5 ms·

You're getting this wrong. He has forked the project (to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here), took the name, the cash and

You're getting this wrong. He has forked the project (to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here), took the name, the cash and the goodwill. We went from "we have enough donations/donators" to "how do we pay for the upcoming AWS bill?". As someone who has been fairly active on the "old freenet", I have never cared about money nor funding... but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated. Things like the SUMA award (https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-awards.de/en/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150320201527/http://suma-award...) were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). All I know is that this could have been handled better. It's what I wrote back then on https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg55279.html https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5527...

sanity 4mo ago
> to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here How do the goals differ, specifically? > but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated You had no visibility into the project's finances, yet you're publicly implying financial impropriety without evidence. I've raised substantially more funding for the new Freenet in the past 5 years than was raised during the entire prior 20-year history of the project. > were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. In what way does a decentralized network with optional anonymity not protect against surveillance and censorship? > "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). You also acknowledge here that you don't know what happened. Those board members' departures were at their request because they were no longer actively involved in the project. > All I know is that this could have been handled better. I'm sure you're right about that. But my experience at the time was that the disagreement was fundamentally about the outcome, not the process.
- abc123abc123 4mo ago
  You make claims. Release the books, and people can then verify what you say. If you do not release the books, it is only natural for many people to suspect something wrong.
  - sanity 4mo ago
    It isn't "natural" to make baseless accusations based on zero evidence.
    - abc123abc123 4mo ago
      Of course there is. Anyone is completely justified in asking what their politicians do, how their non-profits spend their money, or what ever. The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing. I also note that you did not actually respond to what I said. This is additional indication of some potential wrong doing.
      - sanity 4mo ago
        > The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing. No, that's not how evidence works. You're starting from the assumption of wrongdoing and then treating the lack of evidence as confirmation of your suspicion. Meanwhile we've spent the last 5 years publicly building a working decentralized platform.
        abc123abc123 4mo ago
        That's exactly how it works. I suspect _you_ of wrong doing in a non-profit. I ask you do release the books, and if this is not done, I take that as proof of wrong doing. If the books are hidden and cannot be published, no one has any business giving you a dime. And you are still not addressing the question here, which only compounds the suspicions. I win this argument, and you lose.

sanity 4mo ago

> to something that does not share the same goals so "fork" is arguable here How do the goals differ, specifically? > but I cannot help but notice that some has likely been misappropriated You had no visibility into the project's finances, yet you're publicly implying financial impropriety without evidence. I've raised substantially more funding for the new Freenet in the past 5 years than was raised during the entire prior 20-year history of the project. > were awarded specifically for "protection against surveillance and censorship" that the "new freenet" does not even aim to provide. In what way does a decentralized network with optional anonymity not protect against surveillance and censorship? > "The board" of the non-profit seems to have been culled just before the decision. I don't know why, I wasn't on it. Maybe @agl can shime in (he was). You also acknowledge here that you don't know what happened. Those board members' departures were at their request because they were no longer actively involved in the project. > All I know is that this could have been handled better. I'm sure you're right about that. But my experience at the time was that the disagreement was fundamentally about the outcome, not the process.

abc123abc123 4mo ago
You make claims. Release the books, and people can then verify what you say. If you do not release the books, it is only natural for many people to suspect something wrong.
- sanity 4mo ago
  It isn't "natural" to make baseless accusations based on zero evidence.
  - abc123abc123 4mo ago
    Of course there is. Anyone is completely justified in asking what their politicians do, how their non-profits spend their money, or what ever. The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing. I also note that you did not actually respond to what I said. This is additional indication of some potential wrong doing.
    - sanity 4mo ago
      > The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing. No, that's not how evidence works. You're starting from the assumption of wrongdoing and then treating the lack of evidence as confirmation of your suspicion. Meanwhile we've spent the last 5 years publicly building a working decentralized platform.
      - abc123abc123 4mo ago
        That's exactly how it works. I suspect _you_ of wrong doing in a non-profit. I ask you do release the books, and if this is not done, I take that as proof of wrong doing. If the books are hidden and cannot be published, no one has any business giving you a dime. And you are still not addressing the question here, which only compounds the suspicions. I win this argument, and you lose.