Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

techrights.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 307 posts

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#231

Post by Macha »

mkishi wrote: post #230
Macha wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#232

Post by IshKebab »

pen2l wrote: post #217
tptacek wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if it's helpful: * Its central claim, that PIA or Lee or whoever directed a bunch of money to Freenode or people involved with freenode, isn't contested by anyone. There's no record to set straight there. * It spends the bulk of its time talking about a problem Lee seems to have with Thomas Welsey ("tomaw", I think?) --- but the logs with "tomaw" seem relatively civil? It's not really even clear what the proble…

> Why does this matter? It seems to be obvious to Lee why this is problematic, but it's not at all obvious to me. There's "freenode" -- the network, the volunteers, and there's 'Freenode Limited' the company, which owns the Freenode domain and trademark. The latter were being held by christel, and she seemed to have sneakily sold them to Lee because she needed money (she seems to have lied to the rest of team about t…

This is the only explanation I've read so far that makes any sense, thanks!

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#233

Post by prawnsalad »

blibble wrote: post #228
prawnsalad wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been employed or sponsored by any of rasengan projects or companies for some time. I have no plans to be involved with any despite offers since then (and not related to this or any other drama related issues). I consider myself equal friends with ex-freenode staff and rasengan. I have also ties with freenode(now libera staff) in closely supporting them with webchat related projects and closely with their fo…

> Any attempts in suggesting that I would favour one side over the other is entirely false. fortunately no-one has suggested such a thing

Apologies for coming across angry, it's been an interesting few days on this topic :)

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#235

Post by mkishi »

Macha wrote: post #231
mkishi wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 introduc…

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....

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#237

Post by gerikson »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #186
gerikson wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust Lee, but I'm staying on Freenode too. I have an acccount on Libera. Decentralization is great.

decentralization may be great. permanent netsplits, not so much.

I suspect the rise of Discord, Matrix etc has done more to drain people from IRC than this kerfuffle.

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#238

Post by imode »

rasengan wrote: post #142
tptacek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the further detail of Handshake, which Lee appears to be deeply involved in, which is a cryptocurrency that in essence claims the DNS roots as its own (part of the marketing strategy of Handshake appears to have been some sort of "airdrop" --- I'm not a cryptocurrency person and may be using that term wrong --- of coins to open source projects; I don't know if that's connected to the FOSS donations Lee keeps…

None of the donations Handshake made (136m) are being claimed as donations I made. The millions I have donated I did both personally and thru a wholly owned company. As I said before, attacking donations is sending a chilling effect in the FOSS community and to sponsors.

Attacking Freenode sent a chilling effect through many communities that would gladly not deal with your infantile rampage backed by what I'll assume is ill-gotten gains.

Check yourself. You're not in the right, here.

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#239

Post by scrutinizer80 »

rasengan wrote: post #80
scrutinizer80 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logs posted over at https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18926720&cid=61404... Seem to indicate that the staff were unitedly and firmly against this. It's suspicious having the entire team against one person. I still don't get the whole picture but claims when made by an entire staff usually have merit.

It is ritual defamation [1]. This has been apparently going on for quite some time [2]. [1] http://techrights.org/2021/04/29/ritual-defamation/ [2] https://phanes.silogroup.org/vae-victis/

Link #2 is a low-level, disrespectful and rude document - filled with personal attacks and insults.

How can you expect to gain any sympathy posting something that is phrased like that?

Despicable.

Re: “Setting the record straight on Freenode” [pdf]

#240

Post by tallship »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #194
scrps wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;)

Post reply on HN