Upheaval at freenode

Posted May 26, 2021 4:17 UTC (Wed) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469)
In reply to: Upheaval at freenode by pabs
Parent article: Upheaval at freenode

we just had that happen to #osmocom, too.

I think that kind of action now really disqualifies what is left of freeonde.

I dout it is a violation of their poilicy to begin with.

Even if there was a related policy, it would obviously be highly questionable. Anyone is free to move their channels / meeting points / ... anywhere, and informing their users about such a move (using factual language without any accusations, defamations, ...) is nothing but a service to the users / members of that community.

Upheaval at freenode

Posted May 26, 2021 5:27 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (2 responses)

They're claiming that these notices in channel topics were spam. There is a mention in the policies document that "inappropriate advertising" is off-topic, so presumably that's their justification.

Upheaval at freenode

Posted May 26, 2021 6:36 UTC (Wed) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

It should be clarified here that the policies document was rewritten in a hurry *after* Lee's power trip began, to retroactively justify it. The original version clearly stated abandoned channels would remain untouched for 60 days after last activity before releasing them. i.e. the sort of responsible behaviour you'd expect on a FOSS IRC network.

Worth reading the github diffs for that; the new version has some telling omissions besides that one.

Upheaval at freenode

Posted May 26, 2021 7:14 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]

They don't seem to be using abandonment as the excuse for today's channel hijackings. The "inappropriate advertising" language was in the policies before the recent changes, but I don't think anyone would have interpreted them to allow this kind of thing.