DiscographyDB

Make your voice be heard by joining our weekly Saturday chatsessions!
 
HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 Let's get this moving!

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Let's get this moving!   Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Thanks to those who had to confidence in me to include me in this Committee, but also to VOTE, which shows that you want things to move forward.

So here is my start to fire things up. I will offer both my vision of what we need to do in this committee, and my vision of what the site should be.

1) This Committee:

We need to set out some form of organizational structure, and quite quickly, on how to approach this. We can't just tackle everything at once, so I suggest moving in increments.

We can start with the structure of our database's users - how it will function, and the levels of hierarchy that will be contained within.

Questions:
a) Will we have editors and moderators? How will we choose them?

b) Will we have rank? Submission limits?

b) How will we make decisions regarding the entire database? Popular vote? Moderator/editor vote? Do we keep this Steering Committee to make all future final decisions, based on the input from the users and staff?

2) Then we can move on to the database itself. We need to decide the structure of the database and how to handle the info within.

Questions:

a) How much info will we DEMAND from users?

b) What kind of releases will we accept? We need to make decisions regarding digital releases, websubmissions, etc.

c) Should we incorporate such features as the Master Release function, cat# variations, etc, as were planned for Discogs and never made it?

d) How do we handle artist and label pages, and how do we connect them? Do we include ANV and Alias systems? How do we handle Real Names vs. Artist names? How do we handle sublabels, sister labels, label variations?

3) Finally, we can move on to the intricate details - less important to the structure of the database, but very important to the management and maintenance of the database. This will include the Search Function, Forums, etc.


IMO: Let's not worry YET about HOW we're going to implement anything. We should make decisions on the structure first, and then worry about the process of building it. We have to ensure that it's POSSIBLE, but other than that, it's not our concern yet. An architect doesn't think about HOW the builders will go about it - he only worries about whether the builders CAN build it and whether it will be structurally sound...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
dmaxx
Admin, Manager


Number of posts : 908
Age : 28
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:47 pm

I agree with Kergillian's post above. First thing we have to do is come up with priorities.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.discogs.com/user/dmaxx
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:06 pm

For MY vision of the site, I will answer my own questions.

Keep in mind that everything here - even my suggestion above, is a suggestion that can be built upon.

a) Will we have editors and moderators? How will we choose them?

IMO, yes. We should maintain the same structure that Discogs had with regard to editing and moderation. We can decide to be more or less stringent with the responsibilities of those groups, but f it ain't broke, don't fix it - the system worked well, and we should adopt it.

As for how to choose them, I think we as the Steering Committee can eventually decide on an initial group based on previous Discogs experience. From then, we should probably create some form of rank system and select mods based on rank and knowledge.

b) Will we have rank? Submission limits?

As above, my answer is yes on rank. Rank always helped us to mod (knowing how much help a user needed) and to choose other mods.

Limits are very important - especially at first. We don't want to swarm the new db with a billion sudden subs. We have to move at a slow and steady pace - we can't do everything at once. And V3 taught us that no limits is a terrible idea.

c) How will we make decisions regarding the entire database? Popular vote? Moderator/editor vote? Do we keep this Steering Committee to make all future final decisions, based on the input from the users and staff?

IMO, I'd like to keep a Steering Committee. I think members can be voted in on a regular basis (annually?) by a site-wide vote, and that the Committee can be expanded eventually to incorporate more members, perhaps splitting itself up to deal with separate aspects of the db.

I envision a Committee that makes final decisions based on polls and input from the mods and editors, and also from the users in general.

I'd like to be much more democratic and open about things, and to make this a community related db as much as possible - it's a db for ALL of us, so ALL of us should share in decision making. The Committee would use the public to decide what needs to be done, and then shape that public request into a final decision.

a) How much info will we DEMAND from users?

If it were up to me, I'd demand the most amount of info possible - I am a credit completist.

However, that is not entirely fair to many people who use the db and do not want/need full credits.

So we need to come to a compromise. The basics are an obvious must - artists, titles, tracklisting, cat#, country, date. Genre is important, but I'm not big on styles - I would make Style optional if it's there at all.

I would like to make durations mandatory for all digital media - CDs, and any file-related release. I would also like to make it mandatory if it appears on any other release.

I would like to make format 100% mandatory - filling in all format details. It's the only way to reduce the possibility of duplicates.

I would suggest that we decide very carefully what credits will be mandatory. I don't think it's necessary to demand every single credit right down to the hair stylist, but the main credits - production, technical, and main instruments - probably should be.

I also want ALL credits linked, and in the order & format they appear on the release.

b) What kind of releases will we accept? We need to make decisions regarding digital releases, websubmissions, etc.

This is tricky. IMO, we should accept file releases ONLY if they're exclusive to file. We should also make a standard 'File' release, and have all file types and bitrates added to that.

I know this will be one of the hardest questions to answer, as the discussions on Discogs about this were quite heated at times.

c) Should we incorporate such features as the Master Release function, cat# variations, etc, as were planned for Discogs and never made it?

IMO, yes - the more structure we can add, the better. It will save us the time of having to implement it later. Let's get as complete structure as we can NOW.

d) How do we handle artist and label pages, and how do we connect them? Do we include ANV and Alias systems? How do we handle Real Names vs. Artist names? How do we handle sublabels, sister labels, label variations?

I think that EVERYTHING related to a single artist or labelshould be connected on one page. One master Artist page and one Master label page, that shows everything under every name of that specific label and artist, and maybe everything of their groups as well.

Then, we have links to each individual aspect of that artist/label. Membership of a group, IMO, should be real name AND the alias used in that group - it's the only way to ensure the connection is properly made.

So essentially, we'd have:

RICHARD STARKEY ARTIST PAGE - all releases he's ever been a part of

linked to that is:

-the Richard Starkey Alias page with just the releases he's been on as Richard Starkey
-the Richard Starkey (As Ringo Starr) page which has the releases he was on as Ringo Starr
-the Richard Starkey (As English Richie) page which has the releases he was on as English Richie

etc, etc. And the group membership for the Beatles would be Richard Starkey (As Ringo Starr) - it would be linked therefore to the Ringo Starr page and the Richard Starkey ARTIST page, but not the Richard Starkey Alias page.

Labels would be the same - a master label page with EVERYTHING on it, and each sub label, sister label, and label name variation, having its own individual page with just their releases.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, WE NEED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF RELEASES PER PAGE!!!!!

3) Finally, we can move on to the intricate details - less important to the structure of the database, but very important to the management and maintenance of the database. This will include the Search Function, Forums, etc.

I'm going to save this for later - let's get 1 and 2 out of the way before we move on to the fine details...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:08 pm

dmaxx wrote:
I agree with Kergillian's post above. First thing we have to do is come up with priorities.

My suggestion for right now?

Let's all of us give a basic answer to each of the questions I've posed above in Part 1 and Part 2, as I did in my 'vision' post, then let's move onto them one by one.

That way we can see where we're all in agreement, and discuss what we differ on.

Once we've hammered out the decided answers to each one, we can then move on to the fine details of 3, and anything else we've missed...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
quisquilia



Number of posts : 233
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:17 am

Thx. for being chosen. Will come up with thoughts / notes next week. IMO the above questions are important, but too specific yet.

First we need to address issues such as "What is our target audience for this DB?", "What degree of democratic participation do we aim for and which procedures / mechanism should be (can be) installed for that purpose?", "Is this a DB exclusively or shall it contain trade / marketplace features in addition?", "Legal issues (Are European countries even feasible as base for DB?) / Financial issues", "Do we intend to start with a basic DB with later feature add-ons or is it better to start as complete as possible? (What about openness for later adaptions / flexibility of DB design?)" etc.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.discogs.com/user/quisquilia
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:30 am

IN answer to your questions (IMO):

quisquilia wrote:
IMO the above questions are important, but too specific yet.

I disagree. I think that we can add other important questions, but I think that those are tangible, important questions and have to be dealt with. We have 90 days which seems like a lot - but for 11 different people, online and across the world, it's not as much as one would might think.

We need to dive in head first, not put a toe in to test the temperature. We've already done the toe-testing and depth testing, now it's time to rip the meat off of the bone.

Quote :
First we need to address issues such as "What is our target audience for this DB?"

We're a music database. our first target should be collectors and those who are researching music. We want to uphold a database that gathers and displays info and allows people to track music and their collections.

Discogs lost sight of that. We should not do the same.

Quote :
"What degree of democratic participation do we aim for and which procedures / mechanism should be (can be) installed for that purpose?"

This question I asked above - and it is one of the first and most important questions I asked.


Quote :
"Is this a DB exclusively or shall it contain trade / marketplace features in addition?"

I think we should worry about this later. Let's get the DB structure taken care of before worrying about other considerations. We cannot deal with trade and sales if we don't have a DB.

Quote :
"Legal issues (Are European countries even feasible as base for DB?) / Financial issues"

Again, unless we HAVE a db, these issues are not as important to deal with, IMO.

Though I do think they bear discussion.

I'm not a legal expert, but we can always host the db in North America if we have to.

Financial issues are something we will face for a while. But to create plans for sponsorship and for garnering income would possible take up an entire other committee, lol.

While we shouldn't hesitate to brainstorm ideas and even put together possible sample financial plans - costs and potential incomes - we should not weigh down the database issues with these concerns, IMO.

Quote :
"Do we intend to start with a basic DB with later feature add-ons or is it better to start as complete as possible? (What about openness for later adaptions / flexibility of DB design?)" etc.

This is incorporated into my above questions as well.

And I still think that we need to get the basic db structure decided upon before worrying about the features and fine details. No DB means no add-ons because there's nothing to add on to!!Wink
Back to top Go down
View user profile
pusha



Number of posts : 165
Registration date : 2008-01-10

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:48 am

Can I suggest we pair everything down to the 5 most important things?

From there we can make some 4 man subcommittees to make a recommendations to the full SC for their task.

I am going to put on a pot of coffee, and starting reading through everything and gather my thoughts before thinking out loud on the board.

Also, a big thank you to those that gave a nod of confidence for me to be on the board. For an old dog this is quite an honor to be involved.

Cheers !
Back to top Go down
View user profile
asylum27

avatar

Number of posts : 342
Registration date : 2008-01-13

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:23 am

Just as a heads up...I'm about to get on a plane to China in an hour or two and will be there for a week but I'm taking the laptop so will be online.

I'll read through all this on the plane and make some notes.

This is exciting stuff though and I think that we need to make sure that we don't lose track of our main objectives.

I also agree that this about more than simply collections. Discogs is a globally used database for research, reference and a dozen other purposes, hence it's traffic. We need to be careful to maintain the things that made it so usable.

And, to echo others..thanks for the vote of confidence. I feel humbled to be in the company of some people here.

Quote :
We want to uphold a database that gathers and displays info and allows people to track music and their collections.
And adds ease of use, a strong search engine, and ease of input. And is not primarily just an electronic database. i think part of Discogs problems came from it's growing pains out of that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.simongrigg.info
hmvh

avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-01-19

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:53 am

Valid points above there, Kerg but methinks you're getting ahead of yourself: the questions you ask are what I consider to be phase II of the SCs initial order of business.

That does not mean your points and opinions aren't valid. I agree with many of them but -- not now. Ramble on, collect your thoughts, speak your mind but let's tackle things systematically, please!

FIRST THING: DECIDE WHAT WE WANT THIS DATABASE TO BE. WHAT DON'T WE WANT IT TO BE? That kinda thing.

Kergillian wrote:
We're a music database. our first target should be collectors and those who are researching music. We want to uphold a database that gathers and displays info and allows people to track music and their collections.
THAT, sir, is part 1. A database of what? How are we going to be different from discogs, AMG, Wikipedia, last.fm (yes, I consider them competition) and MusicBrainz (who appear to be having the same kind of ANV dilemmas that discogs actually did overcome), et al?
Could we even go as far as "partnering" with other sites (premature question, sorry)?

As all the others, there's some serious thought, soul-searching, and note-jotting to be done next.

PS: safe flight, asylum27!
PPS: Thanks for the vote of confidence from this end as well. I'm glad to be in good company.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://hmvh.net
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:17 am

hmvh wrote:
Valid points above there, Kerg but methinks you're getting ahead of yourself: the questions you ask are what I consider to be phase II of the SCs initial order of business.

That does not mean your points and opinions aren't valid. I agree with many of them but -- not now. Ramble on, collect your thoughts, speak your mind but let's tackle things systematically, please!

Fair enough Smile

hmvh wrote:
FIRST THING: DECIDE WHAT WE WANT THIS DATABASE TO BE. WHAT DON'T WE WANT IT TO BE? That kinda thing.

Kergillian wrote:
We're a music database. our first target should be collectors and those who are researching music. We want to uphold a database that gathers and displays info and allows people to track music and their collections.

THAT, sir, is part 1. A database of what? How are we going to be different from discogs, AMG, Wikipedia, last.fm (yes, I consider them competition) et al?
Could we even go as far as "partnering" with other sites (premature question, sorry)?

to answer your questions:

1) The question of 'database of what' I think is inherent in my questions. Rtaher than trying to think of a single answer, it should be answered by the individual aspects of its structure.

ie: if we decide how we want to build the db, each component will inevitably lead us back to the whole. You don't ask 'what kind of castle do you want to build', you ask 'how many turrets, what kind of defensive preparations, how big is your staff, do you want a moat, what kind of brick and mortar, how much acreage, etc'

But, to answer your question more specifically, I think the best kind of database is the Discogs V2 model, with certain improvements in its structure and accountability. That db structure is a VERY good structure to build on - we're all graduates of Discogs, and we were all drawn to it and worked hard to build and maintain it. It would be foolish to start completely from scratch.

We have the castle shell, we just have to flesh out/repair the flaws and fill in the detail work.

2) I think the answer is that we will be an improved Discogs. We may need to change certain design/display issues to avoid 'copyright' issues, but that should be our goal, IMO. I don't think any of us wants to Wiki-fy this in any way.

3) I personally have no issue with partnering, but I think that should be the LAST thing we talk about. No sense in thinking about partners before we even have a database...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
quisquilia



Number of posts : 233
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:11 pm

Kergillian wrote:
I think the best kind of database is the Discogs V2 model, with certain improvements in its structure and accountability. That db structure is a VERY good structure to build on - we're all graduates of Discogs, and we were all drawn to it and worked hard to build and maintain it. It would be foolish to start completely from scratch.
I'm not too savvy with regard to DB design, but I think you mean the user interface. As far as I understand people who have much more understanding of (the technical aspects of) DB design than me, Discogs surely is not "a VERY good structure" but rather poorly designed. The interface could need improvements on its own for sure, too.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.discogs.com/user/quisquilia
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:22 pm

quisquilia wrote:
I'm not too savvy with regard to DB design, but I think you mean the user interface. As far as I understand people who have much more understanding of (the technical aspects of) DB design than me, Discogs surely is not "a VERY good structure" but rather poorly designed. The interface could need improvements on its own for sure, too.

No, I was referring to the database itself - not its aesthetic or technical design.

What I mean is the actual database - the way releases are displayed, and how releases and artists and labels are all connected to one another - is a very good structure, and the process of submitting a release is a good base to start from.

While I'm sure the technical design can be improved on, the structure of the (virtual) physical database itself is a good model to base ourselves on...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MR_E



Number of posts : 113
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:32 am

My availability is going to be limited this month, as the semester wraps up. I will check in as I'm able, but it's going to be May before I can really focus on this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
lazlo_nibble

avatar

Number of posts : 90
Registration date : 2008-02-16

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:02 am

My responses to statements above:

quisquilia's concerns:

I agree these need to be addressed by us in this 90-day cycle. These are the kinds of things we really need the steering committee to decide.

Will we have editors and moderators? How will we choose them?

Yes, or equivalent classes. Steering committee should pick the first round of each from volunteers from the original Discogs mod/editor team, and after that each group should have a mechanism for determining its own membership.

Will we have rank? Submission limits?

Sub limits absolutely; calculation method TBD. I think rather than calculating "rank" we should just keep track of the different kinds of changes each user successfully makes to the database and make it possible for each user to decide whether that information is public or not. Categories of changes could include "made initial submission", "added image", "added release details", "corrected release details", etc. (Behind the scenes we could also track/display things like rejection counts, etc. depending on how the moderation process works. I wouldn't want to name-and-shame in public for that, though.)

Should we incorporate such features as the Master Release function, cat# variations, etc, as were planned for Discogs and never made it?

We should all put together lists of features we want, with (at least) a short description of what it would do, who it would benefit, and how it would help the site as a whole. Then we pool 'em and rank 'em: 1) Basic functionality - must be available at site launch; 2) Good idea - can wait, but don't do anything in the launch design that makes it hard to implement; 3) Nice to have - for later; 4) What the fuck??!@? From that we can build a development plan and a longer-term roadmap.

How do we handle artist and label pages, and how do we connect them? Do we include ANV and Alias systems? How do we handle Real Names vs. Artist names? How do we handle sublabels, sister labels, label variations?

I have detailed proposals for all of these in my head, I just need to document them somehow.

How will we make decisions regarding the entire database? Popular vote? Moderator/editor vote? Do we keep this Steering Committee to make all future final decisions, based on the input from the users and staff?

This really depends on the nature of the decision. For "we have these four ideas, which should we implement first?" questions, I think it's safe/fair to open them up to the entire community. Things that primarily and substantially affect the mod/editor interfaces should be voted by mods/editors. Stuff that's fundamental to the architecture of the site/database you wouldn't want to open to everyone, but it's not clear where to draw the line (subcommittees?).

I think the most important part is not surprising people. "Hay guyz, I felt like rewriting the forum system for no particular reason, like it or lump it!!"

How much info will we DEMAND from users?

I would keep this minimal. Many "label" discographies aren't much more than a simple list of releases and catalog numbers. Mind you, I'm not necessarily advocating that should be enough information for a release submission...but IMO it would be perfectly reasonable to allow "empty" Master Release submissions with nothing more than Artist, Title, Format (album/single/etc.) and Year of Initial Release. (Those might go through a different process, probably via the editors.)

What kind of releases will we accept? We need to make decisions regarding digital releases, websubmissions, etc.

Digital releases: allow all, including things also released physically.

IMO if you allow some you HAVE to allow all. I see two potential users for digital release info: researchers (trying to find out if a release can be/could have been bought legitimately online) and collectors ("I bought it and want to list it in my collection"). In both cases there's no logical resone to distinguishing between digital-only and physical+digital releases. If some obscure rarity has been reissued download-only via iTunes, people will want to know about it.

We can probably make digital releases easier to manage if we don't try to shoehorn digital releases into the same capture format as physical ones (though I'm not sure how at this point).

Websubs: I'm open to allowing "websubs"/not-in-hands items as long as they're clearly labeled as such, can be verified from two distinct, clearly-unrelated sources (links or cites provided in the sub). They should be flagged in release listings as such. They might need a separate moderation path too.

Should we incorporate such features as the Master Release function, cat# variations, etc, as were planned for Discogs and never made it?

Yes and yes, other features to be discussed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.studio-nibble.com/
Kergillian

avatar

Number of posts : 102
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:57 am

^^Good response - I'd like to see your more detailed proposals.

I agree with your idea of making feature lists indexed by priority. I think that's a good way to handle them.

And I like the idea of mechanizing rank based on what type of sub the user submitted.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stormbringer

avatar

Number of posts : 170
Age : 48
Registration date : 2008-01-08

PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:54 pm

[quote="Kergillian"]Questions:

a) Will we have editors and moderators? How will we choose them?

b) Will we have rank? Submission limits?

b) How will we make decisions regarding the entire database? Popular vote? Moderator/editor vote? Do we keep this Steering Committee to make all future final decisions, based on the input from the users and staff?

2) Then we can move on to the database itself. We need to decide the structure of the database and how to handle the info within.

Questions:

a) How much info will we DEMAND from users?

b) What kind of releases will we accept? We need to make decisions regarding digital releases, websubmissions, etc.

c) Should we incorporate such features as the Master Release function, cat# variations, etc, as were planned for Discogs and never made it?

d) How do we handle artist and label pages, and how do we connect them? Do we include ANV and Alias systems? How do we handle Real Names vs. Artist names? How do we handle sublabels, sister labels, label variations?

3) Finally, we can move on to the intricate details - less important to the structure of the database, but very important to the management and maintenance of the database. This will include the Search Function, Forums, etc.

___________________________________________________________________________

1a) I think the editor/moderator organisation was way too flat. I would prefer something more complex and I'll describe my vision of it later (as soon as possible)

1b) Rank as used on Discogs is like perfoming brain surgery with a stick! I have a better idea (that I'll post as soon as possible). Submission limits should be based on our ability to handle new submissions. If there's no queued up releases then there's no need for a submission limit. If too many people are submitting at the same time then put in some submission limits then.

1b) (opps? 2X1b)???) Decisions should NOT be made by a popular vote and the answer really depends on the question. Democracy in some way is needed though and we should consider representative democracy (you select/vote for your personal favourite candidate that represents your ideas and visions).

2a) I think that a clear image of every release should be a minimum even though some/many? other people here at discographydb think images arent really needed. I still need a good explanation why we shouldn't require images when that is the best way to check the submitted data and also the best way to see if it's a duplicate or if it even exists. As I've said before the minimum requirements will (SHOULD) be almost ridiculous if you DON'T submit a clear image of the release. We're talking run-out groove information etc. as a minimum if no image is submitted. I'd actually want run-out information to be mandatory TOO but I realize that it will never happen even her ;-)

2b) All types of releases! What do I mean with that? I'll clarify it soon!

2c) I've allready posted my vision about the master release but I'll clarify the concept. The cat# variation system that lazlo came up with still sounds good to me.

2d) This is too complex to just post an answer to in this thread. I have a concept in my mind how we could even avoid the numbers after the artist names. I honestly believe it's possible and I'll explain my idea as fast as possible. That actually involves aliases, profiles etc.

3)

No real questions there but I'd prefer it if we didn't spend too much time on thinking about what is possible or not. If we have a vision about something then we should post it. It seems now that we have at least three threads now so finding some place to post it should be easy.

Then the one(s) that is/are going to code it may say if it's possible or not!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.discogs.com/user/Stormbringer
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Let's get this moving!   

Back to top Go down
 
Let's get this moving!
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Susan moving to Ireland?
» No Hot Flashes - Just a Cold Sweat!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
DiscographyDB :: Steering Committee :: Main-
Jump to: