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

Fosshost Is Shutting Down

fosshost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#71

Post by CameronNemo »

lategloriousgnu wrote: post #68
CameronNemo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fosshost provides (provided) resources to those projects, but does not have any IP ownership. Redhat does not own (100%) of GNOME IP, there are many contributors. Also redhat is just a brand asset of IBM, so it cannot actually own anything.

Parent means IP as in Internet Protocol, not Intellectual property. The DNS for gnome.org resolves to 8.43.85.5, which lists Red Hat Inc. as the ISP. Indicating it's unlikely to be hosted by Fosshost.

Oh I see what you mean. Fosshost is unique in that they have a lot of arm64 metal floating around (maybe locked up in a DC soon?). They typically have offered it up for CI or distro build servers.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#72

Post by detaro »

pengaru wrote: post #58
trynewideas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The projects list as of February in their GitHub repo, which includes GNOME and Debian: https://github.com/fosshostorg/fosshost.org/blob/main/src/da...

Considering gnome.org's IP is owned by RedHat, I find that quite unlikely to be accurate.

Jumping from "they don't host gnome.org" to "GNOME doesn't use any of their infrastructure for any purpose" seems like a leap?

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#73

Post by CameronNemo »

pengaru wrote: post #70
CameronNemo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fosshost provides (provided) resources to those projects, but does not have any IP ownership. Redhat does not own (100%) of GNOME IP, there are many contributors. Also redhat is just a brand asset of IBM, so it cannot actually own anything.

I said gnome.org's IP, not GNOME's. As the sibling comment stated; I am lazily referring to the site's IP address.

Sorry I misunderstood.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#74

Post by alyxw »

john_cogs wrote: post #53
nickelpro wrote: post #12

This is exactly no-name "FOSS" non-profits are a bad choice for community organizing. There's really no reason not to host on industry-standard free hosting, ie Github or Gitlab.

GitLab Community Relations team member here. Those impacted are welcome to apply to the GitLab for Open Source program: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/

Hey! I'm one of the remaining Fosshost volunteers, and I'm trying to keep the "EOL" site updated with orgs who've offered some sort of solution, like this, for impacted projects. Would you mind if we mentioned the GitLab Open Source program on our site, so more of our former tenants can see?

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#75

Post by TheBrokenRail »

maxbond wrote: post #42
toomuchtodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone file a complaint for authorities to investigate? It sounds like embezzlement of organizational funds might be a possibility and it warrants whomever oversees non profits in the jurisdiction asking some questions.

It's just as likely they're having a mental health crisis of some sort (in my experience this is generally why people on the Internet go nonresponsive), I'd really encourage people not to call the cops on people in a situation they can't understand or get eyes on. It can make a bad situation much, much worse. It's even entirely possible for both things to be true, eg, for someone to have a medical crisis in their fam…

Having a mental health crisis should not mean that you're free of consequences. It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them, they're reporting them to a regulatory body who will investigate themselves and prosecute if needed. And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity.

All is this is compounded by the fact that, at least according to another commenter, they're head of operations at another company.

If someone in control of a lot of money with duties to other just vanishes (and according to other commenters, they do have legal duties in the UK), they should face consequences. People didn't donate to Fosshost so one person can disappear and take their money with them.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#76

Post by JumpCrisscross »

samip537 wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also I cannot be bothered anymore What you’ve described sounds eerily like negligent mismanagement, possibly embezzlement. To avoid liability yourself, you may want to put a note into the authorities.

I'm not a director though, I'm just a poor volunteer that cannot do much.

> just a poor volunteer that cannot do much

You’re aware. That bring liability. Unlikely liability. But the only person in litigation or prosecution distance, even if low level, is likely to get bonds. Particularly if someone can show knowledge and inaction, and thus plausible complicity.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#77

Post by maxbond »

TheBrokenRail wrote: post #75
maxbond wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just as likely they're having a mental health crisis of some sort (in my experience this is generally why people on the Internet go nonresponsive), I'd really encourage people not to call the cops on people in a situation they can't understand or get eyes on. It can make a bad situation much, much worse. It's even entirely possible for both things to be true, eg, for someone to have a medical crisis in their fam…

Having a mental health crisis should not mean that you're free of consequences. It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them, they're reporting them to a regulatory body who will investigate themselves and prosecute if needed. And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity. All is this is compounded by the fact that, at least according to another commen…

> It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them

When you direct law enforcement to investigate someone, you should anticipate this as a strong possibility.

> And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity.

I think the bar for this is much higher than having a mental health crisis, and that even if successful it won't result in you maintaining your liberty but being institutionalized instead of imprisoned. But IANAL and certainly not a UK lawyer (barrister? solicitor?).

> [T]hey should face consequences.

Personally I don't buy the notion of retributive justice. It seems like the volunteers of Fosshost are taking lessons from all of this, and creating a new project with better governance. I think that's a productive and healthy response, and the place where effort should be focused. To me, creating a new, better project to continue the mission, that's what justice is. That's what people donated their money to do, too; to support the mission.

Personally, I plan to donate to their new project. I'm not in a position to contact authorities (as I had no involvement in their last project), but I wouldn't if I could. Everyone makes up their own mind about these things, but I hope anyone considering contacting law enforcement really weighs the potential for harm and what exactly the likelihood of a good outcome is (and what that even means) before acting.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#78

Post by phendrenad2 »

maxbond wrote: post #77
TheBrokenRail wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a mental health crisis should not mean that you're free of consequences. It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them, they're reporting them to a regulatory body who will investigate themselves and prosecute if needed. And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity. All is this is compounded by the fact that, at least according to another commen…

> It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them When you direct law enforcement to investigate someone, you should anticipate this as a strong possibility. > And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity. I think the bar for this is much higher than having a mental health crisis, and that even if successful it won't result in you maintaining your libert…

Well, your sentiment is nice and all, but you're effectively dooming every nonprofit to spectacular dissolution if their CEO decides to not answer the phone. Non-profits, you know, those things that are supposed to serve the public good? But I guess public good is on hold if the CEO goes AWOL.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#79

Post by maxbond »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #78
maxbond wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like random people are driving up to their house to harass them When you direct law enforcement to investigate someone, you should anticipate this as a strong possibility. > And if they are having a mental health crisis, they should be able to plea insanity. I think the bar for this is much higher than having a mental health crisis, and that even if successful it won't result in you maintaining your libert…

Well, your sentiment is nice and all, but you're effectively dooming every nonprofit to spectacular dissolution if their CEO decides to not answer the phone. Non-profits, you know, those things that are supposed to serve the public good? But I guess public good is on hold if the CEO goes AWOL.

Am I? This group wasn't able to separate the executive function from treasury function (despite their efforts to do so, it seems like this executive simply refused) - isn't that what caused this mess? If you structure an organization such that there is a single executive who cannot be held accountable - then your bus number is 1. Law enforcement cannot improve your bus number. It doesn't matter if your executive steals your money or gets hit by a bus, eventually something is going to happen to them and then your organization won't be able to recover from it.

If this was unclear, I'm not in favor of theft and am in favor of public goods. I'm not advocating for blind trust and am in favor of accountability - to peers in real time, not to law enforcement when the damage is already done.

If you want to know what I think, it's that horizontally organized groups, composed of as few people as possible (accepting redundancy to improve your bus number and allow for vacations and other contingencies), with a narrowly scoped mission, and without accepting more money than is necessary (as too much money leads to mission creep & perverse incentives) are the best way to do almost anything. A pyramid terminating with a single person is probably the worst.

Re: Fosshost Is Shutting Down

#80

Post by bruce511 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76
samip537 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a director though, I'm just a poor volunteer that cannot do much.

> just a poor volunteer that cannot do much You’re aware. That bring liability. Unlikely liability. But the only person in litigation or prosecution distance, even if low level, is likely to get bonds. Particularly if someone can show knowledge and inaction, and thus plausible complicity.

Juristriction would add context to your note. Liability differs from place to place.

Personally I'm of the opinion that in most juristrictions volunteers would have no liability, but I am not a lawyer, so if in doubt run the question past a local lawyer.

Plus, who exactly is going to come after you for liability? Liability for what?

Post reply on HN