> In 2017, Christel Dahlskjaer—who was, at the time, head of Freenode staff—created a corporation, Freenode Ltd., which she immediately sold to Lee
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Before any of these events, Lee's long held access to freenode's DNS account was revoked and requests for that to be reverted were declined, along with threats that staff would quit if the revocation was not honored.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.
Further clarification after looking into the repository's reflog [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.
So the "hostile takeover" narrative was nothing but a smear campaign.
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].
Here's the statement from the Andrew Lee himself: https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/88549ec34ee32d01629354e... according to hackaday https://hackaday.com/2021/05/20/freenode-debacle-prompts-sta... I have no idea who this tomaw person is and why they all hate Lee so much, or why they accuse him of bribery when he offers to pay his volunteers. I mean if you're just some scrappy online hacker and the crown fucking prince of a wealthy country reaches out to you directly and says he needs your support: you say yes!
South Korea is part of America's club. Their prince was raised in Indiana as an American. There appears to be folks out there who view Korea as his birthright. Real magnanimous of us that we won't even let him run an IRC network he lawfully purchased. Talk about haan. As far as I can tell, he was just trying to help, and make IRC be more competitive with Slack.
this is a nasty incursion of sovereignty & old rules into a place which has existed for a long time peacefully without them. against the will of a traditionally self-ruling population.
this is a core violation of A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace[1], and everything about what has happened is a political aggression against core held beliefs of some (often early, often technical) of the internet. it is absolutely a hostile takeover.
you start your qualms with a strong disagreement of this:
> In 2017, Christel Dahlskjaer—who was, at the time, head of Freenode staff—created a corporation, Freenode Ltd., which she immediately sold to Lee
saying, "That's hardly immediate". but this is going from a peaceful, organized, well running multi-decade old community (since 1995 under it's original domain irc.linpeople.org) to an owned, private entity, then sold, in ~7 months. everything about this radical theft is immediate, all of the time-scales are radically short here. this is absolutely a well coordinated theft, and it's done by propertiests, by owners, claiming & taking from the free & community. at a lightning pace.
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.
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.
Does it feel weird writing about yourself in 3rd person?
But ok. We have conflict between people who run freenode for decades and someone who since 2017 owns the freenode name and its DNS.
What do you think will happen? There's already an exodus of Open Source projects (I learned about the drama from Nix). All you will ultimately end up with is the freenode name and database of people's registration emails. Was it worth it?
I'm not Andrew and I welcome an unbiased party to verify my identity.
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.
Because I have reason to believe I would be harassed for asking for evidence for the claims that Andrew tried to control the network prior to his access revocation.
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?
This is absurd. The timeline is irrelevant. Andrew is committing gross abuse of power. Regardless of why or how such abuse is "justified", the abuse in and of itself is reason to leave the network.
If you look into my other comments, I've always stated there was reason to leave the network the moment it became privately-owned. I also never expected Andrew to do the right thing as an operator. I also never defended his gross abuse of power after the network was in his hands.
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.
I had no idea it was still around. Was using it 20-25 years ago but I guess I moved on since. I wonder how much money the Korean heir sank into buying freenode and how well would he like seeing the majority of the userbase away..
The Ubuntu (for me, Lubuntu) teams are all migrating to Libera. I've disconnected from freenet and configured Libera with all the authentication and channels.
Following this story has prompted a few questions, figured some HN users would have the background to fill it in.
What is the value in owning Freenode IRC?
What is Andrew Lee trying to achieve here?
From the outset, the most likely outcome seems to the one occurring. Disruption of the existing organisation following by splintering of the user base and forever declining relevance of the organisation.
But unless that was the goal, I'm confused as to why.
Those are questions only Andrew Lee can answer, but if history is anything to go by it's rather hard to get a straight answer out of them. I've got some a pet theory, but in spirit of keeping things civil I'll keep it private.
37 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] threadDahlskjaer 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.
- 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...
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].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250514
South Korea is a republic.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lee_(entrepreneur)
Neither the Republic of Korea or the DPRK have a monarchy at this moment in history.
this is a core violation of A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace[1], and everything about what has happened is a political aggression against core held beliefs of some (often early, often technical) of the internet. it is absolutely a hostile takeover.
[1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
> In 2017, Christel Dahlskjaer—who was, at the time, head of Freenode staff—created a corporation, Freenode Ltd., which she immediately sold to Lee
saying, "That's hardly immediate". but this is going from a peaceful, organized, well running multi-decade old community (since 1995 under it's original domain irc.linpeople.org) to an owned, private entity, then sold, in ~7 months. everything about this radical theft is immediate, all of the time-scales are radically short here. this is absolutely a well coordinated theft, and it's done by propertiests, by owners, claiming & taking from the free & community. at a lightning pace.
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 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
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
But ok. We have conflict between people who run freenode for decades and someone who since 2017 owns the freenode name and its DNS.
What do you think will happen? There's already an exodus of Open Source projects (I learned about the drama from Nix). All you will ultimately end up with is the freenode name and database of people's registration emails. Was it worth it?
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.
But then why create a puppet account?
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?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250514
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.
The Ubuntu (for me, Lubuntu) teams are all migrating to Libera. I've disconnected from freenet and configured Libera with all the authentication and channels.
What is the value in owning Freenode IRC?
What is Andrew Lee trying to achieve here?
From the outset, the most likely outcome seems to the one occurring. Disruption of the existing organisation following by splintering of the user base and forever declining relevance of the organisation.
But unless that was the goal, I'm confused as to why.
I have two questions about this: how much did she make from the sale and who got the money.