This reads less like a post-mortem and more like a Soviet press release.
It's generally never a good sign when your post-mortem starts off by casting blame towards a claimed conspiracy of anonymous foes seeking to harm you based on evidence that you refuse to reveal.
It's also missing an accounting of the actual decision made to takeover the communication channels of open source communities without their consent.
Reads like something Put(it)in or Lolkashenka says to justify their actions. "Actions of hostile foreign powers on our soil has forced us to shoot/beat/arrest our citizens."
The only difference is that they didn't wait for 10-20-30 years to admit they were wrong; but even that admitting is half-assed and insincere. Yeah, Leenode, you're effed.
...that instance is a single person acting in support of freenode, after having not committed anything for years, with a rather lot of folks disagreeing. If anything, it looks like a badly-executed conspiracy in freenode's favor against the wishes of the community.
Your reply does not meaningfully address any of the points of the post it is replying to.
Namely, a link to a HN post about a single commit to a single project does nothing to provide specifics underlying the below claim:
> "While group contacts from the channels did not contact freenode staff directly, we were rather surprised when we received reports of unpleasant elements operating in the background and influencing these projects, namespaces and channels with false information in order to harm freenode’s administration and staff members’ images and paint a false narrative altogether."
It's also missing an accounting of the actual decision made to takeover the communication channels of open source communities without their consent.
The trust is gone. Making mouth noises and putting words on pages won't help much.
Want it back?
Start by dissolving the entity created post fact.
The root trouble here is someone thought, somehow owning the open work of many was a good idea, and it is not. That work was done because it was needed and the use value to everyone was high. This did not indicate money should change hands, particularly hands having little to nothing to do with the value or the work!
You won't catch me on Leenode again.
Edit: On second thought, don't! It will not help at this point and maybe it is best for everyone to carry on as they see best.
Over time, most will center on the lower risk, higher value, higher trust option. As they should.
Lee will never be trusted again by all the FOSS project irc communities he's fucked over, and is unlikely too be trusted by other FOSS irc communities he hasn't (yet?) fucked over but who are watching on in horror.
WHo would ever bother starting a community relying on infrastructure he has any control of? Who would stay on that infrastructure after this? So far as I can tell, only people who don't actually care about "community" or the people in them. The sort of people who'd talk about "representing your brand" on irc.
Freenode is dead. It just hasn't stopped writhing around in it's death throes yet. Brand representatives and their ilk do not bring any value to irc. The people who do create value in an irc channel don't need to put up with this sort of manipulative shit. (And this is why you should build your FOSS chat communities on open protocols and platforms like irc and not locked up in places like Slack or Discord. Lee _thinks_ he has the power/ownership of the communities the way those platform "owner" do, but he totally doesn't. He's trying as hard as he can to introduce friction to communities moving off shitty-freenet, but in reality there is very very little friction. He can try and "trap" newbies who follow old links of discussions directing them to freenet, but there will be nothing of value in those channels for newbies once the community that used to be there is gone.
Just to be clear: when a project that had been using an official #named channel in Freenode decides to move to another IRC network, and posts the location of the new channel in their Freenode channel's /topic, that isn't "spam". Freenode doesn't own these communities. Freenode's "president" has no say whatsoever about where those communities choose to congregate.
> When a FOSS project updates its own website to clarify that they want nothing to do with you, we don't have wonder what's going on.
Yes.
Edit: To be clear, what I'm pointing out is that it's not in fact entire projects that are trying to move, but instead, few people who have infiltrated many projects.
Right. The shadowy cabal of sinister operatives investing time and effort manipulating the extremely consequential decision of what chat technology a GPL tool substitutes for a staffed helpdesk just to tinkle in your cornflakes. Totally a plausible and reassuring take on things, that one. If there’s one thing we know with certainty about FOSS development, it’s that it takes place in a late-career le Carré novel and carries roughly the same stakes and supporting cast.
Great read, Kojak. Couldn’t be that you terrify people and projects who are accustomed to an insignificant amount of churn in the way of things. Nope, it’s the GPLigans conspiring against you because everyone in free software apparently has nothing better to do than obstructing whatever glorious product hell it is you’re cooking for Freenode.
Do you really have nobody in your life to call you on this shit?
For example: Ubuntu has, for almost 10 years, had a whole "IRC council" to manage their IRC presence. They voted to leave Freenode. It was apparently unanimous.
With the passage of time I increasingly struggle believing that you are a real person or, at least, a person who has a minimal understanding of other people and how they operate. I say that as someone who hasn’t touched IRC in 16 years with, consequently, zero dog in this tussle, since your first inclination will likely be to call me one of “them”.
Exit this drama pit before it consumes you. That goes for all involved: not just you, but foremost you. It’s IRC. You can love it and still have perspective.
And what's more, the "proof" that he's pointing to is a commit from someone who hasn't contributed to said linked project since June 12th, 2015 (not counting the merging of pull requests).
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that he has no meaningful response, so he instead diverts attention elsewhere.
"certain projects were disrupting their users' ability to chat on freenode via mass kicks, force closures, spam" -- that's just a lie, he was shutting down the ones that had libera.chat in the topic.
Prior to Leenode, freenode was one bedrock thing, like email, some archives, other basic pieces.
I used it a lot, and on occasion still hop on to have a chat, get pointers to info.
Sad to see this happen, but the interesting bit to me is just hoe much depends on humans being good, or at the least mutually considerate and respectful to one another.
The closed platforms damp down on this some. Notable and thought provoking dynamics in play here.
Open protocols matter, but so do the people. Matter more than some, many of us might expect?
Thankfully, the open protocol means it's just a one-line change to move over to irc.libera.chat , run by the same people as ran freenode until last week, carrying on in the same spirit.
I just had a stray thought about all this. For those of us around early, these basics are evident. And as older pieces get impacted by the growing mess, a lot gets put into question.
The early net was the people. They cared and they had broad agency to do the right things.
Now that it's more economically driven, we've got growing issues, and we've got some real advancement. It's not all bad.
But... maybe making more people, somehow, is an answer to the issues.
When I was brought online, it was late 80's via BBS gateways at first, then a unix shell account and PPP later on, in 1990-1, right in there somewhere. At that time, the sysadmin was kind of bringing people up, holding discussions, teaching, helping, and the same thing happened in various places.
Each of us got a sense of how special it all was, and our conduct mattered. I know for me it did.
We don't do that anymore, or if we do, it's onboarding to some closed thing or other, each seeking to own the people, to prevent agency, prevent what we had started with.
I'm sure most of HN are tired of this debacle by now, but I still find these posts useful, in the sense of a lesson on how to not do things a certain way.
> Lastly, there are no excuses for this, and I’m willing to admit that I was wrong with yesterday’s move and apologize for the inconvenience that may have caused.
This type of wording fascinates me. Why does he not write "..., and I admit ... and apologize"? Writing "..., I'm willing to admit ... and apologize" does not, to my understanding, mean the same. Or am I being too sensitive here?
You have to be careful of the wording when you're legally representing an entity. See all speeches by CEOs and Chairpeople that's 2 pages long but actually doesn't affirm or confirm anything.
>The intent of doing this was not an attempt of a hostile takeover nor hijack like many people are saying
The intent doesn't really matters. What matters is how the actions are perceived, and to many people, including the ones who were trusting freenode to host their FOSS community, felt this as a takeover/hijack.
As lead of one of the projects affected by Lee’s actions, I'm very disappointed.
#quasseldroid on Freenode was hijacked yesterday. We got control back, under the condition that we don't discuss other networks, or where the channel has moved.
Network staff insisted they'd be allowed to redirect or hijack the channel whenever they'd like.
As we had no method of warning our users on the channel itself (as that's banned by the new policy), we had to choose an in-client solution. That's why this warning message was added.
Originally we planned to have a channel on freenode and libera, but due to these deceptive actions from freenode staff our only official channel is now on libera.chat
(Before I get even more complaints: Yes, the warning can be disabled in the client settings for users who'd like to continue using freenode without any warning. The popup only shows up when the warning banner is clicked on, usually only the banner is shown)
> As we had no method of warning our users on the channel itself (as that's banned by the new policy)
OK, I may understand that "zombie" channels (were nobody can talk and the topic points elsewhere) are not allowed. But this is extremely callous! What about freedom of speech? To hell with them.
What's next? They hijack the channels of projects that mention another IRC network on their project websites?
This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech - the government is not limiting what can be said.
There's plenty of other speech opportunities, as shown by the channel already moving to another network.
You have no (US) rights to force a platform to host you.
At best (worst?), they are breaching a contract and you can sue them for damages but I don't know if any channels actually signed such contracts with Freenode?
Nobody mentioned the government. A platform can choose to allow free speech or not. GP seems to be advocating for free-er speech on IRC platforms, including speech critical of the hosts or supporting competitors.
A platform secure in its dealings, that has garnered solid mutual respect and consideration has few worries about critics and thus no real reason to worry about critique.
Solid criticism can be acted on and that adds use value for everyone. Not solid, or unjust criticism will be judged collectively and just is not a major concern.
It is a free speech matter. Not First Amendment style, and yes because we are discussing private entities.
And in this case, a private entity formed post fact. Arguably, an entity without a solid basis, but I digress...
The people makin things work built trust, culture and in those things, high value. Use value, not dollar value. (Another point against the private entity basis)
Of major importance is the idea of this work being done because it is necessary. That trust matters and so does the speech being carried along side.
The trust was broken, and what was before a place where all parties could speak freely is now a place where speech is regulated and said regulation is not to the mutual benefit, consideration and respect of everyone involved.
Consideration due is consideration given.
Freenode understands how all that works. Leenode does not.
And the lack of consideration and respect at times is a direct function of consideration and respect not given.
And here we are watching it all play out terribly.
This is not a post-mortem. This is ""damage control"", and a poor attempt at it. I've seen better ""damage control"" from skidnets that got caught running a DDOS C&C server.
47 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadIt's generally never a good sign when your post-mortem starts off by casting blame towards a claimed conspiracy of anonymous foes seeking to harm you based on evidence that you refuse to reveal.
It's also missing an accounting of the actual decision made to takeover the communication channels of open source communities without their consent.
The only difference is that they didn't wait for 10-20-30 years to admit they were wrong; but even that admitting is half-assed and insincere. Yeah, Leenode, you're effed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27299538
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27300829
Namely, a link to a HN post about a single commit to a single project does nothing to provide specifics underlying the below claim:
> "While group contacts from the channels did not contact freenode staff directly, we were rather surprised when we received reports of unpleasant elements operating in the background and influencing these projects, namespaces and channels with false information in order to harm freenode’s administration and staff members’ images and paint a false narrative altogether."
It's also missing an accounting of the actual decision made to takeover the communication channels of open source communities without their consent.
Want it back?
Start by dissolving the entity created post fact.
The root trouble here is someone thought, somehow owning the open work of many was a good idea, and it is not. That work was done because it was needed and the use value to everyone was high. This did not indicate money should change hands, particularly hands having little to nothing to do with the value or the work!
You won't catch me on Leenode again.
Edit: On second thought, don't! It will not help at this point and maybe it is best for everyone to carry on as they see best.
Over time, most will center on the lower risk, higher value, higher trust option. As they should.
Lee will never be trusted again by all the FOSS project irc communities he's fucked over, and is unlikely too be trusted by other FOSS irc communities he hasn't (yet?) fucked over but who are watching on in horror.
WHo would ever bother starting a community relying on infrastructure he has any control of? Who would stay on that infrastructure after this? So far as I can tell, only people who don't actually care about "community" or the people in them. The sort of people who'd talk about "representing your brand" on irc.
Freenode is dead. It just hasn't stopped writhing around in it's death throes yet. Brand representatives and their ilk do not bring any value to irc. The people who do create value in an irc channel don't need to put up with this sort of manipulative shit. (And this is why you should build your FOSS chat communities on open protocols and platforms like irc and not locked up in places like Slack or Discord. Lee _thinks_ he has the power/ownership of the communities the way those platform "owner" do, but he totally doesn't. He's trying as hard as he can to introduce friction to communities moving off shitty-freenet, but in reality there is very very little friction. He can try and "trap" newbies who follow old links of discussions directing them to freenet, but there will be nothing of value in those channels for newbies once the community that used to be there is gone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27299538
Yes.
Edit: To be clear, what I'm pointing out is that it's not in fact entire projects that are trying to move, but instead, few people who have infiltrated many projects.
Which of these communities individually selected you to be their guardian and protector and final say on self-governance?
Great read, Kojak. Couldn’t be that you terrify people and projects who are accustomed to an insignificant amount of churn in the way of things. Nope, it’s the GPLigans conspiring against you because everyone in free software apparently has nothing better to do than obstructing whatever glorious product hell it is you’re cooking for Freenode.
Do you really have nobody in your life to call you on this shit?
Exit this drama pit before it consumes you. That goes for all involved: not just you, but foremost you. It’s IRC. You can love it and still have perspective.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that he has no meaningful response, so he instead diverts attention elsewhere.
I flagged this post because it's just nonsense.
Prior to Leenode, freenode was one bedrock thing, like email, some archives, other basic pieces.
I used it a lot, and on occasion still hop on to have a chat, get pointers to info.
Sad to see this happen, but the interesting bit to me is just hoe much depends on humans being good, or at the least mutually considerate and respectful to one another.
The closed platforms damp down on this some. Notable and thought provoking dynamics in play here.
Open protocols matter, but so do the people. Matter more than some, many of us might expect?
https://libera.chat/
I just had a stray thought about all this. For those of us around early, these basics are evident. And as older pieces get impacted by the growing mess, a lot gets put into question.
The early net was the people. They cared and they had broad agency to do the right things.
Now that it's more economically driven, we've got growing issues, and we've got some real advancement. It's not all bad.
But... maybe making more people, somehow, is an answer to the issues.
When I was brought online, it was late 80's via BBS gateways at first, then a unix shell account and PPP later on, in 1990-1, right in there somewhere. At that time, the sysadmin was kind of bringing people up, holding discussions, teaching, helping, and the same thing happened in various places.
Each of us got a sense of how special it all was, and our conduct mattered. I know for me it did.
We don't do that anymore, or if we do, it's onboarding to some closed thing or other, each seeking to own the people, to prevent agency, prevent what we had started with.
This type of wording fascinates me. Why does he not write "..., and I admit ... and apologize"? Writing "..., I'm willing to admit ... and apologize" does not, to my understanding, mean the same. Or am I being too sensitive here?
That, and being the Crown Prince I guess.
The intent doesn't really matters. What matters is how the actions are perceived, and to many people, including the ones who were trusting freenode to host their FOSS community, felt this as a takeover/hijack.
#quasseldroid on Freenode was hijacked yesterday. We got control back, under the condition that we don't discuss other networks, or where the channel has moved.
Network staff insisted they'd be allowed to redirect or hijack the channel whenever they'd like.
As we had no method of warning our users on the channel itself (as that's banned by the new policy), we had to choose an in-client solution. That's why this warning message was added.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2YSI9FWUAASBKU?format=jpg&name=...
Originally we planned to have a channel on freenode and libera, but due to these deceptive actions from freenode staff our only official channel is now on libera.chat
[Same thread is also available on twitter: https://twitter.com/quasseldroid/status/1397824671173730304]
(Before I get even more complaints: Yes, the warning can be disabled in the client settings for users who'd like to continue using freenode without any warning. The popup only shows up when the warning banner is clicked on, usually only the banner is shown)
OK, I may understand that "zombie" channels (were nobody can talk and the topic points elsewhere) are not allowed. But this is extremely callous! What about freedom of speech? To hell with them.
What's next? They hijack the channels of projects that mention another IRC network on their project websites?
> What about freedom of speech?
This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech - the government is not limiting what can be said.
There's plenty of other speech opportunities, as shown by the channel already moving to another network.
You have no (US) rights to force a platform to host you.
At best (worst?), they are breaching a contract and you can sue them for damages but I don't know if any channels actually signed such contracts with Freenode?
Solid criticism can be acted on and that adds use value for everyone. Not solid, or unjust criticism will be judged collectively and just is not a major concern.
And in this case, a private entity formed post fact. Arguably, an entity without a solid basis, but I digress...
The people makin things work built trust, culture and in those things, high value. Use value, not dollar value. (Another point against the private entity basis)
Of major importance is the idea of this work being done because it is necessary. That trust matters and so does the speech being carried along side.
The trust was broken, and what was before a place where all parties could speak freely is now a place where speech is regulated and said regulation is not to the mutual benefit, consideration and respect of everyone involved.
Consideration due is consideration given.
Freenode understands how all that works. Leenode does not.
And the lack of consideration and respect at times is a direct function of consideration and respect not given.
And here we are watching it all play out terribly.
The only one forcing is Leenode. Remember that.