webteam:webplan:2011
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
webteam:webplan:2011 [2011/04/07 20:58] – restructuring and wikification latest content jimcraner | webteam:webplan:2011 [2011/09/07 18:26] – jimcraner | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ===== DRAFT Evergreen Community Website: | + | ===== DRAFT Evergreen Community Website: Requirements Analysis and Recommendations DRAFT ===== |
- | Requirements Analysis and Recommendations DRAFT===== | + | |
Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
This document is the result of several months of strategic planning, requirements analysis, and community discussion. | This document is the result of several months of strategic planning, requirements analysis, and community discussion. | ||
- | |||
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | |||
- | The Evergreen Web Planning Team began work in late summer 2010. The Team is composed of self-selected members of the Evergreen Communications Committee along with other interested members of the greater community, and was led by an external facilitator familiar with open source software communities and online collaboration platforms. | ||
- | |||
- | From the beginning of the web planning process, Web Planning Team members were committed to transparency and inclusiveness. | ||
- | |||
- | As noted below, the Web Planning Team utilized a planning technique borrowed from the agile software development community called "user stories." | ||
- | |||
- | Although the initial - and primary - focus of the Web Planning Team was to consider a major website/ | ||
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | |||
- | (@@@TODO analysis and expansion of goals and requirements) | ||
- | |||
- | Instead of diving into technical minutiae or discussions about specific software, the Team began with a high-level strategic planning exercise. | ||
- | |||
- | Several high-level strategic goals were approved. | ||
- | |||
- | A. Strategic Goal #1: Provide an easy-to-use, | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 3. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 4. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | B. Strategic Goal #2: Support growth of a healthy developer community | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 3. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 4. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | C. Strategic Goal #3: Facilitate development of multi-faceted support network for Evergreen users. | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 3. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | D. Strategic Goal #4: Help encourage widespread adoption of Evergreen by the library community worldwide. | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Requirement: | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Requirement: | ||
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | |||
- | A. Existing Community Properties: Websites and More | ||
- | |||
- | The Evergreen community as a whole operates as a virtual community with the exception of occasional face-to-face meetings at conferences, | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Website/ | ||
- | |||
- | The current community website serves as a home for the Evergreen software itself as well as many of the project' | ||
- | |||
- | Evergreen-ils.org (and open-ils.org, | ||
- | |||
- | a. Download and implementation information | ||
- | b. Links to off-site demonstrations and development resources | ||
- | c. Information about connecting with the Evergreen developer community | ||
- | d. Developers' | ||
- | e. Links to non-development-related project efforts such as the Governance Committee, Communications Committee, and Documentation Interest Group. | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Website/ | ||
- | |||
- | The primary collaboration platform for the Evergreen development community is a Launchpad instance. | ||
- | |||
- | (@@@TODO Where do official docs live? DIG meeting space?) | ||
- | |||
- | 3. Website/ | ||
- | |||
- | Like many " | ||
- | |||
- | 4. Website/ | ||
- | |||
- | RSCEL, the Resource Sharing Cooperative of Evergreen Libraries, is a collaboration of various libraries and consortia using the Evergreen ILS. The RSCEL site offers resources for existing Evergreen users as well as information for potential users that are considering a migration to Evergreen for their library. | ||
- | |||
- | a. Evergreen feature index and software comparison matrix | ||
- | b. Evergreen feature request/ | ||
- | c. KCLS Requirement Prioritization Application (beta) | ||
- | d. Evergreen organization/ | ||
- | e. Ability to be notified of new Evergreen-related content | ||
- | f. Links to off-site demonstrations and development resources | ||
- | |||
- | The RSCEL website is built using Drupal and maintained by The Galecia Group on behalf of the Evergreen community. | ||
- | |||
- | 5. Email lists/ | ||
- | |||
- | Georgia Public Library Services provides an email list server for use by the Evergreen community and various teams within the community. | ||
- | |||
- | 6. IRC/ | ||
- | |||
- | Many Evergreen developers and other community members are active in the Evergreen chat room on the Freenode Internet Relay Chat (IRC) service. | ||
- | |||
- | B. Composition / Audience Analysis | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Community Size Estimates | ||
- | |||
- | @@TODO Community census? | ||
- | @@TODO Analyze list of Markmail posters | ||
- | @@TODO From GSoC population? | ||
- | @@TODO Total library systems? | ||
- | @@TODO # of libs on EG list * ave. # of potential staff per lib | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Evergreen Website Visitor Analysis | ||
- | |||
- | 3. RSCEL Website Visitor Analysis | ||
- | |||
- | C. Integration Between Properties | ||
- | |||
- | 1. Unified Search | ||
- | Google Custom: non-wiki, IRC transcripts, | ||
- | Dokuwiki: wiki only | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Shared content? | ||
- | |||
- | 3. Feeds and syndication | ||
- | |||
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | User stories are simple descriptions of features, written in plain English, that help website developers effectively plan a new website with the website users in mind. Since different groups of website users have different requirements, | + | [[webteam: |
- | + | ||
- | Immediately after finalizing the strategic requirements listed above, the Web Planning Team began an analysis of Evergreen community members. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The following criteria were used when discussing community groups and roles: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | -- where users are located geographically | + | |
- | -- where users are in the OSLS/EG adoption process (potential/ | + | |
- | -- where users are coming to the site from (referral links, search engines, etc.) | + | |
- | -- what users' goals are when they visit an EG property ("why are they here?" | + | |
- | -- what we need to convey to them for an effective interaction to take place from our perspective ("why do we, as site planners, care if they visit" --> "what defines success for the EG web properties?" | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Within this framework, the team identified many groups of EG community members, some of which overlap and some which are distinct. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | A. Identified Groups Within the EG Community | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The following list of groups of Evergreen community members was finalized by the Web Team in January 2011: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 1. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 2. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 3. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 4. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 5. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 6. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 7. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 8. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 9. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 10. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 11. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 12. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 13. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 14. " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | B. Functionality-related Requirements vs. Content-related Requirements | + | |
- | + | ||
- | For each group of website users identified, the Web Team wrote multiple requirements in the form of user stories. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | User stories can be related to website functionality, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | User stories can also be related to content on the website, such as specific documents, materials, multimedia, or pages. For instance, having a special page on the website explaining the benefits of Evergreen to people who don't currently use it is an example of a content-related user story. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | A complete list of user stories, classified by user role, is available in " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | C. Community Feedback Survey | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 1. Planning Process | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Although the Web Planning team sought feedback and comments from the community via the general mailing list, a formal survey was also desired to get detailed and structured feedback. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * achieving high diversity of targets and responses (in terms of various stakeholder groups and audience/ | + | |
- | * high response rate (we don't really have a denominator for response rate calculation) | + | |
- | * depth of responses (e.g., “I like blogs” vs. “I would like to see a feature wishlist system with specific features X, Y, and Z”) | + | |
- | * make it as easy as possible for community members to suggest miscellaneous requests and suggestions (unstructured feedback) | + | |
- | * provide structured feedback opportunities (e.g., “would you prefer Feature A to be implemented as X or as Y?” or “Rank Features A through G in preferred order”) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 2. Survey | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Once the team had achieved consensus on the content to be presented in the survey, two team members took the lead in crafting the survey in the SurveyMonkey tool. The survey was released to the community on March 1st, 2011 and publicized via the Evergreen general mailing list. The community was asked to complete the survey within two weeks of the release, and follow-up reminders were sent as well. Approximately 42 respondents completed the survey. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The aggregate survey results are included as a PDF attachment in Appendix B. Although a complete set of detailed, per-respondent survey results was also downloaded and analyzed by the Web Team, it was decided that those should not be published since respondents were never informed their answers could be made public. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Following the survey, the Web Team conducted two meetings to analyze and discuss the results. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | *** Who responded? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * The survey was advertised almost exclusively on the Evergreen mailing list, which is populated by both existing and potential users of Evergreen. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * The " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Over 60% of survey respondents classified their library/ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * When asked to identify their role - or more commonly, roles - in their library or system' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * As mentioned above, respondents were given several options when asked to identify their role(s). Some of these roles were specific to individual Evergreen implementations, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | A relatively high number of respondents identified with the community participation roles. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Given the importance of community participation, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Users who stated that they had not contributed content were asked why they had not, in an attempt to identify any cultural or technical barriers to contribution. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | a) Users who felt they had no valuable content to contribute due to relative inexperience with the Evergreen software, e.g., " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | This attitude is to be expected in such a young community such as Evergreen; however, the rapid uptake of Evergreen in libraries around the world should translate relatively quickly into a large increase of potential website contributors. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | b) Users who felt they had no valuable content to contribute due to perceived lack of technical capability, e.g., " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Non-developers provide value to an open source software ecosystem in many ways that are just as valuable as the developers themselves, such as documentation, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | c) Users who are unsure of how to contribute content to the website, e.g., " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | This attitude indicates a need for tools, documentation, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {@@@INC IN RECO} From a website planning perspective, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | *** Content-related findings | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Respondents were given a list of existing website sections/ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | {@@@INC IN RECO} These three areas - docs, wiki, and mailing list - can ideally be used as three different " | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * The previous recommendation described a process of curation, by which people in different roles or contexts could manually move knowledge from a limited discussion context into a context accessible to all on the website. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * When asked which content was easy to find on the EG website, users overwhelmingly and unsurprisingly mentioned the download section and the documentation section. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | *** Functionality findings | + | |
- | + | ||
- | [[webteam: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 1. People & Process | + | |
- | + | ||
- | EG Advocate role - informal vs. formal? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Website Publishing Committee (Process & Policy) | + | |
- | Netiquette policy | + | |
- | Recognize volunteers | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Marketing / Outreach / Awareness Committee | + | |
- | Promote growth in existing user bases | + | |
- | Promote growth in new user bases | + | |
- | e.g., EG has low penetration in K12 sector. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Publication schedules | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Encourage widespread participation | + | |
- | * lower and remove barriers whenever possible | + | |
- | * encourage community spirit and intangible incentivization | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Accessibility Advocate | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Privacy Policy! -- the archive change incident | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | 2. Technical | + | |
- | + | ||
- | [[webteam: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | XXX. Appendices | + | |
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | 1. Please give an indication of where you are with Evergreen. | + | {{:webteam:egwebsite_surveysummary_03172011.pdf|Appendix B: Survey Results (Aggregate)}} |
- | + | ||
- | * Skeptic - explicitly unsure of open source development methodology, | + | |
- | * Potential User - Evaluating or considering moving to Evergreen | + | |
- | * Planned Migration - Planning a migration to Evergreen | + | |
- | * Migration - Migration in Progress to Evergreen | + | |
- | * Production - Currently have production Evergreen systems | + | |
- | * Multiple - I work with more than one type of system | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 2. Is your current or potential Evergreen instance a | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Standalone system with a single library used by a single library organization | + | |
- | * Standalone system used by a single multi branch library | + | |
- | * Consortium with multiple library organizations on the same Evergreen instance | + | |
- | * Statewide consortium | + | |
- | * Other (please describe) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 3. Is your library a | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Public Library | + | |
- | * School (K - 12) | + | |
- | * College or University Affiliate | + | |
- | * Other Institution | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 4. What roles do you play on your Evergreen project? (check all that apply) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Install and Maintain Evergreen | + | |
- | * Administer Evergreen system settings | + | |
- | * Support Evergreen End Users | + | |
- | * Develop Evergreen | + | |
- | * Extend Evergreen by integrating with other products | + | |
- | * Train Evergreen End Users | + | |
- | * Train Evergreen System Administrators | + | |
- | * Document Evergreen processes | + | |
- | * Translate Evergreen client and documentation into other languages | + | |
- | * Make Evergreen software, documentation and web site acessible to as many users as possible. | + | |
- | * Provide Evergreen related services to one or more organizations | + | |
- | * Manage Evergreen related projects | + | |
- | * Other (please describe) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 5. Do you participate in any of the following Evergreen related lists (check all that apply) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * General Discussion List | + | |
- | * Documentation Discussion List | + | |
- | * Technical Discussion List | + | |
- | * Evergreen SVN Commit List | + | |
- | * OpenSRF SVN Commit List | + | |
- | * Evergreen IRC | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 6. Have you ever contributed to evergreen-ils.org? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Yes | + | |
- | * No | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 7. If yes, what type of content? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 8. If no, why not? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 9. Which areas of evergreen-ils.org do you most frequently access (check all that apply)? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * About Us | + | |
- | * FAQs | + | |
- | * Official Documentation | + | |
- | * Process Documentation | + | |
- | * Informal Documentation (Wiki) | + | |
- | * Mailing Lists | + | |
- | * Chat | + | |
- | * Calendar | + | |
- | * Official Blog | + | |
- | * Community Blogs (Planet Evergreen) | + | |
- | * Committees and Working Groups | + | |
- | * Report Bugs (Launchpad) | + | |
- | * Develop Code (code repositories) | + | |
- | * Downloads | + | |
- | * Search | + | |
- | * Any comments? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 10. What is easy to find on evergreen-ils.org? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 11. Is there anything you're looking for that you couldn' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 12. What do you feel is important content for the site? | + | |
- | (Respondents were asked to rank each suggested feature as: Very Important, Important, Nice to Have, Extraneous) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * How to access the IRC | + | |
- | * How to sign up for Evergreen related mailing lists | + | |
- | * Evergreen News and developments | + | |
- | * Categorized collection of Evergreen-related resources | + | |
- | * Evergreen Service Providers | + | |
- | * Evergreen libraries | + | |
- | * Individuals in the Evergreen Community | + | |
- | * Individuals willing to be contacted about Evergreen related topics (i.e. new users, documentation, | + | |
- | * Information about where to go for assistance | + | |
- | * A form to submit questions which is emailed to Evergreen community members/ | + | |
- | * A one-pager offering a high-level overview of both Evergreen software and the Evergreen community | + | |
- | * A guided introduction to Evergreen resources for those considering Evergreen. | + | |
- | * Links to a demo “sandbox” implementation of Evergreen | + | |
- | * A form requesting an organization be added to the list of Evergreen service providers. | + | |
- | * Information on Evergreen software repositories and how to use them | + | |
- | * Downloadable test MARC, copy, and user data | + | |
- | * Links to on-site and off-site (Launchpad) discussion, specs, or documentation describing features | + | |
- | * Links to Documentation Interest Group (DIG) maintained information on how to build, rebuild, and update Evergreen | + | |
- | * Links to on-site and off-site information, | + | |
- | * General information about open source software | + | |
- | * Differences between Evergreen and Koha | + | |
- | * Case studies of successful Evergreen migration and implementation projects | + | |
- | * Procedures on submitting code to the the community | + | |
- | * Documentation and tutorials on Evergreen system architecture | + | |
- | * Information about working groups and committees describing people, organizations, | + | |
- | * Information about Evergreen development projects and future enhancements. | + | |
- | * Other (please describe) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 13. How important do you consider the following functions on the site? | + | |
- | (Respondents were asked to rank each suggested feature as: Very Important, Important, Nice to Have, Extraneous) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * Browse through all website content, organized by categories | + | |
- | * Search all content on the website | + | |
- | * Search for Evergreen user organization based on certain criteria | + | |
- | * Search for service providers based on certain criteria | + | |
- | * Search for individuals based on certain criteria | + | |
- | * Add resources, including file attachments and/or third-party URLs, to an online resource directory available to other users | + | |
- | * Participate in online forums based on specific Evergreen related topics (i.e. System Administration, | + | |
- | * Brainstorm and discuss Evergreen features in a " | + | |
- | * Report a Bug in Launchpad | + | |
- | * Maintain official project documentation in a repository apart from the community Evergreen resource/ | + | |
- | * Webmasters can easily manage and update the website, including the ability to delegate permissions to other users | + | |
- | * Webmasters can easily identify and purge outdated content | + | |
- | * Authorized users can easily add and update content | + | |
- | * Authorized users can easily generate a report of individual or organizational profiles. | + | |
- | * Evergreen Feature Lookup | + | |
- | * Evergreen Development and Enhancement project lookup | + | |
- | * Other (please specify) | + | |
- | + | ||
- | [[webteam: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * See attachment " | + | |
[[webteam: | [[webteam: | ||
- | In the list below, each user story is noted as either a content-related or functionality-related requirement. | ||
- | |||
- | 1. ALL USERS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Website users can browse through all of the website content, organized by categories. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Website users can use a search field to search all of the content on the website. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | c. Website users can sign up to get email notifications about certain news items in the Evergreen community. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | d. Website users can complete an optional profile describing themselves, their organization, | ||
- | |||
- | e. Website users can add resources, including file attachments and/or third-party URLs, to an online resource directory available to other users. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | f. Users can find updated information on connecting with EG community via IRC, mailing lists, and other formats. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | g. Users can learn about news and developments in the EG community. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | 2. ADMINISTRATORS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Administrators can participate in an online forum to ask questions and share best practices with other Administrators. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Administrators can participate in a special online forum (called "the feature percolator" | ||
- | |||
- | c. Administrators on the website can easily reach the Bug Reporting feature on Launchpad. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | 3. DEVELOPERS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Developers can maintain the official project documentation in a repository apart from the community EG resource/ | ||
- | |||
- | b. Developers can participate in the Administrator " | ||
- | |||
- | 4. DOCUMENTORS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Documentors can maintain the official project documentation in a repository apart from the community EG resource/ | ||
- | |||
- | 5. CONSULTANTS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Consultants can participate in the Administrator " | ||
- | |||
- | 6. GOVERNANCE | ||
- | |||
- | a. Governance users can easily add content to the website as needed. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Governance users can easily generate a report of website users that have completed the user or organizational profiles mentioned above. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | 7. WEBMASTERS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Webmasters can easily manage and update the website, including the ability to delegate permissions to other users. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Webmasters can easily identify and purge outdated content. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | 8. POTENTIALS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Potentials can view a " | ||
- | |||
- | b. Potentials can view contextual background information on Open Source Software. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | c. Potentials are directed to visit a " | ||
- | |||
- | d. Potentials can browse or search a categorized collection of resources aimed at potential implementers. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | e. Potentials can submit a question via webform which is emailed to EG community members/ | ||
- | |||
- | f. Potentials are directed to a third-party demo " | ||
- | |||
- | g. Potentials can search for an EG Service Provider based on certain criteria. (functionality/ | ||
- | |||
- | h. Potentials can search for existing EG libraries based on certain criteria. (functionality/ | ||
- | |||
- | i. Potentials can search for individuals in the EG Community based on certain criteria. (functionality/ | ||
- | |||
- | 9. SKEPTICS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Skeptics can view content created to persuade them why open source is a good idea. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Skeptics can view content intended to teach about the differences between Evergreen and Koha. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | c. Skeptics can access a list of existing Evergreen users that have volunteered to be contacted to discuss their satisfaction with Evergreen. (function) | ||
- | |||
- | d. Skeptics can view curated case studies of successful Evergreen migration and implementation projects. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | 10. MIGRATION | ||
- | |||
- | a. Migration-users can access (browse/ | ||
- | |||
- | b. Migration-users seeking help for problems encountered during migration are encouraged to join and participate in the general mailing list for assistance. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | 11. STANDALONE | ||
- | |||
- | a. Standalone users can access a page of curated resources specifically tailored for standalone Evergreen libraries, with a focus on issues specific to that group. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | 2. Standalone users can find and contact other standalone libraries that have adopted Evergreen. (functionality) | ||
- | |||
- | 12. EXTENDERS and 13. INSTALLERS (total overlap of requirements) | ||
- | |||
- | a. Users can find information on Evergreen software repositories and how to use them. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | b. Users can download test marc, copy, and user data. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | c. Users are easily directed to on-site and off-site (Launchpad) discussion, specs, or documentation describing features. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | d. Users are easily directed to DIG-maintained information on how to build, rebuild, and update Evergreen. (content) | ||
- | |||
- | e. Users are easily directed to on-site and off-site information, | ||
- | |||
- | 14. TRANSLATORS | ||
- | |||
- | a. Translators can access a high-level overview of project translation efforts describing people, organizations, | ||
- | |||
- | 15. ACCESSIBILITY | ||
- | |||
- | a. Accessibility users can access a high-level overview of project accessibility efforts describing people, organizations, | ||
- | |||
- | Appendix D: | ||
webteam/webplan/2011.txt · Last modified: 2022/02/10 13:34 by 127.0.0.1