Date   

Re: FYI: New LF Telemetry Policy

Oleg Nenashev
 

Hi all,

Does this policy apply to telemetry engines which were introduced *before* the new policy was announced? It is not clear from the text, but it is important if it becomes a policy for CDF projects.

Thanks in advance,
Oleg Nenashev
Jenkins project


On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 01:57 Dan Lopez <dlopez@...> wrote:
Thanks, Dan!

It is also on the agenda for tomorrow TOC call.

Best,
--
Dan Lopez
The Linux Foundation
+1 415.735.5881




On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:38 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
This was recently published: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/telemetry-data-policy/

It covers the policies and review process for the collection of data. We might want to consider adding this to our project guidelines.

Dan Lorenc


Re: FYI: New LF Telemetry Policy

Dan Lopez <dlopez@...>
 

Thanks, Dan!

It is also on the agenda for tomorrow TOC call.

Best,
--
Dan Lopez
The Linux Foundation
+1 415.735.5881




On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:38 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
This was recently published: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/telemetry-data-policy/

It covers the policies and review process for the collection of data. We might want to consider adding this to our project guidelines.

Dan Lorenc


FYI: New LF Telemetry Policy

Dan Lorenc <dlorenc@...>
 

This was recently published: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/telemetry-data-policy/

It covers the policies and review process for the collection of data. We might want to consider adding this to our project guidelines.

Dan Lorenc


Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Dan Lopez <dlopez@...>
 

This has been fixed.


--
Dan Lopez
The Linux Foundation
+1 415.735.5881


On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:25 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
One more niggly PR filed to fix some language in the README for that repo: https://github.com/cdfoundation/cdf-landscape/pull/37

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Tara Hernandez
 

One more niggly PR filed to fix some language in the README for that repo: https://github.com/cdfoundation/cdf-landscape/pull/37


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Moritz Plassnig
 

I like the approach of using the "core focus area". How would you objectively define that (to avoid vendors arguing forever about it)?


On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:15 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Thank you Emma for taking the time to review the landscape. In terms of multiple logos, it should represent complete separate products.  Like IBM has a solution in ARA and a complete different product in testing. I'm not sure at this point if companies are going to be allowed to list in multiple places when they have multiple tools. I understand what you are saying, for example DeployHub could be listed in ARA and config. management, but we just have deployhub listed in our core focus area. I believe this is the intent of the landscape.  

More to come...
Tracy


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:28 PM Emma Webb <emma@...> wrote:
Thanks for all your hard work here, Tracy and team. 

I noticed that we have a few vendors in multiple categories, which makes sense as different groups cover additional functionality. If we're allowing for single logos listed in multiple places, I would be interested to see the criteria - we could certainly put CircleCI in test automation, build automation, and image build, as well as both pipeline orchestration and CI. 

The logo stacking in pipeline orchestration also seems a bit inconsistent - is it possible to find a more neutral treatment for these? 

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:19 PM Michael Neale <mneale@...> wrote:
I had 2 PRs open which were moving some things around I thought were important. There is another PR open for a new project I saw - would be good to address those if possible. 

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 4:42 am, Tracy Ragan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 


--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices




--
Regards, 

Michael Neale
twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale
Cell: +61 423175597 (Australia)
Cofounder @ CloudBees



--
Emma Webb
CircleCI Marketing


--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--

Moritz Plassnig

VP, Cloud

CloudBees, Inc.

CloudBees-Logo.png


P: +1-617-230-0266
E: mo@...
Twitter:
moritzplassnig


Re: Regrets tomorrow

Tara Hernandez
 

Sure thing, enjoy Tokyo!


On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 11:25 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:
I'm traveling in Tokyo and therefore I won't be able to make it to the TOC meeting tomorrow. I'm hoping Tara would be able to run the meeting for us.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Regrets tomorrow

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

I'm traveling in Tokyo and therefore I won't be able to make it to the TOC meeting tomorrow. I'm hoping Tara would be able to run the meeting for us.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: How are other projects signing releases?

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

I've added my thought as a comment to the PR.


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:03 PM Olivier Vernin <olivier@...> wrote:
I would like to add some clarification, while the end goal is to effectively get a code signing certificates, the "tricky" part is to have a "verified" account on one of the many provider that exist in order to get a certificate.
During that account creation they ask various information to verify that the person who create the account really belong to the organization and has the right to proceed.
I think we won't be able to create that account as long as the jenkins trademark is not fully transfered to the Linux Foundation

Olivier

---
gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 52210D3D
---


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
Hey Tyler, I re-opened the issue to do some more investigation on our end, I need a bit more detail on the legal concerns, before we find a creative solution.

Almost all projects go the GPG route (or through some package registry) so this may be a new case.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM R. Tyler Croy <rtyler@...> wrote:

Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra
project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the
issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially
challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be
signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc).
Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate
and distribute ourselves.

This ticket was opened by cra@
some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements.

When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_
issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal
entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be
able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into
our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket,
there's reluctance to do so at the moment.

I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring
valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we
just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a
code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows
ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it.

If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket
are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code
signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in
the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how
we'll work around it. :-/


Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :)



Toodles
--

GPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2





--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: Proposal: MLOps Sig

Animesh Singh
 

Thanks all. There is great interest in this working group, and so far we have seen Github, Cloud Bees, Google onboard apart from IBM. I will now formally put in the right repo - and figure out a biweekly cadence which can work out for all of us, and get it kickstarted.

Please leave your email id on the github issue or the doc if you would like to participate.


Re: Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Michael Neale
 

I had 2 PRs open which were moving some things around I thought were important. There is another PR open for a new project I saw - would be good to address those if possible. 

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 4:42 am, Tracy Ragan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 


--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices




--
Regards, 

Michael Neale
twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale
Cell: +61 423175597 (Australia)
Cofounder @ CloudBees


Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Ravi Lachhman
 

Thanks Tara!

-Ravi
---
Ravi Lachhman | Evangelist
+1-678-458-3898


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:01 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
Hi Ravi, the CDF has its own version of that posted here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/blob/master/PROJECT_LIFECYCLE.md

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM Ravi Lachhman <ravi.lachhman@...> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what is the criteria for "graduation"?

Following the CNCF criteria?

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Tara Hernandez
 

Hi Ravi, the CDF has its own version of that posted here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/blob/master/PROJECT_LIFECYCLE.md


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM Ravi Lachhman <ravi.lachhman@...> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what is the criteria for "graduation"?

Following the CNCF criteria?

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Balaji Siva
 

Hi Tracy, 

logo placements seems little off. Can I call you for a quick discussion? I would think it would make sense to have the primary project on the top and vendors on the bottom row for the CI and Pipeline box.

Thanks
Balaji

408 201 2124


---- On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 11:42:17 -0700 TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote ----

Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices










Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Ravi Lachhman
 

Just out of curiosity, what is the criteria for "graduation"?

Following the CNCF criteria?


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [cdf-outreach] Is the Landscape ready for prime time?

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Issue Tracking SGTM

Also here is the link for folks who don't have it readily available:


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM TracyRagan <tracy@...> wrote:
Hello distinguished TOC members.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the landscape.  We would love to get it out, start blogging about it, tweeting etc.   If the categories work we will publish it so organizations can start adding their logos. 

One last thought - Do you think we should add an Issue Tracking category? 

--
Kind Regards,

Tracy Ragan
CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558

Follow us on: Blog / Twitter Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / GitHub
Where developers share and find microservices






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: Announcing the CDF Security SIG

Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

Correction. SIG-Security meetings will be held at 8 AM Pacific. Our first meeting will be next Tuesday 10/8.  Join us!


From: Kay Williams
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 10:26 AM
To: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>; sig-security@... <sig-security@...>
Subject: Announcing the CDF Security SIG
 

Hey everyone, I am excited to announce the formation of the Security SIG -  the CD Foundation’s first Special Interest Group (SIG)! The Security SIG began as a lightning talk at the first CD Summit in Barcelona this past May, and progressed to a formal proposal in August. In September it was adopted by the Technical Operating Committee (TOC).


The charter for the Security SIG is to provide a neutral home for discussion around designs, specifications, code and processes to enable security across the software supply chain. Topics of interest include the following:


  • Observability - enabling actions performed while writing code, compiling, testing, and distributing software to be manifest and verifiable.

  • Policy - enabling consumers of software to specify and implement policy over consumed software.

  • Inventory - enabling administrators to inventory and audit software used within their organizations.

  • Runtime Security- enabling detection and prevention of software tampering at runtime.

  • Vulnerability Communication - providing mechanisms for breaches in the integrity of software to be communicated and remediated.

  • Vulnerability Recovery - providing mechanisms for consumers to recover from compromised or untrusted software.

Membership in the Security SIG is open to the public. Here are some details:


Communication


Meetings


All are welcome to join the mailing list and attend meetings. We look forward to building a more secure future together!


Sincerely,

Kay




Announcing the CDF Security SIG

Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

Hey everyone, I am excited to announce the formation of the Security SIG -  the CD Foundation’s first Special Interest Group (SIG)! The Security SIG began as a lightning talk at the first CD Summit in Barcelona this past May, and progressed to a formal proposal in August. In September it was adopted by the Technical Operating Committee (TOC).


The charter for the Security SIG is to provide a neutral home for discussion around designs, specifications, code and processes to enable security across the software supply chain. Topics of interest include the following:


  • Observability - enabling actions performed while writing code, compiling, testing, and distributing software to be manifest and verifiable.

  • Policy - enabling consumers of software to specify and implement policy over consumed software.

  • Inventory - enabling administrators to inventory and audit software used within their organizations.

  • Runtime Security- enabling detection and prevention of software tampering at runtime.

  • Vulnerability Communication - providing mechanisms for breaches in the integrity of software to be communicated and remediated.

  • Vulnerability Recovery - providing mechanisms for consumers to recover from compromised or untrusted software.

Membership in the Security SIG is open to the public. Here are some details:


Communication


Meetings


All are welcome to join the mailing list and attend meetings. We look forward to building a more secure future together!


Sincerely,

Kay




Re: How are other projects signing releases?

Olivier Vernin
 

I would like to add some clarification, while the end goal is to effectively get a code signing certificates, the "tricky" part is to have a "verified" account on one of the many provider that exist in order to get a certificate.
During that account creation they ask various information to verify that the person who create the account really belong to the organization and has the right to proceed.
I think we won't be able to create that account as long as the jenkins trademark is not fully transfered to the Linux Foundation

Olivier

---
gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 52210D3D
---


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
Hey Tyler, I re-opened the issue to do some more investigation on our end, I need a bit more detail on the legal concerns, before we find a creative solution.

Almost all projects go the GPG route (or through some package registry) so this may be a new case.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM R. Tyler Croy <rtyler@...> wrote:

Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra
project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the
issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially
challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be
signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc).
Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate
and distribute ourselves.

This ticket was opened by cra@
some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements.

When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_
issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal
entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be
able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into
our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket,
there's reluctance to do so at the moment.

I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring
valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we
just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a
code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows
ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it.

If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket
are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code
signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in
the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how
we'll work around it. :-/


Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :)



Toodles
--

GPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2





--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: How are other projects signing releases?

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey Tyler, I re-opened the issue to do some more investigation on our end, I need a bit more detail on the legal concerns, before we find a creative solution.

Almost all projects go the GPG route (or through some package registry) so this may be a new case.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM R. Tyler Croy <rtyler@...> wrote:

Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra
project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the
issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially
challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be
signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc).
Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate
and distribute ourselves.

This ticket was opened by cra@
(https://github.com/cdfoundation/foundation/issues/10) but I believe there was
some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements.

When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_
issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal
entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be
able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into
our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket,
there's reluctance to do so at the moment.

I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring
valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we
just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a
code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows
ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it.

If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket
are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code
signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in
the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how
we'll work around it. :-/


Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :)



Toodles
--
GitHub:  https://github.com/rtyler

GPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2





--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

561 - 580 of 825