As an ex-freenode staffer, this is simply untrue.

You took over with zero transition plan, and no engagement with staff - none. You had had no involvement in the running of freenode until this week and had no relationship with any of the team.

You marched in, announced that you were saving freenode from the "hostile takeover" of their own consensus-based, transparent, self-organisation, and SURPRISE they decided that they didn't want to work with a mystery absentee landlord who rocked up, proclaimed themselves, and demanded their land back with a team of lawyers.

You have no track record on freenode, of working with the ex-staff team, and clearly don't understand the community.

Why else would volunteers who have been working on a project for ACTUAL DECADES FOR FREE ALL WALK OUT OVERNIGHT? This is not what people do with things they love unless something very odd is happening.

As far as I'm aware no-one damaged everything - and went to pains to leave in an orderly line. They just didn't want to work for you when you swooped in.

You even had the head of staff working with you to let you figure out how your new toys work. Any damage to data or infrastructure is, I think, the responsibility of the management.

Which if you are to be believed has been you for years anyway.

Is it true that they pulled freenode’s mail server?

I see lots of emotion here, and emotion is fine. But yanking someone’s existing infrastructure isn’t very nice.

If that part isn’t true, though, then someone here is lying.

The mail server was working when the whole staff team resigned.

What happened after then will have entirely been within the control of the freenode management, their administration, and their sponsors.

Every ex-freenode staffer I have talked to has been exceptionally cautious about damaging the data and systems they tended for literal decades, and to my knowledge none were disrupted.

I think here, you have to look to Andrew, ask what his transition plan was, and what he thought would happen when he started throwing lawyer's letters at the head of a functioning and healthy team of sysadmins and staff members who were happy to continue the job they'd been doing for years, for the community, indefinitely..

I'm having a hard time following anything.

Andrew claims they brought a lawyer in after their access to the DNS was revoked and their request for that to be undone was denied. They supposedly have had access for 5 years without issues, and according to Tomaw it's something they'd "probably never do anything with."

Why should Andrew accept that, even if the only thing Freenode Ltd. owned was the domain and name? If they didn't do anything nefarious for 5 years, what changed that made the domain takeover now necessary? Especially since the person taking over the domain apparently admits Andrew wouldn't do anything to it... or was that exchange fabricated?

I don't think tomaw was aware that freenode ltd owned anything apart from the freenode live conference, until the legal discussions happened. So from his point of view it would have been a case of "Why should the people we ran a conference with in 2017/2018 have access to our domain?"

That implies christel was the only staff with access to DNS until now and was hiding that fact, since the domain's been registered to Freenode Limited since at least 2018 and they'd have noticed the change had they been accessing it.

I've been reading more into it and it seems that wasn't the case [1], but that just leaves me with more questions.

[1]: https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/f569c5e4727d21eb939fff9...

Understanding that:

(a) Freenode ltd had access to the domain

(b) Freenode ltd should have access to the domain

(c) Freenode ltd is the rightful owner of the domain

are three very different matters. How often do you whois your employer's domain?

Otherwise, if you've just been appointed leader of an operational staff and believe your organisation owns everything involved, it doesn't seem unreasonable to start introducing basic infosec practices around limiting access (or if it was caused by mandating security measures like 2fa, as mentioned elsewhere in thread)

Not often, but maybe when its parent company goes through a merger and the head of staff makes a public announcement saying "the freenode project will continue being part of and having access to support from the Imperial Family Companies (formerly London Trust Media Holdings (LTMH))." [1]

Since I believe freenode to be completely community-owned apart from some holding company that's supposed to host a conference, at that point I might check our WHOIS records and maybe our own policies [2] and question who I'm actually volunteering for.

[1]: https://freenode.net/news/freenode-pia-changes

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180606130945/https://freenode....

Why the anonymous account?

That's his name on Freenode too. I don't think that's anonymous. He very clearly reads HN, as his "Freenode is FOSS" post links PGs fierce nerds post.

I'm talking about whomever ex-fnstaffer is. That's this person's name on Freenode?

Fair enough, my fault.

They value anonymity?

And for all I know, ex-fnstaffer is a tomaw alt. Do you not see the problem with all these anon new accounts that were apparently created for the express purpose of saying they don't like Andrew Lee? This reeks of astro-turfing, and for all I know it could be one person behind like 5 different accounts.

As someone who has participated on 4chan in the past, I personally have learned to take comments at face value and not place much weight in the names. It's true that anyone can claim anything, and I don't think there is much benefit to seeing an identity tied to the user's posts.

I've seen mobbing in general against both sides of this ordeal, and I would be unsurprised to see astroturfing efforts as well. It upsets me that people tend to stoop that low, but I'm attempting to gather all info I can from both sides in order to come to my own conclusion.

I see that you are spreading your falsehoods here, too.

The issue with services was not due to the "previous team", but rather due to the sponsor pulling their box. The "previous team" had no access to them by that point.

As you might have guessed, the sponsors had a gentlemen's agreement with previous staff and not with Freenode ltd. Now most of them obviously don't like sponsoring their boxes for your company, so they are pulling them.

Stop lying, Andrew. If you would have approached this in a sane and respectful manner and not sent your bloodhounds out, you maybe wouldn't have inherited smoke and ashes.

Personal attacks / name-calling are not welcome on HN, as per the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Leaving a project when you know that it will cause their infrastructure to collapse isn’t too professional. It seems pretty fair to characterize this as partly your fault, since, y’know, you caused it by leaving.

I think both sides in this are acting bizarre. You’re talking like it’s an oath of allegiance rather than an irc server.

OP stated the sponsor pulled the box after they no longer wanted to support freenode. How would the former staff have handled that more professionally? Begging the sponsor not revoke access?

If I were a sponsor who found out a project I was donating resources to was taken over under questionable circumstances by someone with deep pockets I'd have done the same.

Yeah, you're right. I guess it wasn't up to the volunteers; sorry.

It wasn't a very nice move by the sponsor to yank support without giving any notice – usually you'd get a week, or 30 days, or something – but it sounds like no one had any obligations to.

I recall just a few months ago when Amazon yanked the plug on hosting a company's infra with little more than 24hrs notice.

So I guess that's precedence for something like that, and yet, that company held a contract with Amazon to host their infra.... no such scenario in this case ;)

There was substantially more than 24 hrs ... amzn sent several communications to Parler explaining their issues with what Parler was (or was not doing). The final communication had a 24hr deadline.

It would not have collapsed at all. It simply disappeared because the sponsor of it was a sponsor of freenode, and didn't want to be a sponsor of Andrew Lee. This is entirely up to them and their decision, it is their box, their money.

If you're being paid, sure. But volunteers are allowed to withdraw their support at any point in time for any reason under the sun. They have exactly zero obligation to anyone but themselves.

It sounds to me like you killed a network but you're not mature enough to admit it so now you're grasping at straws in a futile attempt to look like a victim.

Then explain your motives more clearly. Freenode used to be managed by a college of trusted people, and now?

The issues with services I speak about wasn't related at all to mail either.

Freenode was staffed by volunteers but it was never managed by them.

They were recruited by management.

Let’s not rewrite history any further, please.

Obviously bullshit, freenode is older than your company, and when it was founded you were not even known. The IRC network freenode was ran by, managed by, developed by and loved by volunteers. You came in like a wrecking ball and destroyed it.

Thank you, self-proclaimed saviour of IRC, for your continuing efforts in destroying it. Fortunately money doesn't buy you communities and doesn't buy you people, so compared to some proprietary solutions and companies, we can and will survive. Your freshly acquired toy, on the other hand, probably won't.

Who, exactly, is "management" here? And in what, exact specific, ways are they involved in freenode operations?

As I said in another comment, the core of freenode is its servers and operators, both of whom have no real ties to freenode limited as they consist of sponsored servers and volunteers, respectively. By that nature alone, freenode limited doesn't seem to have any influence over either aside from owning the name and trademarks.

So who exactly is "management" and what role do they have in the freenode network?

So, how many servers loaned to you by other parties have revoked those loans.... besides the email server you're whining about?

How much of your network is actually left standing and operational after what? two days?

Over ten thousand channels have been recreated on the network that is the successor to yours... in one day.

How does that leave you feeling?

Really? Can you prove that? I've been on freenode since almost 18 years and there was no management, every head of staff after Lilo (so, Christel) was appointed by the staff, just like tomaw was.

This is also simply untrue.

So huh, not to speculate again, but:

irc.porn -> tower.freenode.net

irc.shells.net -> passion.freenode.net

irc.bitcoin.com -> tildes.freenode.net

irc.imperialfamily.com -> no change

irc.blockexplorer.com -> dead

irc.merryjane.com -> happytree.freenode.net

irc.namebase.io -> gotham.freenode.net

irc.marijane.org -> no change

irc.letstoc.com -> niveus.freenode.net

irc.lfa.com -> ace.freenode.net

irc.voat.co -> redondo.freenode.net

If you don't want to turn freenode onto ToC, then why all the servers of ToC are now freenode servers?

(edit: formatting, added irc.voat.co which I forgot)