Okay, we overlapped there and Sönkes picture made me realize that I made some mistakes in my latest version so I've attached yet another version.
<https://imgur.com/ycvZ1Ho> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:35 AM Sönke Liebau <[email protected]> wrote: > I think now you have me confused :) > To me "triage" was the process of evaluating whether or not a ticket > has merit and will be moved to accepted, but in your mail it sounds > like an alternative name for "patch available". > > I've drawn up what my understanding of the workflow was so far [1] - > but I think that differs from your understanding? > > Also and unrelated, would we want a jira for every commit? So for one > of those minor things that can be directly committed, would I create a > jira and tag it with something like "minor" or would I directly create > a pull request and prefix that with MINOR: ? > I'm a fan of having a Jira for everything but won't argue if others disagree. As part of the job we often have to dig into the history for some piece of code. Every bit of documentation helps there. > > Best regards, > Sönke > > > [1] https://imgur.com/a/V1onkgT > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:16 PM Lars Francke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Understood! > > > > Well, in that case the proposed Beam workflow[1] is almost exactly what > I'd > > like with the only exception of the name "In Progress" switched to > > "Accepted" > > The only other minor thing is "Review needed" which already led to > > confusion in this thread and could be called "Triage needed" > > > > What do others think? > > > > Lars > > > > [1] < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955531/Screen%20Shot%202019-01-19%20at%202.50.32%20PM.png > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Just waiting on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17628, > nothing > > > serious. > > > > > > +1 to Accepted > > > Also -1 to "in progress". I've had something like that on many > projects, > > > never useful. > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:30 AM Lars Francke <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > > In which way are you blocked? I don't quite get that yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Open question for me are: > > > > > > > > Accepted vs. Triaged? > > > > I'm in favor of Accepted, it's the easier word (for non natives at > least) > > > > > > > > Do we want a state "In progress"? (Asking because the Mesos flow has > that > > > > which was Senses original suggestion) > > > > I'm against it as it's information that can go stale. Attaching a > > > patch/PR > > > > or commenting is enough in my opinion. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Lars > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 18:23 Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Clarification: I am in favor of accepted / not accepted as a state. > > > Beam > > > > is > > > > > just currently using a tag because we are blocked on the issue. In > the > > > > > shared Jira install, it is also bad that "triaged" "triage" > "Triaged" > > > are > > > > > all separate tags. > > > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:05 AM Sönke Liebau > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I concur. > > > > > > Not fussy whether we implement triage needed as tag or an extra > > > state, > > > > > > it's the thought that counts :) > > > > > > > > > > > > It might be more consistent to have it as a state and potentially > > > make > > > > > > some statistics easier, but that is pure conjecture on my part. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Sönke > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:27 PM Lars Francke < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is more complicated than I thought initially :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that fewer states is better for understanding and > > > > maintenance. > > > > > We > > > > > > > should definitely have a "state diagram" of our flow on the > Wiki. > > > We > > > > > > > currently have five states. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I also like to have the state "Patch available" or more > generally > > > > > > "Review > > > > > > > needed" (noting that Kenneth understands review = triage). I > don't > > > > > think > > > > > > > that Github PR is enough when people submit simple patches > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I also like to distinguish triaged from untriaged (accepted > vs. > > > > > > > unaccepted) issues, whether tag or state based I don't know. > Tag is > > > > > easy > > > > > > to > > > > > > > forget, state is implicit so I lean towards that but Kenneth > was > > > > > against > > > > > > it > > > > > > > I believe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I'm against a separation of CLOSED and RESOLVED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I don't think we need a REOPENED state. I've never really > seen > > > the > > > > > > point, > > > > > > > when we reopen we can just go back to the normal "open" state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could live with a workflow like this: > > > > > > > TRIAGE NEEDED -> OPEN -> PATCH AVAILABLE -> CLOSED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That'd be four states so even one fewer than we have today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO we need some sort of Patch Available/Review Needed state > > > > because > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > presence of PR does not imply of its state and quality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Open->...validate...->Open(triaged)->... actual work..->Patch > > > > > > > > Available->...review... ->Closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patch Available indicates patch is there and it is ready for > > > > review, > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > in a state when it could be merged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if review fails, then we can use backward transition > Patch > > > > > > > > Available->Open (cancel patch). > > > > > > > > What if PR there has conflicts or outdated. What if > contributor > > > > > became > > > > > > > > unresponsive and don't updater his or her PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PA state or Review Needed state is needed for a number of > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 07:34, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:19 PM Sönke Liebau > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just to pick this up again, we have a suggestion for a > fairly > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > workflow by Kenn, which I'd like to briefly summarize to > > > ensure > > > > > > that I > > > > > > > > > > understood everything correctly :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The workflow will have three states: > > > > > > > > > > Open > > > > > > > > > > Review Needed > > > > > > > > > > Closed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, we have a tag "triaged" that is applied to > Open > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > when it is decided that they have merit. If during > review of > > > an > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > > ticket it is decided that this is not necessary/not a > bug/... > > > > > then > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > will be closed instead of receiving the triaged tag. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So any work should be done on tickets in the state open > with > > > > the > > > > > > tag > > > > > > > > > > "triaged". Once a pull request or a patch is submitted > the > > > > ticket > > > > > > > > > > moves to "review needed". Based on the outcome of the > review > > > it > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > either moves back to open or to closed when something is > > > > > committed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I get that right, Kenn? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almost :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - What I meant by "Review Needed" was actually "Triage > > > Needed". > > > > > > This is > > > > > > > > > the initial state of all tickets, because users may not > know > > > > where > > > > > > to put > > > > > > > > > them or who to ping. > > > > > > > > > - Once it is triaged, you move to "Open". > > > > > > > > > - When done, goes to "Closed" and you can make a comment > about > > > > > why, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > Jira has some statuses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The workaround in Beam right now is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Initial state is "Open", and we subscribe to a "does not > > > have > > > > > > > > `triaged` > > > > > > > > > tag" saved search. (simulates "Needs Triage" state) > > > > > > > > > - Once it is looked at, moved to the right component, has > > > right > > > > > > > > priority, > > > > > > > > > pinged right people, add `triaged` tag > > > > > > > > > - Close as usual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I just watch for all non-triaged Jiras and all open pull > > > > > requests > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > LRU > > > > > > > > > order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We really don't need separate state for noting there is a > PR > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you put "[TRAINING-12345] this fixes a thing" in the pull > > > request > > > > > > title, > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > links automatically with the named Jira if set up the way > most > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > are. You can probably even do an advance Jira search for > these > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > prefer to work in Jira instead of GitHub to find open PRs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sönke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:50 PM Sharan Foga < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019/03/04 17:47:33, Dmitriy Pavlov < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > = JIRA workflow > > > > > > > > > > > > I've checked JIRA admin interface and there is no > option > > > to > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > > > Issue > > > > > > > > > > > > Workflow. So I guess only Infra can edit Workflows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dimitry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes - I think someone else has shown that we need to > > > request > > > > > the > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > of flow through Infra, so once we agree then we can > create > > > the > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK Apache JIRA has a number of pre-defined > workflows, > > > > and > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > need somehow to point to some option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = Wiki pages > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the wiki, Confluence has a number of > permissions > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > > defined > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > each user, and I'm not sure Apache wiki has > convenient > > > > groups > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a default anonymous user with view access > only. I > > > > > think > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > a safeguard against spam. As far as I know, I didn't > think > > > > > setting > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > permissions were a problem and I've generally added > people > > > once > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > requested access.( BTW I've added you to the wiki with > edit > > > > > > access.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Sharan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (P)PMCs, please grant me admin access to the wiki > and I > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > setup/edit > > > > > > > > > > > > user permissions. username=dpavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 20:27, Mirko Kämpf < > > > > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sönke, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I registered and logged in to the Wiki (for adding > the > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > > template) > > > > > > > > > > > > > but I can't find the page editor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any permission issues which give me > read-only > > > > > > access? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 12:04 Uhr schrieb Sönke > Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mirko! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For me there are three main questions that we > should > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the workflow. If I am missing something, please > shout > > > > > out, > > > > > > I am > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means an expert on this! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Do we want an "accepted" state that means > someone > > > > > > looked at > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ticket and it has merit and is not just a user > > > question > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > placed on the mailing list/far too broad/... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Do we want a "reviewable" state? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Do we want an explicit "closed" state? The > current > > > > > > workflow > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "resolved" which means something has been > committed > > > to > > > > > > address > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue and now the original reporter should check > > > > whether > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself has been fixed and transition the issue to > > > > either > > > > > > > > "closed" > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "reopened". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do like the idea of 1, as it gives us a better > > > option > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > > > > > > > > track of whether or not a ticket has been triaged > > > > > already. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time on your hands and want to fix an issue > > > > picking > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "accepted" is easier than potentially sifting > through > > > > 10 > > > > > > "open" > > > > > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until you find an actionable one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think 2 is really useful and we should > definitely > > > > have > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 I'm on the fence about, personally I think if > the > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet what the ticket was about then this should > have > > > > been > > > > > > > > > addressed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during review. I think this workflow is more > suited > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > customer-service provider situation where the > > > customer > > > > > > needs to > > > > > > > > > > sign > > > > > > > > > > > > > > off on a solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:38 AM Mirko Kämpf < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sönke, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the proposal to use a workflow with an > > > > explicit > > > > > > state > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "reviewable" issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I do not know how to set it up > or > > > how > > > > to > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 ---> Mesos Workflow: > > > https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 11:33 Uhr schrieb Sönke > > > > Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping to see if really no one has an > opinion on > > > > > this > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Sönke Liebau > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, apologies, wasn't aware of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Default Workflow: > https://imgur.com/a/EfKcOfL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mesos Workflow: > https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Lars > Francke < > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Mailing list swallows attachments > Sönke, can > > > > you > > > > > > host > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > externally?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM Sönke > Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our Jira currently is still operating > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > workflow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1_default_workflow.png) which is fairly > > > > basic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I'd like something along the > > > lines > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > "reviewable" > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "patch available" to symbolize > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%22patch+available%22+to+symbolize&entry=gmail&source=g > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that this is waiting for > > > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take a look at. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it might be an option to triage > > > issues > > > > up > > > > > > > > front, > > > > > > > > > > i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone look at it and evalua > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+someone+look+at+it+and+evalua&entry=gmail&source=g > > > > > > > > >te > > > > > > > > > whether this actually is > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not appropriate. Granted, this can > also be > > > > > > covered by > > > > > > > > > > closing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after looking at them, but that misses > t > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+after+looking+at+them,+but+that+misses+t&entry=gmail&source=g > > > > > > > > >he > > > > > > > > > explicit > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether someone already looked at it, > if it > > > > is > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > open. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through workflows that other > > > projects > > > > > > > > adopted, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mesos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workflow closely resembles what I > wrote ab > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+workflow+closely+resembles+what+I+wrote+ab&entry=gmail&source=g > > > > > > > > > > >ove > > > > > > > > > > > > > (see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2_mesos_workflow.png) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through some other projects the > > > > "patch > > > > > > > > > > available-reop > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maps.google.com/?q=some+other+projects+the+%22patch+available-reop&entry=gmail&source=g > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > en > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible" workflow seems to be fairly > > > common. > > > > > A > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just differ by the way they name the > "patch > > > > > > > > available" > > > > > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on the route we want to > take? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - > Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - > > > > > 22880 > > > > > > > > > Wedel - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße > 8 - > > > > 22880 > > > > > > > > Wedel - > > > > > > > > > > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - > 22880 > > > > > > Wedel - > > > > > > > > > > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf > > > > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau > > > > > > > > > > Partner > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 > Wedel - > > > > > > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sönke Liebau > > > > > > Partner > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - > Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sönke Liebau > Partner > Tel. +49 179 7940878 > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany >
