On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:05, Brian Jackson wrote:
On 1/24/2011 1:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 17:44, Brian Jackson wrote:
C. They have strange rules about groups and channel ownership
ive never had a problem
Yeah, this was a bit vague. I think the biggest issue is that nobody that's
actually involved in qemu currently has any ability to do anything with the
address@hidden So it's either make a address@hidden, try to convince
freenode that the current developers should have access, or move to a
network that is friendlier to it's users. Guess which one is easiest?
so from your point, it's more a matter of "freenode sucks because
we've lost control of the official qemu channel" and "OFTC works
because we currently have active developers who control the official
qemu channel". so when control is lost on OFTC, where to next ? i
vote for EFnet.
D. Their non-profit status in the US was terminated for failure to file
paperwork properly
not terribly relevant if the network continues to function ... just
dont give them money
If nobody gives them money how are they going to continue operating?
considering they have volunteer servers from organizations that get
money for other reasons already, i dont think they're going to
implode. or if they do, you then have an argument that no one can
defend -- "let's move to OFTC because freenode no longer exists".
-mike