4 ms·

Freenode could have reached out to channel founders and asked us to leave the channels open, and allowed us to indicate that they are now unofficial channels. I

• linuxftw 5y ago
  Freenode could have done things differently, 'channel founders' (as if that denotes some kind of status) could have done things differently. Seems like one side provoked a fight, the other side responded, and now the initiators of the fight are calling foul.
  • cmsj 5y ago
    What should I have done differently? I chose to move the official IRC channel for my FOSS project to a different server, so I registered the new channel on the new server, and updated the topic in the old channel to say it was no longer the official channel and where the new one is. There's nothing provocative about that.
    • linuxftw 5y ago
      Your actions seem reasonable (though, I question the motives), and Freenode's actions seem reasonable. The only issue is people are upset that Freenode responded to their actions. If you're leaving Freenode, then leave, don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact.
      • macintux 5y ago
        > …don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. That’s how IRC has always worked, and that’s how open communities in general work. The marginal cost to Freenode is effectively zero, and the benefit is that users are not cast adrift without warning. Clearly Freenode is no longer an open platform.
      • MauranKilom 5y ago
        > don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. ...except that has been the written policy. And then after channels were forcible taken over, they changed the policy to remove any mention of this.
        • linuxftw 5y ago
          "The policy!" As if it's some holy relic to be revered. Things changed, the policy changed. Where is the sense of entitlement coming from?
          • daenney 5y ago
            They could've reached out to channel owners, informed them of the policy (change/reinterpretation) or reminded them of it, and ask that they change the topic. Set a clear expectation, like 48hrs to resolve it, and then act. They could've even used a server wide notice for it. A little courtesy goes a long way and would've helped build up a bit of trust in the new staff. None of that happened. Whether they believe they were in the right or not doesn't matter at this point. Trust in the new team was already low. Based on what we know, this also wasn't staff action, but just Lee. These actions also further cement the stories ex-staff has told, which only serves to damage trust in the new team further. What little trust there might have been is now gone and it seems to have galvanised those who remained to also leave. Which in itself completely defeats having ownership of the network.
            • linuxftw 5y ago
              Yeah, and the 'staff' that quit could have not quit and tried to resolve things amicably. > None of that happened You don't know that, you assume that. > Whether they believe they were in the right or not doesn't matter at this point. On what planet? I think the actions were reasonable given the circumstance. Taking a position of outrage because some perceived red-tape wasn't followed, that's unreasonable. Nobody suffered any real harm. None of this is a huge deal, but people want to play victim.
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    Except the other side "responded" against bystanders, not the instigators. If I was a bystander, I would leave.
  • gowld 5y ago
    The fight was started when Andrew Lee hijacked Freenode.