default.
[04/09/14 08:49] <Sparks> Because Birdie isn't called Twitter.
[04/09/14 08:50] <mjg59> So despite it mentioning Twitter in its
description, turning up when you search for Twitter and not working unless
Twitter is available, it's not advertising a proprietary solution?
[04/09/14 08:50] <Sparks> If you saw Birdie you wouldn't automatically
think that we're pushing the Twitter service.
[04/09/14 08:51] <mjg59> I don't think seeing anything in Fedora means
we're pushing it
[04/09/14 08:51] <Sparks> Not like Google Drive was as it came up without
my even having to type Google
[04/09/14 08:51] <Sparks> If anything pushing services makes it worse for
Fedora
[04/09/14 08:51] <mjg59> How are you seeing Google Drive without you even
typing Google?
[04/09/14 08:52] <Sparks> We're completely bypassing all FOSS solutions
and going right to a proprietary solution.
[04/09/14 08:52] <Sparks> If I type "write" to get LibreOffice Writer I
see "Google Drive".
[04/09/14 08:52] <mjg59> Could you please stay on a single line of
discussion?
[04/09/14 08:53] <Sparks> I'm just trying to answer your wide ranging
questions
[04/09/14 08:53] <number80> Sparks: this is a bug
[04/09/14 08:53] <misc> mhh I think that in the case of google doc, there
is lots of JS running on user systeml, while for twitter client, there is
not
[04/09/14 08:53] <mjg59> Sparks: If you type that where?
[04/09/14 08:53] <number80> misc: the same when you're browsing the web
[04/09/14 08:53] <misc> number80: yep
[04/09/14 08:53] <Sparks> meta key
[04/09/14 08:54] <mjg59> 14:25 < mjg59> If these appeared in the software
center but not in the activities overview, would you have an objection?
[04/09/14 08:54] <mjg59> 14:26 < Sparks> yes
[04/09/14 08:54] <rdieter> this discussion is partly why I think worrying
about webservices (yet?) is a lost cause (ie, it is a deep rathole to get
lost in, and never dig your way out of)
[04/09/14 08:54] <Sparks> mjg59: Just answering your questions.
[04/09/14 08:54] <mjg59> So let's ignore that because it's not why you're
unhappy
[04/09/14 08:54] <number80> as long as you're not required to use
proprietary services, we can only accept this
[04/09/14 08:55] <number80> wether we like or not
[04/09/14 08:55] <Sparks> rdieter: Which is why we shouldn't be
advertising things we aren't shipping.
[04/09/14 08:55] <rdieter> Sparks: I'm saying the boat has already sailed
[04/09/14 08:56] <Sparks> rdieter: No, it's still firmly attached to the
pier. This is the first time I've seen us provide links to proprietary
solutions in our products by default.
[04/09/14 08:56] <misc> number80: well, that's a bit a broad statement,
when do we decide that we are required to use them ?
[04/09/14 08:56] <Sparks> rdieter: And the first time for the original
complaintant as well.
[04/09/14 08:56] <rdieter> (I think, I'm still trying to wrap my brain
around what my gut is telling me)
[04/09/14 08:57] <rdieter> Sparks: theres a horrible slippery slope if you
want to start categorizing webservices as ok or not
[04/09/14 08:57] <number80> misc: a simple rule of thumb, any feature you
were previously able to use without a proprietary services should still
work
[04/09/14 08:57] <Sparks> rdieter: By having these solutions readily
available, by default, in our software center then we are actively saying
that Fedora is okay with the use of proprietary solutions as long as they
aren't on your computer.
[04/09/14 08:57] <misc> number80: that doesn't take in account new feature
[04/09/14 08:57] <misc> number80: nor when is "previosuly"
[04/09/14 08:58] <Sparks> rdieter: Agreed and thus we shouldn't be
offering up any webservices in our products.
[04/09/14 08:58] <number80> misc: sure
[04/09/14 08:58] <mjg59> Sparks: We already actively say that
[04/09/14 08:58] <misc> number80: by that count, it would have been ok to
have nvidia, since I couldn't have used with free driver before for 3d :)
[04/09/14 08:58] <Sparks> mjg59: We actively say what?
[04/09/14 08:58] <rdieter> Sparks: ok, that's the problem to solve then.
waiting for your comprehensive proposal on how to handle that. :)
[04/09/14 08:58] <mjg59> Sparks: That we're fine with the use of
proprietary solutions as long as they aren't on your computer
[04/09/14 08:58] <Sparks> rdieter: Don't do it.
[04/09/14 08:59] <rdieter> so lets bounce all twitter clients, as mjg59
mentioned as an example
[04/09/14 08:59] <EvilBob> Hang tight with me a second as I have not been
following this much at all. Sparks you use the words "in our software
center" is it a Fedora™ software center or does it come from someplace
else actually like GNOME?
[04/09/14 08:59] <Sparks> rdieter: The ones that can do twitter or only do
twitter?
[04/09/14 08:59] <rdieter> only twitter
[04/09/14 08:59] <number80> misc: that would have broken another rule
which is not to ship proprietary code within fedora ;)
[04/09/14 08:59] <mjg59> I start Firefox on a fresh install. There's a box
with "Google" in the top right corner.
[04/09/14 09:00] <Sparks> EvilBob: It's a "software center" program.
These things don't show up in yum. They are being pulled in with a file
in GNOME.
[04/09/14 09:00] <mjg59> How is that not promoting non-free web services?
[04/09/14 09:00] <number80> mjg59: i agree with you for the web search
feature (and the same goes with GNOME Online Accounts)
[04/09/14 09:00] <Sparks> mjg59: I agree.
[04/09/14 09:00] <EvilBob> Sparks: So it's not "our software center" it's
GNOME's software center
[04/09/14 09:00] <Sparks> EvilBob: Correct
[04/09/14 09:00] <EvilBob> Sparks: So what business is it of Fedora™s?
[04/09/14 09:01] <Sparks> EvilBob: AFAIK, GNOME is the only thing that has
a "software center"
[04/09/14 09:01] <Sparks> EvilBob: Because we're slapping our trademarks
on it and shipping it?
[04/09/14 09:01] <mjg59> Sparks: So any ruling we make about the
availability of web apps in Gnome should also apply to Firefox?
[04/09/14 09:01] <number80> since we could manipulate the metadata,
couldn't we add a vrms-like package that allows us to ship a crap-free
fedora by default ?
[04/09/14 09:02] <Sparks> mjg59: I would think that any ruling should
apply to Fedora
[04/09/14 09:02] <number80> people who'd want to see proprietary apps
could just remove it and we're done
[04/09/14 09:02] <mjg59> Sparks: Ok. So the desktop team aren't actually
doing something amazingly new here, they're just exposing what's been
status-quo in Fedora?
[04/09/14 09:02] <misc> what about deciding on case by case, seeing if the
removal cripple the product or not ?
[04/09/14 09:02] <rdieter> I'm starting to think if we want to be on the
safe side of things, indeed, software center should indeed limit itself to
fedora-only offerings (at least by default). I think our prior decision
about 3rd party stuff allows for opt-in for additional content.
[04/09/14 09:02] <Sparks> mjg59: Honestly, I'd be okay with having a check
box somewhere that allows people to opt-in to seeing these solutions.
[04/09/14 09:02] <EvilBob> If you want to be upset with and pissed off at
the GNOMEs then go for it, just don't take ownership on behalf of Fedora
in what they ship
[04/09/14 09:03] <misc> ( cause I think firefox without a search engine
would be crippled, I do not think software center would be less useful
without them )
[04/09/14 09:03] <mjg59> EvilBob: It's our default desktop. Its behaviour
is fundamental to how users perceive Fedora.
[04/09/14 09:03] <Sparks> EvilBob: Yeah, what mjg59 said.
[04/09/14 09:03] <mjg59> misc: "You can't use proprietary web services
unless it would be really, really inconvenient" is difficult to justify
from an ethical perspective
[04/09/14 09:03] <EvilBob> mjg59: I don't disagree but who are we to tell
them what they can and can't do?
[04/09/14 09:03] <Sparks> misc: There are alternative search engines for
Firefox
[04/09/14 09:03] <mjg59> EvilBob: We're the Fedora board.
[04/09/14 09:04] <EvilBob> mjg59: DO we tell KDE what they can and can't
do?
[04/09/14 09:04] <mjg59> EvilBob: Yes?
[04/09/14 09:04] <rdieter> Sparks: ok, I think I'm swayed enough that this
needs further scrutiny. I'm with you for now.
[04/09/14 09:04] <EvilBob> SHould we?
[04/09/14 09:04] <mjg59> EvilBob: Yes?
[04/09/14 09:04] <mjg59> If KDE wanted to ship non-free code, we'd say no
[04/09/14 09:04] <Sparks> EvilBob: There is no problem with GNOME creating
their own downstream spin and calling it GNOME Desktop (or whatever).
[04/09/14 09:05] <misc> mjg59: it is not that we do not permit to use
them, but more that we do not advertise them
[04/09/14 09:05] <mjg59> Sparks: I think you'll have difficulty convincing
people that removing Google from Firefox is for the good of Fedora
[04/09/14 09:05] <Sparks> rdieter: It's a tough argument to frame and I'm
generally bad at framing my frustration (which makes me frustrated).
[04/09/14 09:05] <misc> mjg59: people are kidna still free to do that
[04/09/14 09:05] <EvilBob> Sparks: not until Red Hat trademarks the word
Desktop
[04/09/14 09:05] <EvilBob> ;)
[04/09/14 09:05] <Sparks> mjg59: *shrug*
[04/09/14 09:05] <Sparks> EvilBob: You can't trademark "Desktop"
[04/09/14 09:05] <Sparks> so you won't have to worry about htat.
[04/09/14 09:05] <Sparks> that
[04/09/14 09:05] <number80> Someone trademarked the word "windows" ;)
[04/09/14 09:06] <misc> another softer solution could be "we are ok, but
we do not want to have the feature to be hilighted" ?
[04/09/14 09:06] <EvilBob> number80: Shhhh
[04/09/14 09:06] <Sparks> number80: Yes, in a very particular case.
Notice they didn't trademark "workstation"
[04/09/14 09:06] <number80> misc: +1
[04/09/14 09:06] <EvilBob> number80: Don't disrupt his roll
[04/09/14 09:06] <EvilBob> LOL
[04/09/14 09:06] <number80> :)
[04/09/14 09:07] <Sparks> EvilBob: Seriously. I'll happily send you the
law book that talks about this stuff. It'll put you right to sleep.
[04/09/14 09:07] <Sparks> number80: You don't see "windows" trademarked
for ... you know... a clear building material
[04/09/14 09:07] <Sparks> number80: But that's a different topic
altogether.
[04/09/14 09:07] <misc> so you could trademark desktop for a car :)
[04/09/14 09:08] <Sparks> misc: Probably
[04/09/14 09:08] <misc> ( then my desktop crashed would take a new meaning
)
[04/09/14 09:08] <number80> mmm
[04/09/14 09:08] <Sparks> misc: +1
[04/09/14 09:08] <EvilBob> We as Fedora™ are consumers of the upstream
products. We can choose to use these upstream products or not. I do not
feel it is our place to tell them what they can or can't do with their
product. We can tell them why we choose to not use them however.
[04/09/14 09:08] <Sparks> misc: It's all rather silly, really. It has to
be unique and then it can't become common.
[04/09/14 09:08] <EvilBob> Good luck dropping GNOME.
[04/09/14 09:08] <misc> Sparks: I know
[04/09/14 09:09] <number80> This is probably an evil plan from the GNOME
OS folks
[04/09/14 09:09] <rdieter> EvilBob: I dont think thats an accurate
description of what is being discussed. it's not an all or nothing deal
here
[04/09/14 09:09] <Sparks> misc: I think I'll go have some Jello... errr..
I mean gelatan (I can't spell it so Jell-O it is!).
[04/09/14 09:09] <mjg59> EvilBob: We're not choosing to not use Gnome
[04/09/14 09:10] <Sparks> EvilBob: Plus, it's all FOSS so we can change
anything we like in Gnome and ship it.
[04/09/14 09:10] <EvilBob> rdieter: You are probably correct, but I am so
used to seeing that I assumed it.
[04/09/14 09:10] <EvilBob> Sparks: We can... but SHOULD we?
[04/09/14 09:10] <EvilBob> mjg59: Why not?
[04/09/14 09:11] <EvilBob> mjg59: Don't get me wrong I am a happy GNOME3
/GNOME-Shell user.
[04/09/14 09:11] <Sparks> EvilBob: Sure, why not? We customize the
desktop art, why not the functionality to make things "perfect"?
[04/09/14 09:12] <EvilBob> If all y'all want to flex your muscles and be
tough guys, then do it, follow through... "GNOME we don't like how you
have done things and the way you are going, have a nice day"
[04/09/14 09:12] <Sparks> EvilBob: I did have a question I was going to
ask in #fedora but since you're here... Are you running GNOME 3.12? I'm
seeing something wierd with my terminal window.
[04/09/14 09:12] <EvilBob> Sparks: No, I don't like the copr idea
[04/09/14 09:12] <Sparks> EvilBob: Fair enough
[04/09/14 09:13] <Sparks> EvilBob: I don't either but that's where the
bits were...
[04/09/14 09:16] <EvilBob> Sparks: So your issue about "Google Drive"
could be solved with the addition of two words I think if it became "Free
Google Drive Client" would that be acceptable?
[04/09/14 09:17] * EvilBob hates the way they "rename" things for their
pretty tools as it is.
[04/09/14 09:18] <mjg59> EvilBob: Because the workstation WG has decided
to use Gnome.
[04/09/14 09:19] <EvilBob> mjg59: But as was pointed out already, so what
you are the Fedora™ Board
[04/09/14 09:19] <EvilBob> mjg59: It's pretty ironic that the GNOMEs that
make up most of the "Workstation WG" picked GNOME...
[04/09/14 09:19] <mjg59> EvilBob: The choice of Gnome is a technical
decision. It's not the board's place to overrule it.
[04/09/14 09:20] <EvilBob> "technical" I can buy, Technical I can not.
[04/09/14 09:21] <EvilBob> Hell even calling it a financial decision I can
stomach a lot more than calling it a technical decision
[04/09/14 09:22] <EvilBob> At least it's not hidden behind a lie that way
[04/09/14 09:22] <EvilBob> ;)
[04/09/14 09:23] <jreznik> well, it should go far beyond gnome only
[04/09/14 09:24] <jreznik> the platform is going to be more technology
agnostic
[04/09/14 09:24] <jreznik> and I hope we will get this in the upper level
too one day
[04/09/14 09:24] <number80> EvilBob: not everyone here has a certain
person as their N+2 ;)
[04/09/14 09:25] <number80> even if he were mine, I'm not used to be
"nice" with my own bosses ;)
[04/09/14 09:26] <EvilBob> ;)
[04/09/14 09:32] <EvilBob> number80: I got fired from my last full time
job a decade ago for telling my boss what I thought, BEST thing that ever
happened to me.
[04/09/14 09:33] <EvilBob> Well it was never clear if it was for telling
him what I thought or for busting the lock out of his office door when he
would not answer it...
[04/09/14 09:34] <number80> well, currently waiting to move to the next
job
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/182#comment:11>
Fedora Board issue tracker <http://fedorahosted.org/board>
Issue tracking for the Fedora Board
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
