4 ms·

This is a gross misrepresentation of what is taking place. I don’t want to pick sides in the current chaos, but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed t

This is a gross misrepresentation of what is taking place. I don’t want to pick sides in the current chaos, but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them". I do not believe any of the current libera staff would object to paying the few dollars/year for the domain registration (or even the DNS infrastructure). There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
> but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them It was said, I believe, by multiple of the people who quit to create their new network that the domains were sold to Lee by someone who was given leadership of the group. This means they domains were paid for. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the few dollars for renewal but a domain like freenode probably got sold for a few thousand. > There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. I think it's not decent to expect that a group that has been bad mouthed repeatedly support the smooth transition for the new network. That honestly, the only part I have trouble with. I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. Reminds me of bullies at school who would say and do whatever they want to you but when you hit back you're the villian. > This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure. To be fair, it's been a shit show from the start. Seriously, how many I quit letters were flooded on to this paltform and others like it? The one announcement was all that was needed.
- Jiejeing 5y ago
  > I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. This is not VC-funded startups competing for the spot on "best smart hairdryer of the week" and using shady practices to get the audience, this is a volunteer-run open network supposed to cater for the FOSS space, and aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken)
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    > It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. So you're saying it's not OK to change the terms and conditions of a service you're running? Channels weren't gracefully moving in the first place they were kicking and banning users and forcably closing thge channels. And everyone keeps saying freenode community is now on libera yet at the same time crying that freenode won't allow libera to be advertise on their network. > aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. There is no lock-in. They're actually closing down channels that don't want to use their service. Think about it. These channels don't want to use freenode. Freenode closes them and everyone cries. > (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken) Let's be serious that's because that was a single project and not a mass targeting of the freenode user base. Acting like "Oh but when it was 0.01% of the channels it was fine but now it's 700 major channels it's an issue, this is outragous" is spinning a false narrative that only uninformed people would fall for.
    - Jiejeing 5y ago
      I won’t speak for the spambots (which are dubious to be honest), or the banning/kicking which, while I know it happened in some places, was not really widespread. Most communities I’m in were in a "wait and see" position, heck, one even only had something along the lines "We’re undecided over what to do, but you should register your nick at libera in any case". Guess what they decided to do after the channel got taken away… > There is no lock-in. They're actually closing down channels that don't want to use their service. Think about it. These channels don't want to use freenode. Freenode closes them and everyone cries. Because what a decent service provider does is provide a sunsetting period, in which most of the banned channels were already. Immediate termination because you decide to change your service provider and want to not fragment your community is not what a responsible provider does. > Let's be serious that's because that was a single project and not a mass targeting of the freenode user base FOSS projects owners are not "targeting the freenode user base", they are choosing another venue for discussion. You can think there is a secret cabal out to get Andrew Lee, but that’s really people considering their options, and getting proven right.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

> but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them It was said, I believe, by multiple of the people who quit to create their new network that the domains were sold to Lee by someone who was given leadership of the group. This means they domains were paid for. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the few dollars for renewal but a domain like freenode probably got sold for a few thousand. > There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. I think it's not decent to expect that a group that has been bad mouthed repeatedly support the smooth transition for the new network. That honestly, the only part I have trouble with. I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. Reminds me of bullies at school who would say and do whatever they want to you but when you hit back you're the villian. > This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure. To be fair, it's been a shit show from the start. Seriously, how many I quit letters were flooded on to this paltform and others like it? The one announcement was all that was needed.

Jiejeing 5y ago
> I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. This is not VC-funded startups competing for the spot on "best smart hairdryer of the week" and using shady practices to get the audience, this is a volunteer-run open network supposed to cater for the FOSS space, and aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken)
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  > It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. So you're saying it's not OK to change the terms and conditions of a service you're running? Channels weren't gracefully moving in the first place they were kicking and banning users and forcably closing thge channels. And everyone keeps saying freenode community is now on libera yet at the same time crying that freenode won't allow libera to be advertise on their network. > aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. There is no lock-in. They're actually closing down channels that don't want to use their service. Think about it. These channels don't want to use freenode. Freenode closes them and everyone cries. > (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken) Let's be serious that's because that was a single project and not a mass targeting of the freenode user base. Acting like "Oh but when it was 0.01% of the channels it was fine but now it's 700 major channels it's an issue, this is outragous" is spinning a false narrative that only uninformed people would fall for.
  - Jiejeing 5y ago
    I won’t speak for the spambots (which are dubious to be honest), or the banning/kicking which, while I know it happened in some places, was not really widespread. Most communities I’m in were in a "wait and see" position, heck, one even only had something along the lines "We’re undecided over what to do, but you should register your nick at libera in any case". Guess what they decided to do after the channel got taken away… > There is no lock-in. They're actually closing down channels that don't want to use their service. Think about it. These channels don't want to use freenode. Freenode closes them and everyone cries. Because what a decent service provider does is provide a sunsetting period, in which most of the banned channels were already. Immediate termination because you decide to change your service provider and want to not fragment your community is not what a responsible provider does. > Let's be serious that's because that was a single project and not a mass targeting of the freenode user base FOSS projects owners are not "targeting the freenode user base", they are choosing another venue for discussion. You can think there is a secret cabal out to get Andrew Lee, but that’s really people considering their options, and getting proven right.