From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42213 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhrZH-0001uA-8H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:40:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhrZF-0004EM-TP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:40:55 -0500 Received: from theiggy.com ([66.220.1.110]:60010 helo=mail.theiggy.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhrZF-0004EF-GR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:40:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4D3F516F.8060309@theiggy.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:40:47 -0600 From: Brian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: IRC channel movement -> FreeNode to OFTC References: <20101209133635.4780834A3D@zimbra14-e2.priv.proxad.net> <66966621-42F6-4ECD-A5EB-3B6531564FDD@free.fr> <201012091644.29758.iggy@theiggy.com> <4D3F2D0C.2020902@theiggy.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mike Frysinger Cc: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lzIFJldm9s?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 1/25/2011 4:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > 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 >> #qemu@freenode. So it's either make a #therealqemu@freenode, 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 Really it's a moot point. The channel already moved. I don't think moving back buys us anything at this point.