I was trying to find the actual events because there's no indication this was planned, as opposed to what people are saying.
If you're fine with articles misrepresenting reality to further the idea that someone intentionally set out to do something bad, that's okay. I'm not. There is enough evidence that Libera Chat would be the preferred network and that Andrew is doing an absolute whack job of running the network afterwards, they didn't need to omit facts and imply Andrew was the driving force for the incorporation.
This discussion happened before the hostile takeover of channels. The fact the hostile takeover of channels happened doesn't affect whether or not the network takeover was intentional or not, and doesn't affect whether the transition could have been easier after finding out the community didn't own it had they not confronted Andrew as a thief first, despicable human being second.
> Andrew was acting unilaterally against everyone
When? After everyone resigned means nothing to the discussion at hand which is finding causality. That's not how time works.
> one person did this. not they. a single person. and Andrew then acted against every man woman & child on freenode in response.
Acted how? What did he do?
> absurd poppycock
Yes, and I said so: Andrew mistakenly sees this as a coup. We know that wasn't some conspiracy, that's very clear. But it wasn't to him: tomaw requested a domain transfer, locked him out of account by mistake, threatened half of staff would leave freenode when asked for access back, other staff posted about reorganization, talked about creating a new network... WE know there wasn't a coup. He didn't.
You say I am looking for evidence I care about, but all you care about happened after all the relevant events. Useless.
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.
Look around: there are multiple news articles on the subject and all of them take the hostile takeover perspective as gospel. People have already decided Andrew controls a corporation with evil intentions.
In this case, I was pointing out factual mistakes that could eventually paint a different narrative.
Despite seeing waves of upvotes and downvotes, no one has offered any piece of evidence backing their claims:
The article implies Freenode Limited was incorporated for the sole reason to be sold to Andrew. Evidence for this angle? None so far, instead it looks like Christel is the one who incorporated and months later actively sought an acquisition. There are Companies House records for the incorporation, and Andrew provided the email showing Christel coming to him.
The article implies Andrew escalated the debacle by asserting his authority over the reorganization. Reality? They conveniently did not mention staff asked Andrew to sign over the domain, then consequently Andrew was locked out and the staff 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. Evidence of ill intention? None. Evidence of a single instance where Andrew tried to intervene in the network affairs from 2012 to 2021? None as well.
The article implies Libera Chat was created after Andrew fully took over. Reality? It was created right after the lawyer tried to restore Andrew's access. This implies they were ready to move regardless of Andrew's actions. And that's fine, I too support a community-owned network as opposed to a company-owned one. However, if their bylaws were written prior to any actual takeover, why are they trying to portray Andrew as the active actor that prompted Libera Chat's creation?
And lastly, the only thing that's blatantly clear is that Christel backstabbed every single one of them. Yet, Andrew's face is plastered everywhere as the villain. He might be a douchebag, but you have to be disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence to support your narrative and question why I wouldn't share my real name along with facts I provided evidence for [1].
Once again, I too will demonize Andrew as soon as evidence of him interfering with the network affairs since 2012 is provided. Pretty please?
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.
The issue is that they're completely within their rights to move to a community-owned network, but they didn't need to paint someone as a hostile actor without evidence of that.
If you do have evidence of Andrew trying to exert any control in any way prior to his long-held access being revoked, I'll openly change my mind. Otherwise, read my other posts for why I think it's disingenuous to shape the narrative like that.
> All you will ultimately end up with is the freenode name and database of people's registration emails. Was it worth it?
Exactly, it makes no sense for someone who's been sponsoring the project for 9 years to up and try to kill it all of a sudden.
Had staff said "It's come to our attention freenode is owned by a privately owned company, something we can't stand behind. Join us at Libera Chat to participate in a truly community-owned network," everyone would still gladly side with and support them.
Instead, they are portraying someone as a hostile actor when there is no evidence of that. This casualty is dishonest — Christel sought Andrew out for the sale, not the other way around, and Andrew never tried to exert control in 9 years of direct or indirect sponsorship.
If you have evidence to suggest Andrew intentionally tried to gain control before his DNS access was revoked, please let me know as I've been compiling an extensive timeline of events [1].
- Shells' logo goes up on February 25th.
- tomaw assumes his position as head of staff on March 21st.
- Lee's access is revoked anywhere April 5th-18th, not to be regained until May.
- Fuchs publishes the reorganization announcement on April 18th.
- Lee gets lawyers involved on April 19th.
- Libera Chat was created and its bylaws were written on April 23rd.
- tomaw takes down the testnet and swantzter reverts Fuchs site changes (by force-pushing them out of existence) on April 30th. Presumably under Lee's request.
- Lee appoints kevinp as head of infrastructure on May 11th.
So the narrative that Libera Chat was created because of Lee's active network control is fading the more information we gather. Staff planned, registered and wrote the bylaws for Libera Chat after Lee's request for his access back. That's the only evidence they provided. All other evidence of Lee's supposed hostile actions happened at least 7 days after Libera's inception and should only be seen as a post-rationalization.
[1]: Event #16150837732 at http://web.archive.org/web/20210525011039/https://api.github...
Dahlskjaer incorporated Freenode Limited in August 2016, contacted Lee about a possible acquisition in March 2017, and finalized the sale in April 2017. That's hardly immediately, and evidence to support Lee's involvement with the incorporation isn't currently public.
> Escalation in April
Before any of these events, Lee's long held access to freenode's DNS account was revoked and requests for that to be reverted were declined, along with threats that staff would quit if the revocation was not honored.
> A week after Lee's effectively public announcement of ownership and de facto dictatorial operation of Freenode, the staffers who resigned from Freenode created Libera.chat as a replacement.
Libera Chat was created April 23rd, before any control was transferred to Lee, 5 days after Fuchs' post and 7 days before the testnet was shutdown. It was only publicly announced on May 19th.
Instead, they decided to portray this as a hostile takeover in order to gather further sympathy from the public at large without providing any evidence that Andrew actually planned this.
Christel could have cleared any misunderstandings to both sides, yet she is the only person who got anything out of this, with an acquisition and a salary, while Andrew is the target of a smear campaign after spending who knows how much money sponsoring freenode for years, and the staff and community had to create a brand new network after spending who knows how much time on running freenode for years.
Ask HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27253900
Timeline document: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250514
I've been trying to understand the debacle for a while. I now believe it's a regrettable event where both parties genuinely acted defensively against a perceived threat.The heart of the issue, imo:Andrew Lee has been sponsoring freenode either directly or indirectly since 2012. He acquired Freenode Limited in 2017, a point of contention. According to all parties, he never tried to exert...