6 ms·

Did you read the PDF? It’s actually really clear there. Lots of defamatory and false comments were made by the former staff - which are proven to be false in t

Did you read the PDF? It’s actually really clear there. Lots of defamatory and false comments were made by the former staff - which are proven to be false in the document. In terms of the ownership, it was on the main blog and website for the past 4 years [1]. Also checkout http://techrights.org/2021/05/21/freenode-facts/ http://techrights.org/2021/05/21/freenode-facts/ Thanks! [1] https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn

wut42 5y ago
>There will be few noticeable changes in terms of day-to-day operations, the freenode project will continue to operate with much the same structure and volunteer base as it does now
- rasengan 5y ago
  It did until I was locked out of the dns and an internal reorganization and structure was put in place. The screenshots from former staff agenda is on the PDF. I don’t wish to be on irc 24/7 contrary to what people might or might not think.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    There's nothing about DNS in the meeting notes that I can see.
    - rasengan 5y ago
      Check the messages about the DNS in the pdf. Thanks Thomas for caring! You seldom seem to miss replying to my comments, and I appreciate it.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Again: there's nothing about DNS in the meeting minutes that you just cited upthread. I'm also a little confused. The PIA/Freenode announcement says "There will be few noticeable changes in terms of day-to-day operations, the freenode project will continue to operate with much the same structure and volunteer base as it does now." Why would you be involved operationally in any way with Freenode's administration? What would any reorganization have mattered to you? Wasn't the point of the structure you claim you had that Freenode's operators had self-determination? These are still more instances of this PDF you've produced not really clarifying your position here.
      - wut42 5y ago
        He asked you that the head of staff, a.k.a the only person really responsible and managing the network, to own the domain. This is a sensible request. "announcing a new ircd and a partnership with OFTC" ? Dude. Solanum is an evolution of Seven, which needed to evolve; based on Charybdis. It's not _new_, it's just an _evolution_, and one that is badly needed (to support ircv3 features and much more). OFTC is also working on that IRCd. This is not a mad partnership either. Two networks joining forces to develop and improve a proven IRC platform (Charybdis/Atheme) is not something insane at all.
        makomk 5y ago
        Hang on. If I'm following all this correctly, at that point the current head of staff had only held that role for less than a month. So the big demand here was that control over the domain name was transferred not to the community, or to some non-profit, but to some individual who'd seemingly been manoeuvred into place for the purpose of transferring that control to them. That certainly smells like a shady takeover attempt of some kind, even if the details are opaque.
        hannasanarion 5y ago
        The previous holder of that job, Christel, had access to the DNS account, why couldn't Tom? Like, yeah, Tom was maneuovered into place to take control of the DNS account, because thats what a head of staff does. Do you think that each new US president shouldn't get the nuclear codes either?
        makomk 5y ago
        He wasn't just asking for access to the DNS account - which it seems like, in fact, he already had and used to try and lock Andrew Lee and others involved in Freenode out - but for ownership of the domains to be transferred to him personally. Which would mean that in effect he would be the one who decided what Freenode was and who controlled it from then on, and if any other staff or users disagreed they could just pound sand. In particular, he appears to have rejected the idea of any kind of community ownership or control over the domain ownership.
  - wut42 5y ago
    The screenshots seems incomplete, which makes me doubtful to trust them. If you are able to show the full conversations it could enlighten me further, but truncated pictures and screenshots won't do. The internal reorganization and structure seems a sensible thing to do (as an outsider it even looks like an improvement) and was agreed by all the staff. You weren't supposed to interfere so why a new structure and reorg would affect you ? You also seemed to be annoyed by them improving the current IRCd. Why that would matter to you ?
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    > I don’t wish to be on irc 24/7 contrary to what people might or might not think. then why acquire freenode?
    - wowaname 5y ago
      To be fair, volunteers on freenode also had lives outside of IRC.
tptacek 5y ago
I read the whole PDF and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say it doesn't really make anything clear at all. Your claim of ownership over Freenode isn't news; it's one detail that both sides of this controversy seem ready to agree on: someone named christel somehow sold you an IRC network 5 years ago, unbeknownst (until recently) to the people operating the IRC network on their own servers. What is the PDF meant to clarify beyond that?
- rasengan 5y ago
  > someone named christel somehow sold you an IRC network 5 years ago, unbeknownst (until recently) to the people operating the IRC network on their own servers. This is false [1]. The PDF clarifies a great many of the unanswered questions and verified that despite former staff attempt to say I was lying, all I did was spoke the truth and helped when asked. Please review the PDF. Lastly, I also run servers on freenode and have for years preceding the acquisition. The PDF puts to rest all the falsehoods and uncertainties in my opinion but please let me know if there is something I missed! [1] https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    I'm also not great at following this whole thing. When did you acquire Freenode or how?
    - Macha 5y ago
      The ownership chain of Freenode was 1. Rob Levin/Lilo, personally 2. Open Projects Network 3. ??? 4. PDPC 5. Christel, personally 6. freenode ltd. 7. Andrew Lee (via freenode ltd) After PDPC, what christel personally owned to transfer to freenode ltd to sell to Andrew Lee is... hard to define. A domain and a website, sure. But christel didn't own the servers, did not employ people, and does not have any agreement with the users, something which continued into freenode ltd. And apart from the users, operators, servers, and domain, it's not clear what an IRC network is to own.
    - apotheon 5y ago
ex-fnstaffer 5y ago
Do you plan to waive your attorney-client privilege for your lawyers' communications and release them to the community? This would be a really lovely piece of transparency by you. If not, why?

wut42 5y ago

>There will be few noticeable changes in terms of day-to-day operations, the freenode project will continue to operate with much the same structure and volunteer base as it does now

rasengan 5y ago
It did until I was locked out of the dns and an internal reorganization and structure was put in place. The screenshots from former staff agenda is on the PDF. I don’t wish to be on irc 24/7 contrary to what people might or might not think.
- tptacek 5y ago
  There's nothing about DNS in the meeting notes that I can see.
  - rasengan 5y ago
    Check the messages about the DNS in the pdf. Thanks Thomas for caring! You seldom seem to miss replying to my comments, and I appreciate it.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Again: there's nothing about DNS in the meeting minutes that you just cited upthread. I'm also a little confused. The PIA/Freenode announcement says "There will be few noticeable changes in terms of day-to-day operations, the freenode project will continue to operate with much the same structure and volunteer base as it does now." Why would you be involved operationally in any way with Freenode's administration? What would any reorganization have mattered to you? Wasn't the point of the structure you claim you had that Freenode's operators had self-determination? These are still more instances of this PDF you've produced not really clarifying your position here.
    - wut42 5y ago
      He asked you that the head of staff, a.k.a the only person really responsible and managing the network, to own the domain. This is a sensible request. "announcing a new ircd and a partnership with OFTC" ? Dude. Solanum is an evolution of Seven, which needed to evolve; based on Charybdis. It's not _new_, it's just an _evolution_, and one that is badly needed (to support ircv3 features and much more). OFTC is also working on that IRCd. This is not a mad partnership either. Two networks joining forces to develop and improve a proven IRC platform (Charybdis/Atheme) is not something insane at all.
      - makomk 5y ago
        Hang on. If I'm following all this correctly, at that point the current head of staff had only held that role for less than a month. So the big demand here was that control over the domain name was transferred not to the community, or to some non-profit, but to some individual who'd seemingly been manoeuvred into place for the purpose of transferring that control to them. That certainly smells like a shady takeover attempt of some kind, even if the details are opaque.
        hannasanarion 5y ago
        The previous holder of that job, Christel, had access to the DNS account, why couldn't Tom? Like, yeah, Tom was maneuovered into place to take control of the DNS account, because thats what a head of staff does. Do you think that each new US president shouldn't get the nuclear codes either?
        makomk 5y ago
        He wasn't just asking for access to the DNS account - which it seems like, in fact, he already had and used to try and lock Andrew Lee and others involved in Freenode out - but for ownership of the domains to be transferred to him personally. Which would mean that in effect he would be the one who decided what Freenode was and who controlled it from then on, and if any other staff or users disagreed they could just pound sand. In particular, he appears to have rejected the idea of any kind of community ownership or control over the domain ownership.
- wut42 5y ago
  The screenshots seems incomplete, which makes me doubtful to trust them. If you are able to show the full conversations it could enlighten me further, but truncated pictures and screenshots won't do. The internal reorganization and structure seems a sensible thing to do (as an outsider it even looks like an improvement) and was agreed by all the staff. You weren't supposed to interfere so why a new structure and reorg would affect you ? You also seemed to be annoyed by them improving the current IRCd. Why that would matter to you ?
- edgyquant 5y ago
  > I don’t wish to be on irc 24/7 contrary to what people might or might not think. then why acquire freenode?
  - wowaname 5y ago
    To be fair, volunteers on freenode also had lives outside of IRC.

tptacek 5y ago

I read the whole PDF and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say it doesn't really make anything clear at all. Your claim of ownership over Freenode isn't news; it's one detail that both sides of this controversy seem ready to agree on: someone named christel somehow sold you an IRC network 5 years ago, unbeknownst (until recently) to the people operating the IRC network on their own servers. What is the PDF meant to clarify beyond that?

rasengan 5y ago
> someone named christel somehow sold you an IRC network 5 years ago, unbeknownst (until recently) to the people operating the IRC network on their own servers. This is false [1]. The PDF clarifies a great many of the unanswered questions and verified that despite former staff attempt to say I was lying, all I did was spoke the truth and helped when asked. Please review the PDF. Lastly, I also run servers on freenode and have for years preceding the acquisition. The PDF puts to rest all the falsehoods and uncertainties in my opinion but please let me know if there is something I missed! [1] https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn https://freenode.net/news/pia-fn
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  I'm also not great at following this whole thing. When did you acquire Freenode or how?
  - Macha 5y ago
    The ownership chain of Freenode was 1. Rob Levin/Lilo, personally 2. Open Projects Network 3. ??? 4. PDPC 5. Christel, personally 6. freenode ltd. 7. Andrew Lee (via freenode ltd) After PDPC, what christel personally owned to transfer to freenode ltd to sell to Andrew Lee is... hard to define. A domain and a website, sure. But christel didn't own the servers, did not employ people, and does not have any agreement with the users, something which continued into freenode ltd. And apart from the users, operators, servers, and domain, it's not clear what an IRC network is to own.
  - apotheon 5y ago

ex-fnstaffer 5y ago

Do you plan to waive your attorney-client privilege for your lawyers' communications and release them to the community? This would be a really lovely piece of transparency by you. If not, why?