Neutral because they were friendly with both parties rather than one or neither. If it were neither, they would probably not have such relevant commentary. And that aside, while I see your point regarding how this impacts someone being entirely neutral, I think it’s fair to say two things:
- While being sponsored or employed by a given entity calls your neutrality into question, I think it’s simply unfair to categorize it as an erasure of one’s ability to be a neutral party, absent any evidence.
- Simultaneously leaving your positions while releasing a statement is probably a good sign that you are not too concerned about the bridges you may be burning. There is no incentive to besmirch both Freenode and Libera.chat leadership simultaneously, from the standpoint of someone not acting neutrally. Again, at least absent some evidence.
My takeaway is that while I understand why people are taking a stance on libera.chat vs Freenode, I think there is now ample evidence that it’s time to disperse from either. There are plenty of IRC networks still around that have not burned their reputation to the ground. Again, I get why libera.chat is trusted as the “former” Freenode operators. But the bigger picture is that ego ran over both sides and lead to a far more bitter conflict than necessary, over what was at the time very minor details.
Were Libera.chat staff correct? At this point it does look like the Freenode owner is at least making some amateur mistakes even if we assume best intent. So maybe. But I have no idea why the split had to be this bitter. To me it feels like the hostile takeover rhetoric represents dishonesty. Making a big stink because you want to win a petty war, to create a moral imperative to leave the existing network. Given that it succeeded, they are clearly in the more favorable position. But to me, I’m eyeing other networks like OFTC. This doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
- While being sponsored or employed by a given entity calls your neutrality into question, I think it’s simply unfair to categorize it as an erasure of one’s ability to be a neutral party, absent any evidence.
- Simultaneously leaving your positions while releasing a statement is probably a good sign that you are not too concerned about the bridges you may be burning. There is no incentive to besmirch both Freenode and Libera.chat leadership simultaneously, from the standpoint of someone not acting neutrally. Again, at least absent some evidence.
My takeaway is that while I understand why people are taking a stance on libera.chat vs Freenode, I think there is now ample evidence that it’s time to disperse from either. There are plenty of IRC networks still around that have not burned their reputation to the ground. Again, I get why libera.chat is trusted as the “former” Freenode operators. But the bigger picture is that ego ran over both sides and lead to a far more bitter conflict than necessary, over what was at the time very minor details.
Were Libera.chat staff correct? At this point it does look like the Freenode owner is at least making some amateur mistakes even if we assume best intent. So maybe. But I have no idea why the split had to be this bitter. To me it feels like the hostile takeover rhetoric represents dishonesty. Making a big stink because you want to win a petty war, to create a moral imperative to leave the existing network. Given that it succeeded, they are clearly in the more favorable position. But to me, I’m eyeing other networks like OFTC. This doesn’t pass the smell test for me.