8 ms·

Hi, I don't really use freenode, but even after your explaination, I don't understand what Andrew's big sin is - that he wants to keep IRC like it was when he l

Hi, I don't really use freenode, but even after your explaination, I don't understand what Andrew's big sin is - that he wants to keep IRC like it was when he loved it in his youth? Okay, but what specifically does that mean - what is the down-side? So far all I've read is that freenode is owned by someone, and now he's exerting control that others don't like, but no details of what that control is. BTW, "Let's..." is not misspelled. "Kerfluffle[sic]" is, but it's a misspelling I prefer, so good on ya!

ivanbakel 5y ago
>and now he's exerting control that others don't like, but no details of what that control is. From my understanding, that's the point. The volunteers who ran Freenode were told that Andrew would be completely unable to exert any control over the server - and now that has turned out to not be the case. The taking of control itself was a betrayal of a previous agreement, and produced a status quo that the freenode people weren't happy with. There's also allegations of forced advertising and "changes to network operations" on the Libera Chat website[0], which may have been significant to some of the volunteers. [0]: https://libera.chat/ https://libera.chat/
q3k 5y ago
The problem is that he wants to change freenode into something different [1] than it is, and he attempts to execute this on basis of 'I own freenode limited so you have to do as I say' [2]. Complete with supposed legal threats in case of non-compliance. This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure and typical employer/employee power dynamics, but not for volunteer-driven communities like freenode - in which people worked for free to build something that they believed in, and under the impression of the community being fully self-governed. What do you expect from these volunteers now, to just continue working for free on something that they now don't agree with, and with a person who obviously cares more about control than the service itself? This likely doesn't impact me or you directly. But indirectly, if I see _all_ staff flee from a project that I interacted with, I'm following them. After all, these are the people that made and maintained Freenode into what it is today, the name is just a technicality. [1] "On Decentralization", https://archive.is/NH1LN https://archive.is/NH1LN ; https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss [2] https://gist.github.com/aaronmdjones/1a9a93ded5b7d162c3f58bdd66b8f491#file-freenode-resign-letter-txt-L126 https://gist.github.com/aaronmdjones/1a9a93ded5b7d162c3f58bd...
- zelon88 5y ago
  > This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure The ownership structure is clear, it is just unpopular within the community. There seems to be this sense of entitlement among Freenode developers and volunteers. You never had equity, but you thought you did. Whether or not that is the result of being misled is irrelevant. You have no stake. That's what "volunteers" are. Non stakeholding contributors. You contribute so long as the direction of the business is compatible with your morals. Nobody owes you a community. Why is anyone surprised that this napkin diplomacy failed?
  - pmlnr 5y ago
    ^^^ this If there isn't a legal entity, the thing can't be protected. If there is a legal entity, and you're not officially part of it, then you're not part of it when it comes to scenarios like this. Yes, it sucks. Yes, the internet is different from 20 years ago. (Yet one still can't own a domain in the sense of owning a book, just rent a domain for some time, so certain things haven't changed, but this is offtopic.) I've been where the former freenode staff is now. I was part of a community site a long time ago, where the actual owners decided to close it down, and there was absolutely nothing I could do, despite being a contributer, an organiser, etc - in essence, a volunteer - for them, because I wasn't on any paper, anywhere.
    - zelon88 5y ago
      Thank you! I also want to point out that this is normal free-market stuff. The community is obviously strong enough to leave this company practically high-and-dry, and it is also obviously strong enough to maintain it's own fork if it chooses to do so. This is just iteration at work. If the new Freenode owners can't fix their mistakes; they will fail. So what. If the old Freenode developers are serious, they will succeed.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    I am not surprised. I don’t think any human on earth could give these “volunteer” “staffers” a command which they would obey.
roflc0ptic 5y ago
The behavior, as I understand it, is that Lee and company behaved mendaciously, taking what was a community/volunteer "staff" run enterprise and legalistically maneuvering to turn it into his own fiefdom without consent or even a modicum of transparency. Maybe this will have no operational effect, but it registers as terrifically unethical and destructive - he's predictably alienated and driven off most of the people running freenode. When people behave unethically and destructively in one scenario, it's easy to expect them to behave unethically and destructively in other scenarios. It's unacceptable from a governance perspective. Moving away from freenode is simple risk mitigation.
- bitshiftfaced 5y ago
  Fiefdom? What do you mean?
  - silviot 5y ago
    I'm no native speaker nor have I ever heard that word before. Looking online I found this definition: fiefdom /ˈfiːfdəm/ a territory or sphere of operation controlled by a particular person or group. "a mafia boss who has turned the town into his private fiefdom"
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      A fiefdom is the domain of a feudal lord. Like "kingdom" but where the lord could be a duke, earl, baron, ... Historically, lords had nearly absolute legal authority over the peasants living in their domain.
    - wott 5y ago
      'fiefdom' in English with the slightly redundant -dom suffix, simply 'fief' in French (a term commonly used), and closer to the root, 'feudo' in Italian and Spanish.
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    Yes, what the other commenters said. By exerting unilateral control, he's destroying the existing democratic governance mechanisms and making it a sort of rule by dictatorship. If you metaphorically treat freenode as territory, you can say that it's become Lee's fief, or fiefdom.
chrisseaton 5y ago
'Kerfluffle' is a hilarious misspelling - sounds like a brand of marshmallow fluff.
- bargle0 5y ago
  Imagine an ad campaign where disagreements were solved by fluffer nutter sandwiches.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  I get the sense that it's not a mispelling in the sense that Ariadne doesn't know how kerfuffle is spelled. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I also think that the comparison to Ariadne's bunny plushie - i.e. a fluffy thing - is related. Kerfluffle can be read as a portmanteau of kerfuffle and fluffy - a kerfuffle caused by Lee's need for a soft, fluffy thing to protect his ego. Dunno. Deep exegesis that could be entirely off base - maybe it's just a typo.
  - senkora 5y ago
    Kerfluffle is the way I say and spell the word. Wiktionary lists it as a variant: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kerfluffle https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kerfluffle
    - roflc0ptic 5y ago
      Oh, cool. Kerfluffle is so much cuter.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      When you look at the etymology that's clearly a misspelling that has stuck somehow.
      - gbear605 5y ago
        Lots of modern English words arose from misspellings (and mishearings) - if one becomes popular, it becomes an English word. That’s how languages evolve, otherwise we’d still be speaking Proto-Indo-European.
someguydave 5y ago
This whole affair makes the freenode “volunteer” staff sound like ungovernable children. (They are paid in status so they are not really volunteers)
- fullstop 5y ago
  > (They are paid in status so they are not really volunteers) Citation Needed. Everything that I have read has stated that they are not paid, with the exception of a reimbursement for the cost of procuring a U2F key.
- danaris 5y ago
  ....Wow; that's quite a take on the definition of "volunteer."
- mlatu 5y ago
  Oh ic... I saw an ad for a flat the other day, they were asking for status, I didn't get it then but now it makes sense.
- kgwxd 5y ago
  They're self-governing, and running a very useful service, and would like to stay that way. When someone walks in a room and declares they're now in control, without any right to do so, you don't just sit back and accept it, that's what children do.
- g_sch 5y ago
  Great point, I'll ask my landlord if I can pay my rent in status this month.
  - andyana 5y ago
    I know you're joking, but I'd like to see a video of you asking, and of your landlords reaction, for humor :).
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I think that's an interesting point (about status, at least), even if you're getting mocked for it. I can see the argument that the staff aren't purely charitable volunteers, they are getting a return on their effort. Or they wouldn't do it.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> I don't understand what Andrew's big sin is Lee founded Private Internet Access [1]. They had a history of being sketchy [2] and inexplicably hired Mark Karpeles. I don’t have a connection to Freenode. But I can recognise a bad actor when I see one. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lee_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lee_(entrepreneur) [2] https://telegra.ph/Private-Internet-Access-VPN-acquired-by-malware-business-founded-by-former-Israeli-spies-12-01 https://telegra.ph/Private-Internet-Access-VPN-acquired-by-m...
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  He sold pia to an adware company and didn't bother to inform customers.
tootie 5y ago
They seem to be attributing a lot malice to his actions that isn't evident. This is the most low stakes power play I've seen play out. Just talk to the guy directly instead of stomping off.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Why are you assuming no private communication happened? They aren't paid anything so setting up a new service with a domain not controlled by the disagreeable party seems to be the rational choice. What are they losing exactly?
  - Macha 5y ago
    Also, there has been plenty of private communication. We know because much of it has leaked.
- rcxdude 5y ago
  Nothing about the reasons behind his actions are evident, despite repeated questioning. The answers he gives don't add up (a lot of vague mumbling about improving freenode by making it distributed, which seems completely counter to his actual actions).
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Making it distributed? Isn't that any IRC network with 2 or more servers by definition?
    - rcxdude 5y ago
      Indeed, this is one of the ways in which what he says doesn't make much sense.
      - wowaname 5y ago
        Lee expresses interest in decentralised/distributed alternatives to DNS so it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that I'm seeing a more-homogeneous set of ircops on multiple networks these days.

ivanbakel 5y ago

>and now he's exerting control that others don't like, but no details of what that control is. From my understanding, that's the point. The volunteers who ran Freenode were told that Andrew would be completely unable to exert any control over the server - and now that has turned out to not be the case. The taking of control itself was a betrayal of a previous agreement, and produced a status quo that the freenode people weren't happy with. There's also allegations of forced advertising and "changes to network operations" on the Libera Chat website[0], which may have been significant to some of the volunteers. [0]: https://libera.chat/ https://libera.chat/

q3k 5y ago

The problem is that he wants to change freenode into something different [1] than it is, and he attempts to execute this on basis of 'I own freenode limited so you have to do as I say' [2]. Complete with supposed legal threats in case of non-compliance. This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure and typical employer/employee power dynamics, but not for volunteer-driven communities like freenode - in which people worked for free to build something that they believed in, and under the impression of the community being fully self-governed. What do you expect from these volunteers now, to just continue working for free on something that they now don't agree with, and with a person who obviously cares more about control than the service itself? This likely doesn't impact me or you directly. But indirectly, if I see _all_ staff flee from a project that I interacted with, I'm following them. After all, these are the people that made and maintained Freenode into what it is today, the name is just a technicality. [1] "On Decentralization", https://archive.is/NH1LN https://archive.is/NH1LN ; https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss https://freenode.net/news/freenode-is-foss [2] https://gist.github.com/aaronmdjones/1a9a93ded5b7d162c3f58bdd66b8f491#file-freenode-resign-letter-txt-L126 https://gist.github.com/aaronmdjones/1a9a93ded5b7d162c3f58bd...

zelon88 5y ago
> This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure The ownership structure is clear, it is just unpopular within the community. There seems to be this sense of entitlement among Freenode developers and volunteers. You never had equity, but you thought you did. Whether or not that is the result of being misled is irrelevant. You have no stake. That's what "volunteers" are. Non stakeholding contributors. You contribute so long as the direction of the business is compatible with your morals. Nobody owes you a community. Why is anyone surprised that this napkin diplomacy failed?
- pmlnr 5y ago
  ^^^ this If there isn't a legal entity, the thing can't be protected. If there is a legal entity, and you're not officially part of it, then you're not part of it when it comes to scenarios like this. Yes, it sucks. Yes, the internet is different from 20 years ago. (Yet one still can't own a domain in the sense of owning a book, just rent a domain for some time, so certain things haven't changed, but this is offtopic.) I've been where the former freenode staff is now. I was part of a community site a long time ago, where the actual owners decided to close it down, and there was absolutely nothing I could do, despite being a contributer, an organiser, etc - in essence, a volunteer - for them, because I wasn't on any paper, anywhere.
  - zelon88 5y ago
    Thank you! I also want to point out that this is normal free-market stuff. The community is obviously strong enough to leave this company practically high-and-dry, and it is also obviously strong enough to maintain it's own fork if it chooses to do so. This is just iteration at work. If the new Freenode owners can't fix their mistakes; they will fail. So what. If the old Freenode developers are serious, they will succeed.
- someguydave 5y ago
  I am not surprised. I don’t think any human on earth could give these “volunteer” “staffers” a command which they would obey.

roflc0ptic 5y ago

The behavior, as I understand it, is that Lee and company behaved mendaciously, taking what was a community/volunteer "staff" run enterprise and legalistically maneuvering to turn it into his own fiefdom without consent or even a modicum of transparency. Maybe this will have no operational effect, but it registers as terrifically unethical and destructive - he's predictably alienated and driven off most of the people running freenode. When people behave unethically and destructively in one scenario, it's easy to expect them to behave unethically and destructively in other scenarios. It's unacceptable from a governance perspective. Moving away from freenode is simple risk mitigation.

bitshiftfaced 5y ago
Fiefdom? What do you mean?
- silviot 5y ago
  I'm no native speaker nor have I ever heard that word before. Looking online I found this definition: fiefdom /ˈfiːfdəm/ a territory or sphere of operation controlled by a particular person or group. "a mafia boss who has turned the town into his private fiefdom"
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    A fiefdom is the domain of a feudal lord. Like "kingdom" but where the lord could be a duke, earl, baron, ... Historically, lords had nearly absolute legal authority over the peasants living in their domain.
  - wott 5y ago
    'fiefdom' in English with the slightly redundant -dom suffix, simply 'fief' in French (a term commonly used), and closer to the root, 'feudo' in Italian and Spanish.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  Yes, what the other commenters said. By exerting unilateral control, he's destroying the existing democratic governance mechanisms and making it a sort of rule by dictatorship. If you metaphorically treat freenode as territory, you can say that it's become Lee's fief, or fiefdom.

chrisseaton 5y ago

'Kerfluffle' is a hilarious misspelling - sounds like a brand of marshmallow fluff.

bargle0 5y ago
Imagine an ad campaign where disagreements were solved by fluffer nutter sandwiches.
roflc0ptic 5y ago
I get the sense that it's not a mispelling in the sense that Ariadne doesn't know how kerfuffle is spelled. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I also think that the comparison to Ariadne's bunny plushie - i.e. a fluffy thing - is related. Kerfluffle can be read as a portmanteau of kerfuffle and fluffy - a kerfuffle caused by Lee's need for a soft, fluffy thing to protect his ego. Dunno. Deep exegesis that could be entirely off base - maybe it's just a typo.
- senkora 5y ago
  Kerfluffle is the way I say and spell the word. Wiktionary lists it as a variant: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kerfluffle https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kerfluffle
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    Oh, cool. Kerfluffle is so much cuter.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    When you look at the etymology that's clearly a misspelling that has stuck somehow.
    - gbear605 5y ago
      Lots of modern English words arose from misspellings (and mishearings) - if one becomes popular, it becomes an English word. That’s how languages evolve, otherwise we’d still be speaking Proto-Indo-European.

someguydave 5y ago

This whole affair makes the freenode “volunteer” staff sound like ungovernable children. (They are paid in status so they are not really volunteers)

fullstop 5y ago
> (They are paid in status so they are not really volunteers) Citation Needed. Everything that I have read has stated that they are not paid, with the exception of a reimbursement for the cost of procuring a U2F key.
danaris 5y ago
....Wow; that's quite a take on the definition of "volunteer."
mlatu 5y ago
Oh ic... I saw an ad for a flat the other day, they were asking for status, I didn't get it then but now it makes sense.
kgwxd 5y ago
They're self-governing, and running a very useful service, and would like to stay that way. When someone walks in a room and declares they're now in control, without any right to do so, you don't just sit back and accept it, that's what children do.
g_sch 5y ago
Great point, I'll ask my landlord if I can pay my rent in status this month.
- andyana 5y ago
  I know you're joking, but I'd like to see a video of you asking, and of your landlords reaction, for humor :).
rootusrootus 5y ago
I think that's an interesting point (about status, at least), even if you're getting mocked for it. I can see the argument that the staff aren't purely charitable volunteers, they are getting a return on their effort. Or they wouldn't do it.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> I don't understand what Andrew's big sin is Lee founded Private Internet Access [1]. They had a history of being sketchy [2] and inexplicably hired Mark Karpeles. I don’t have a connection to Freenode. But I can recognise a bad actor when I see one. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lee_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lee_(entrepreneur) [2] https://telegra.ph/Private-Internet-Access-VPN-acquired-by-malware-business-founded-by-former-Israeli-spies-12-01 https://telegra.ph/Private-Internet-Access-VPN-acquired-by-m...

michaelmrose 5y ago
He sold pia to an adware company and didn't bother to inform customers.

tootie 5y ago

They seem to be attributing a lot malice to his actions that isn't evident. This is the most low stakes power play I've seen play out. Just talk to the guy directly instead of stomping off.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Why are you assuming no private communication happened? They aren't paid anything so setting up a new service with a domain not controlled by the disagreeable party seems to be the rational choice. What are they losing exactly?
- Macha 5y ago
  Also, there has been plenty of private communication. We know because much of it has leaked.
rcxdude 5y ago
Nothing about the reasons behind his actions are evident, despite repeated questioning. The answers he gives don't add up (a lot of vague mumbling about improving freenode by making it distributed, which seems completely counter to his actual actions).
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Making it distributed? Isn't that any IRC network with 2 or more servers by definition?
  - rcxdude 5y ago
    Indeed, this is one of the ways in which what he says doesn't make much sense.
    - wowaname 5y ago
      Lee expresses interest in decentralised/distributed alternatives to DNS so it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that I'm seeing a more-homogeneous set of ircops on multiple networks these days.