Comment by hn-detective | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn-detective | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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-3c00...

[2] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/514/files

[3] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/513/files#diff-0e38...

[4] https://github.com/freenode/web-7.0/pull/510/files

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.

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.

You're not following the chain of events. Even if tomaw vs Andrew was the only issue and no one else was involved, by April 23rd Libera Chat was already in motion. Andrew had done nothing to the rest of staff until then, so what comes? You can't say "on April 30th he requested them to revert the post, therefore his intentions were clear for staff to create Libera on April 23rd." And in fact, the only reason he did is because tomaw still had him locked out and people had already started talk of abandoning freenode, giving him the impression of the coup, even though there wasn't one.

> 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.

You are in complete denial. A wide body of people were concerned that Freenode wasn't going to be able to self rule. The whole community are stakeholders here. Indeed an authoritarian monarch swooped in with his coup and has said you all can have whatever rule you want as long as I approve. A self regulating community has been converted to a monarchy by this anti-open quisling. There is no recovery, no stepping back from these facts. No order of events matter.

The actual facts of what happened whenever and however they did happen are the worst case nightmare for the community & there is no way that with him as leader the site can retain it's legitimacy ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com