1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
On 2021-05-22 18:37, Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> So my biggest problem is again governance; is there any transparency |
5 |
> on continuity of *Libera* or will someone just sell it again in 2 |
6 |
> years? |
7 |
|
8 |
That's also my problem with Libera: I know they are new and ramping up a |
9 |
new service but at the moment all we have are promises. |
10 |
|
11 |
It's good to read they plan to create a non-profit organization but we |
12 |
all know that this isn't easy. You have to do it first. |
13 |
|
14 |
And having a non-profit organization is one thing (I actually don't care |
15 |
about non-profit that much as long as I am not involved/contributing; |
16 |
I.e. even a Ferengi might provide a good IRC service). I am more |
17 |
interested in the organization itself. Who is owning the servers? Who is |
18 |
in control? Who has access? |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
>> Reasons for migration to Libera: 1) Libera is the continuity |
22 |
>> choice. irc.freenode.net has no relationship with the previous |
23 |
>> freenode of the last 15 years other than the domain name and some |
24 |
>> sponsored servers. (Libera is already building up sponsorship and |
25 |
>> servers - it is not, as was alluded to on another thread, purely |
26 |
>> cloud/their own infrastructure.) |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I'm not sure what this means; how is Libera 'the continuity choice'? |
29 |
> Is it: Because the ex-freenode staff have asked us to move there? |
30 |
> Because we have a strong relationship with that staff? Because many |
31 |
> other projects are moving there? Some other reason? |
32 |
|
33 |
Same thoughts. The relation ship is nice but in the end it has no value: |
34 |
You can only look back at 15 years if things will change... not really |
35 |
an argument (see the distracted boyfriend meme). Also: I don't see any |
36 |
reason why we shouldn't be able to build up something similar with OFTC |
37 |
for example. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> Sam wrote: |
41 |
>> 2) We have a strong working relationship with the staff at Libera. |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> For example, they immediately reserved our namespace (this means |
44 |
>> #gentoo-*) to prevent any hostile takeovers while we make |
45 |
>> decisions. |
46 |
|
47 |
All nice but not an argument either. |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
>> 3) The vast majority of developers are not involved in IRC |
51 |
>> administration or indeed the migration efforts and may not be aware |
52 |
>> of the actual issues involved with coordinating with a new team. We |
53 |
>> are working with exactly the same people on Libera who understand |
54 |
>> what we require and have been working with us tirelessly to setup |
55 |
>> new cloaks, channels, and other special arrangements. |
56 |
|
57 |
Again, nice. But in case this should imply we can't have something |
58 |
similar with OFTC, this is wrong/disrespectful against other services |
59 |
(yes, you don't mean it that way, I just wanted to write it out). |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
>> 4) Compare this with the current state of #gentoo-groupcontacts on |
63 |
>> Freenode which has 0 staff members. If we wanted to add/remove a |
64 |
>> new developer, or handle any other issues, there is simply nobody |
65 |
>> available to speak to. |
66 |
|
67 |
Sorry, right now this is an invalid argument: Freenode staff stepped |
68 |
down. We cannot blame them, that they don't have people at the moment. |
69 |
If you say that 15y relationship have some value, we should grant |
70 |
freenode some time to get the current situation sorted. Not? |
71 |
|
72 |
But this is about freenode, I guess this train is moving so I can stop |
73 |
talking about freenode. |
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
>> 5) Freenode is currently experiencing high turnover of new IRC |
77 |
>> operators/administrators, some of which have dubious connections to |
78 |
>> Rizon and other controversial IRC networks. It’s clear that, even |
79 |
>> if they are skilled individuals, they haven’t been trained on the |
80 |
>> current way of working at Freenode given they’re not in any of the |
81 |
>> usual mediums we use to handle *projects*. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> Why is Rizon controversial? Note that freenode was attacked with |
84 |
> spambots repeatedly in the past (GNAA, other attacks) and freenode |
85 |
> admins struggled fighting the attacks for months. So why do we care |
86 |
> about spambot attacks now, as opposed to in the past? Or are the |
87 |
> attacks just a pretense we are using to move for other reasons? |
88 |
|
89 |
I second your questions. I think the controversial is based on |
90 |
https://twitter.com/ariadneconill/status/1395347865271246853 |
91 |
|
92 |
|
93 |
My problem with Libera.chat is, that I feel instrumentalized and I don't |
94 |
want to get pulled into whatever is going on there. I think gyakovlev |
95 |
wrote, "This is not about who is right..." but it will become "who is |
96 |
right" if we follow former freenode staff. Is it a problem? I don't |
97 |
really now (how should anyone know that? All we have is hearsay/leaks we |
98 |
cannot verify). Many Gentoo people probably don't know what happened |
99 |
many years ago |
100 |
(https://twitter.com/flameeyes/status/1395042943392751621). Why did we |
101 |
let that happen and had no discussion about moving away from freenode |
102 |
when one of us got attacked? But today, when Gentoo is not directly |
103 |
affected, we are happy to move? |
104 |
|
105 |
|
106 |
>> 4) We’re not the only project to be moving. We’re far from being |
107 |
>> the first large FOSS project to move. This means that *if*, in the |
108 |
>> unlikely event this is the wrong decision, we’re in very good |
109 |
>> company. We’re joined by Ubuntu and CentOS for a start. 5) Large |
110 |
>> swathes of spambots continue to flood freenode given there's a |
111 |
>> vacuum left by the lack of administration. |
112 |
|
113 |
For me, this is the only but also strongest argument for Libera.Chat: |
114 |
IRC is only successful when our users are around. And users will be, |
115 |
where their projects are (nobody really wants to maintain multiple |
116 |
networks if not necessary, not?). So you will be in any Gentoo channel |
117 |
because you use Gentoo for example but when you have a problem with a |
118 |
KDE application, you just want to jump into KDE's support channel |
119 |
without switching network first... |
120 |
|
121 |
|
122 |
>> Reasons against OFTC *for now*: 1) Lack of developer/project cloaks |
123 |
>> (but dwfreed has indicated it’s _possible_ this can change in |
124 |
>> future) |
125 |
>> |
126 |
>> 2) Outdated/unconventional services and IRC daemon. This includes |
127 |
>> lack of SASL support and unusual/missing features in e.g. |
128 |
>> ChanServ. This is the general opinion in the “IRC community” too. |
129 |
>> Note that OFTC staff are trying to improve this but it will take |
130 |
>> time. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> What is the suboptimal outcome of this? I read this as "things are |
133 |
> different from freenode" which is not the same thing as "key |
134 |
> features of chanserv are missing." If they are missing, what are |
135 |
> they? |
136 |
|
137 |
OFTC will be different, yes. But they already have a stable foundation |
138 |
and aren't built on promises that they have yet to prove. |
139 |
|
140 |
|
141 |
-- |
142 |
Regards, |
143 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
144 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |