3 ms·

Because the wording in the article implies that Andrew was the force behind the incorporation of Freenode Limited just for the sake of acquisition, but there's

Because the wording in the article implies that Andrew was the force behind the incorporation of Freenode Limited just for the sake of acquisition, but there's no evidence for that. By all accounts, Christel herself incorporated and reached out to Andrew looking to sell it. Christel backstabbed the community, that much is clear. But Andrew himself never tried to manipulate the network at any point. So much so that from 2017 to 2021 no one protested Freenode Limited's involvement. That's my only issue with the situation. Let me be extra clear: I believe freenode/libera.chat should NOT be owned by a private company. But to paint this as "Andrew is evil and trying to control us!" is disingenuous. Just say it like it is: let's liberate the community at Libera Chat. Don't try to manipulate people into despising someone who sponsored the project for 9 years. Again: please, if you have any evidence that Andrew intervened in the community's affairs other than sponsoring it and letting Christel and the staff free to manage it as they pleased, since 2012, let us know.

rektide 5y ago
Andrew is making unilateral commits to the Freenode policy & website. He's claiming Freenode is going to go seek some new decentralized underpinnings[1] possibly apart from IRC to operate under. He's shut down/blocked the community from doing IRCv3 development, which might not fit with his personal vision. Andrew has unilaterally decided to make all channel policies draft[2]. Andrew has unilaterally changed the rule for channel take-overs, & performed a takeover (ironically for a HN bot!!! how meta-recursively high-drama!). Andrew has unilaterally decided that racial, ethnic, religious, & gender-related invectives are now ok[3] on freenode. Andrew has unilaterally changed the entire staff line up[4]. Just because he says he's doing it for good, doing it to protect us, does not justify his having seized control & having made himself dictator of this network. Whatever disagreement he had with Tomaw, he has overly personalized this as a conflict between Tom and himself. He's ignored the wider charge that he has taken over control. Is it evil? Well it would take us many years of evaluation to establish whether it was a good or bad take over, but we'd all prefer if he not take it over like this. "Andrew [may or may not be evil] and trying to control us!" is definitely, for sure, 100% accurate. [1] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/507/files#diff-3c002534fc01607b64932633e9bb05f441ad3d4a4f04787c6bcb8fd077a5e5dcR24 https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/507/files#diff-3c00... [2] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/514/files https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/514/files [3] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/513/files#diff-0e382b024f696a3b7a0ff3bce24ae3166cc6f383d059c7cc61e0a3ccdeed522cL87 https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/513/files#diff-0e38... [4] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/510/files https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/510/files
- hn-detective 5y ago
  All of these happened after the debacle and both parties were left to deal with their own separate networks. Unilaterally against who? They all resigned and he was the sole person responsible for the network by this point. There's no evidence this would have happened had the initial misunderstanding not taken place: staff asked Andrew to sign over the domain, consequently locked Andrew out and further announced a reorganization with partnership with OFTC. Andrew mistakenly sees this as a coup and fights back. While staff was acting in good faith, so was Andrew. This is no evidence Andrew would fight for control had they not refused to keep his access intact as it was for years. I'm tired of begging for evidence of Andrew tampering with the network operations at any point from 2012-2021 PRIOR to both sides believing the other one had bad intentions. Andrew indirectly or directly sponsored freenode since 2012 and owned it since 2017. Please, point me to a single instance of Andrew interfering with the network in this period and I'll believe your assertion that he set out to control freenode, as opposed to reacting to the staff locking him out of an account he's had access for years. And for the record, I don't expect Andrew to be a good network operator. It was already established he isn't well versed with irc and general netiquette. That doesn't mean he set out to conquer freenode, and pointing out his failures after the network operation is on him isn't an argument for his intentions, only for his ineptitude.
  - rektide 5y ago
    you keep begging for evidence only you care about!!!! > All of these happened after the debacle and both parties were left to deal with their own separate networks. you keep beating the drum that this was Andrew versus the other guys, that anyone who didn't like what was happening was another guy, and thus irrelevant to freenode & of no concern. it's a poisonous way of looking at what had, until recently, been a community. Andrew was acting unilaterally against everyone, every user, & every helpful soul who wanted some assurance of continuity & the self rule they'd practiced for decades. > This is no evidence Andrew would fight for control had they not refused to keep his access intact as it was for years. one person did this. not they. a single person. and Andrew then acted against every man woman & child on freenode in response. > announced a reorganization with partnership with OFTC absurd poppycock. there's seemingly only Andrew's word that there was some deep conspiracy to more deeply engage with each other beyond the ongoing happenstance of the much much wider irc community collaborating on ircv3 and members of freenode & oftc (and both, such as tomaw) being involved in that work. which seems ridiculously sensical. Andrew seems to want to force some of his handbrake coinshit on freenode, to be the white knight who charges in & declares he has freed it from moderators & centralization (& codes of conduct). and it seems likely he's made a phantasm of the obvious & ongoing straightforward ircv3 development, either as a ghost he sincerely has made himself believe in, or as just more of a political gambit to further murky the waters.

rektide 5y ago

Andrew is making unilateral commits to the Freenode policy & website. He's claiming Freenode is going to go seek some new decentralized underpinnings[1] possibly apart from IRC to operate under. He's shut down/blocked the community from doing IRCv3 development, which might not fit with his personal vision. Andrew has unilaterally decided to make all channel policies draft[2]. Andrew has unilaterally changed the rule for channel take-overs, & performed a takeover (ironically for a HN bot!!! how meta-recursively high-drama!). Andrew has unilaterally decided that racial, ethnic, religious, & gender-related invectives are now ok[3] on freenode. Andrew has unilaterally changed the entire staff line up[4]. Just because he says he's doing it for good, doing it to protect us, does not justify his having seized control & having made himself dictator of this network. Whatever disagreement he had with Tomaw, he has overly personalized this as a conflict between Tom and himself. He's ignored the wider charge that he has taken over control. Is it evil? Well it would take us many years of evaluation to establish whether it was a good or bad take over, but we'd all prefer if he not take it over like this. "Andrew [may or may not be evil] and trying to control us!" is definitely, for sure, 100% accurate. [1] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/507/files#diff-3c002534fc01607b64932633e9bb05f441ad3d4a4f04787c6bcb8fd077a5e5dcR24 https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/507/files#diff-3c00... [2] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/514/files https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/514/files [3] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/513/files#diff-0e382b024f696a3b7a0ff3bce24ae3166cc6f383d059c7cc61e0a3ccdeed522cL87 https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/513/files#diff-0e38... [4] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/510/files https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/510/files

hn-detective 5y ago
All of these happened after the debacle and both parties were left to deal with their own separate networks. Unilaterally against who? They all resigned and he was the sole person responsible for the network by this point. There's no evidence this would have happened had the initial misunderstanding not taken place: staff asked Andrew to sign over the domain, consequently locked Andrew out and further announced a reorganization with partnership with OFTC. Andrew mistakenly sees this as a coup and fights back. While staff was acting in good faith, so was Andrew. This is no evidence Andrew would fight for control had they not refused to keep his access intact as it was for years. I'm tired of begging for evidence of Andrew tampering with the network operations at any point from 2012-2021 PRIOR to both sides believing the other one had bad intentions. Andrew indirectly or directly sponsored freenode since 2012 and owned it since 2017. Please, point me to a single instance of Andrew interfering with the network in this period and I'll believe your assertion that he set out to control freenode, as opposed to reacting to the staff locking him out of an account he's had access for years. And for the record, I don't expect Andrew to be a good network operator. It was already established he isn't well versed with irc and general netiquette. That doesn't mean he set out to conquer freenode, and pointing out his failures after the network operation is on him isn't an argument for his intentions, only for his ineptitude.
- rektide 5y ago
  you keep begging for evidence only you care about!!!! > All of these happened after the debacle and both parties were left to deal with their own separate networks. you keep beating the drum that this was Andrew versus the other guys, that anyone who didn't like what was happening was another guy, and thus irrelevant to freenode & of no concern. it's a poisonous way of looking at what had, until recently, been a community. Andrew was acting unilaterally against everyone, every user, & every helpful soul who wanted some assurance of continuity & the self rule they'd practiced for decades. > This is no evidence Andrew would fight for control had they not refused to keep his access intact as it was for years. one person did this. not they. a single person. and Andrew then acted against every man woman & child on freenode in response. > announced a reorganization with partnership with OFTC absurd poppycock. there's seemingly only Andrew's word that there was some deep conspiracy to more deeply engage with each other beyond the ongoing happenstance of the much much wider irc community collaborating on ircv3 and members of freenode & oftc (and both, such as tomaw) being involved in that work. which seems ridiculously sensical. Andrew seems to want to force some of his handbrake coinshit on freenode, to be the white knight who charges in & declares he has freed it from moderators & centralization (& codes of conduct). and it seems likely he's made a phantasm of the obvious & ongoing straightforward ircv3 development, either as a ghost he sincerely has made himself believe in, or as just more of a political gambit to further murky the waters.