●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Monday, December 21, 2020 ●● ● Dec 21 [04:57] *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [04:57] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Dec 21 [05:13] *rianne__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [05:14] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:16] *rianne__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [05:16] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:17] *rianne__ has quit (Client Quit) [05:17] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:17] *rianne__ has quit (Client Quit) [05:18] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:21] *rianne_ has quit (Client Quit) [05:21] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:29] *rianne__ has quit (Read error: No route to host) [05:30] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:32] *rianne__ has quit (Client Quit) [05:32] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Dec 21 [09:51] rianne ( [09:54] schestowitz "There are a few things I need to do in clinic that might take me 10 hours a week with the reduced patient load we have. The rest could be handled remotely and by video conference if the other stupidity was not there. Other clinics with much more money have built enough crutches so they can do treatment planning on Windows, but my hospital is an xxxxxxxxxx star awardee that got wiped by Windows ransomware the summer before the [09:54] schestowitz Covid. For all of that, we are much better off than our neighbors who are forced to truly awful Covid risks, or thrown out in the street by lack of emergency financial support." ● Dec 21 [11:08] *gry has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) ● Dec 21 [18:17] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [18:17] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [18:20] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [18:22] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [18:26] schestowitz > The Betrayal Just Doesn't Stop in the Free Software Movement [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] schestowitz > By roysuxdev [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] schestowitz > When people attack Roy or Richard Stallman over personal matters, it's [18:26] schestowitz > ad hom. When his words are twisted around to attack him, it's [18:26] schestowitz > slander/libel. http://techrights.org/2020/09/10/the-fake-door-sign/ [18:26] schestowitz > When Roy does the [18:26] schestowitz > same thing to me, it's a valid defence. [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] schestowitz > And right before Christmas, you ungrateful bastard. I can't wait to read [18:26] schestowitz > the pedantic back-justification for doing to me exactly what Debian did [18:26] schestowitz > to Daniel Pocock. ("No, this is different, because...") [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] schestowitz > No, I didn't leave Techrights over a debate about "nutrition", as Roy [18:26] schestowitz > has told people on two occasions already. And I know Roy will publish [18:26] schestowitz > this, because if he doesn't then people are going to see what Techrights [18:26] schestowitz > was afraid to publish. [18:26] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | The Fake Door Sign Used to Frame Richard Stallman and Misrepresent Him One Year Ago (the Media Never Corrected This Slanderous Allegation) | Techrights [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] schestowitz > Roy isn't afraid-- he will lie his way out of this. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > Hell, Techrights has published entire book chapters I wrote about the [18:27] schestowitz > very thing that's happening now-- I mean, when Torvalds said that Free [18:27] schestowitz > Software is about "hate" he neglected to point out that the "hate" was [18:27] schestowitz > towards the bad things Microosft was doing. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > When Roy talks about "anger management issues" (you motherfucker...) [18:27] schestowitz > it's because it pisses me off when I have a knife in my back. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > As I told Roy, very clearly, I was leaving because people were being [18:27] schestowitz > condescending. Sure it was mostly Mincer, and I probably overreacted a [18:27] schestowitz > bit, but Roy spends years at a time writing articles that put together [18:27] schestowitz > events over months, years or decades of history. Nobody leaves [18:27] schestowitz > Techrights because of a squabble about "nutrition", you fuckwit. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > Rather it was about the same concerns I had when I wrote this: [18:27] schestowitz > http://techrights.org/2020/08/21/last-article/ [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > And the benefit of the doubt can only stretch so far, Roy. The reason we [18:27] schestowitz > have so many "misunderstandings" is because you're a two-faced [18:27] schestowitz > opportunistic manipulator. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | So Its Come to This? | Techrights [18:27] schestowitz > You have no idea how many years I've tried to help you in particular. [18:27] schestowitz > Back when Oliva was telling me to get a Lemote, a good half-grand to [18:27] schestowitz > support Free Software, I made this graphic for you: [18:27] schestowitz > http://techrights.org/images/Schestowitz.png [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > You know how the bevel got there? I'm the one who put it there. Do you [18:27] schestowitz > remember what you were using previously? A picture with a distorted [18:27] schestowitz > aspect (and very low resolution, even by 2010 standards) that made it [18:27] schestowitz > look like it was smeared across the page. I got a better picture of you [18:27] schestowitz > and made that image, and it's gone onto every article you've posted on [18:27] schestowitz > Techrights ever since. [18:27] schestowitz > [18:27] schestowitz > Do you people have any idea how many hours I've put in for this guy? [18:27] schestowitz > Mostly my own prompting, the main thing Roy asked for was a shitload of [18:27] schestowitz > wiki work, which I spent many hours working to put together (mostly [18:27] schestowitz > coding, as the sheer level of work involved would have never happened [18:28] schestowitz > without automation, not if I was doing it at least) and I thought it was [18:28] schestowitz > for a good cause, but my how the narrative has shifted all of a sudden! [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > When you stab someone in the back, you forfeit any ground to make ad hom [18:28] schestowitz > arguments about their emotional state. When you misrepresent people, you [18:28] schestowitz > destroy your integrity. [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > Credibility can be bought, it can be manufactured. Integrity is [18:28] schestowitz > something innate-- it can only be nurtured and practiced-- or thrown out [18:28] schestowitz > the window. You can demonstrate it, but only history-- and only if it is [18:28] schestowitz > accurate-- will ever prove you right or wrong. [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > The arguments I'm watching are thin and sloppy as hell. They completely [18:28] schestowitz > counter things that were just said to me privately a week or two ago-- [18:28] schestowitz > I've been lied to, a lot apparently. [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > As I said to Roy in parting, there are only so many misunderstandings. [18:28] schestowitz > This isn't one. This is betrayal. [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > It's hilarious to read someone (it isn't certain who) saying that people [18:28] schestowitz > close to Stallman are saying Roy isn't Pro-Stallman enough, when Roy is [18:28] schestowitz > correct that Techrights has done more to defend him than anybody else. [18:28] schestowitz > That much is absolutely true! I can't think of anybody who actually has [18:28] schestowitz > a relative argument on their own behalf, to suggest that Techrights has [18:28] schestowitz > not done enough to defend Stallman. Was it Hal? Was it Larry? Jesus! [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > It can't be Oliva. The article that Techrights just published about [18:28] schestowitz > Stallman by Oliva is one that Oliva asked for MY input on, just has he [18:28] schestowitz > has for other articles in the past. Believe me, Oliva and I have our [18:28] schestowitz > differences, I stopped trusting him a while ago. But I can't pin [18:28] schestowitz > anything on him, and I've told him as much. [18:28] schestowitz > [18:28] schestowitz > But if it was Oliva, it's pretty funny to consult me for my input on [18:28] schestowitz > your article about Stallman then turn around and say Roy isn't [18:28] schestowitz > Pro-Stallman enough, for things I said-- when you just asked ME to go [18:28] schestowitz > over your article about Stallman. Ridiculous. But I don't think it was [18:28] schestowitz > Oliva anyway, regardless of the proximity to something he definitely [18:28] schestowitz > said in the logs. No names, you can't always tell where one starts and [18:28] schestowitz > the other begins. I have to say this, because if I don't I think Roy [18:28] schestowitz > will imply it's something I don't understand. [18:29] schestowitz > [18:29] schestowitz > http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-201220.html [18:29] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Sunday, December 20, 2020 [18:29] schestowitz > [18:29] schestowitz > [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > We got a lot of work to do on perception by RMS et al on [18:29] schestowitz > techrights and Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > writings by you all. Your writing about problems in the [18:29] schestowitz > FSF and in GNU, Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > whether facts or speculation, are coming across as [18:29] schestowitz > hostility towards him Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > by himself and some of his close supporters. Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz Splitting groups apart is a strategy noted in internal [18:29] schestowitz > documents (Microsoft), and my writings are different from fig's (I [18:29] schestowitz > disagree with him on many things actually). His are articles listed [18:29] schestowitz > under "guest". He threw a tantrum the other day because of something [18:29] schestowitz > someone said in IRC about nutrition, then deleted his E-mail account. [18:29] schestowitz > Nothing to do with me... Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz There may be anger management issues... Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > I know he's received advice with reservations about [18:29] schestowitz > techrights, after my Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > blog post series was published, but I think most of it is [18:29] schestowitz > just from Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > people forwarding to him posts that, without context, may [18:29] schestowitz > indeed come Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > across as hostile. Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz Before the coup fig sent some rather inadequate messages to [18:29] schestowitz > RMS. I disagreed with him on that. But that's all I can do; never met [18:29] schestowitz > him, I don't even know his first time. Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > I've started some clearing up, having to point out even [18:29] schestowitz > the existence of Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > multiple writers with different positions, but often my [18:29] schestowitz > attempts to Dec 20 07:37 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > clear things up come across as hypotheticals rather than [18:29] schestowitz > factuals, Dec 20 07:38 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz > because I can't easily find posts where I got pieces of [18:29] schestowitz > context. Dec 20 07:38 [18:29] schestowitz > schestowitz It's important not to mix my writings with those of a person [18:29] schestowitz > whom I often do not agree with. Dec 20 07:38 [18:29] schestowitz > [18:29] schestowitz > First of all, when Techrights has done more to defend Stallman during [18:30] schestowitz > the coup (where else can you find Oliva talking about what happened in [18:30] schestowitz > the coup?) where do people get off saying Techrights isn't Pro-Stallman [18:30] schestowitz > enough? That's like saying Smedley Butler isn't Pro-America enough. [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > I'm not saying that because I'm in any mood to defend Techrights today-- [18:30] schestowitz > it's relevant to my argument and it happens to be true as well. [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > Second of all, exactly WHAT have I actually said that is attacking [18:30] schestowitz > Stallman that Roy hasn't said? Roy likes to say that vague arguments are [18:30] schestowitz > meaningless and only details matter, when it suits him. When he started [18:30] schestowitz > attacking me after I left, that got put aside for a bunch innuendo, [18:30] schestowitz > half-truths and vague bullshit. Roy, your hypocrisy is unbelievable. I [18:30] schestowitz > never thought it would be ANYTHING like this! [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > What I mean is this: if people are attacking Techrights by saying [18:30] schestowitz > complete bullshit about how TR is attacking Stallman rather than the [18:30] schestowitz > other way around, why the hell is Roy implying that I was attacking [18:30] schestowitz > Stallman, when it's the other way around? [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > As with Stallman himself, everything I said before was public-- anything [18:30] schestowitz > we had to agree or disagree on, everybody had the opportunity. [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > I'm sure Roy and I disagree on plenty-- I've said exactly that (about us [18:30] schestowitz > disagreeing) in how many different articles? We are all different people [18:30] schestowitz > here. [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > What's happening is that simple fact is being used as a kernel of truth [18:30] schestowitz > in a pile of BS about how we fundamentally disagree on what counts. I [18:30] schestowitz > never thought we did-- but suddenly, Roy seems to think so! [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > "It's important not to mix my writings with those of a person whom I [18:30] schestowitz > often do not agree with." Dec 20 07:38 [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > Sure it is. But WTF is this? [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > "He threw a tantrum the other day because of something someone said in [18:30] schestowitz > IRC about nutrition, then deleted his E-mail account. Nothing to do with [18:30] schestowitz > me..." [18:30] schestowitz > [18:30] schestowitz > No, you weren't actively being condescending in the discussion. But [18:31] schestowitz > Mincer was uncharateristically, over more than one day and more than one [18:31] schestowitz > email, twisting around what I was saying into a straw man that was far [18:31] schestowitz > less reasonable and completely inaccurate, and although he typically [18:31] schestowitz > isn't I thought he was being a dick. [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > Big deal, but there's been too much of that lately. It's not even about [18:31] schestowitz > Mincer (shit, one condescending remark every couple of years, who can [18:31] schestowitz > blame him) just about the complete lack of anything keeping me here. [18:31] schestowitz > It's more about the way you say supportive things in private then in [18:31] schestowitz > public, where's the support? Apparently it's all going into your balance [18:31] schestowitz > while you twist the knife in, you classy fuck. [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > I don't know anybody with a perfect memory, certainly not me. I have a [18:31] schestowitz > shockingly good memory for many things, which is why if you mention a [18:31] schestowitz > mainstream package Roy and I are the two go-to people on whether that's [18:31] schestowitz > on Github or not. Because it's a dangerous monopoly that both Roy and I [18:31] schestowitz > have criticised the FSF for supporting. [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > But of course I was more rude about it, so suddenly Roy and I differ a [18:31] schestowitz > lot. I mean on the one hand, Roy has said we differ in tone-- he said so [18:31] schestowitz > right here, in August: [18:31] schestowitz > http://techrights.org/2020/08/15/figosdev-anonymity/ [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Techrights and figosdev | Techrights [18:31] schestowitz > But he has also defended Stallman by saying his critics routinely attack [18:31] schestowitz > him over meaningless tone arguments-- something I agree with Roy on. [18:31] schestowitz > Part of the reason I talk the way I do is because I remember when we [18:31] schestowitz > were free to, before started conflating community with corporations-- [18:31] schestowitz > each community decided (usually leaning on the side of free speech, a [18:31] schestowitz > phrase we all know is both of great importance and necessary to define [18:31] schestowitz > first-- but just the same) what was acceptable and what wasn't. Now we [18:31] schestowitz > have coalitions of racist corporations defining racism by regex-- and [18:31] schestowitz > you can't even parse HTML with that! [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > So these are bullshit arguments when critics of Stallman use them [18:31] schestowitz > against Stallman, but it's OK for Roy to toss the same arguments at me [18:31] schestowitz > when someone says "Roy, why do you hate Stallman?" [18:31] schestowitz > [18:31] schestowitz > He doesn't. And I don't. Just as it was with Microsoft, Mr. Torvalds, [18:31] schestowitz > what we hate is the knife in our back. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > And Roy-- just as it was with people at the FSF betraying Stallman, [18:32] schestowitz > before turning around and accusing his defenders of betraying him! Fuck [18:32] schestowitz > this is rediculous... [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > It wasn't about "nutrition" as you know full fucking well, nor is it [18:32] schestowitz > about "anger management"-- [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > It's about the knife in the back. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > Once again-- you don't even know how much I've done for you, you [18:32] schestowitz > ungrateful shit. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > But I walked away. And yes, I did note that while Mincer sat there being [18:32] schestowitz > full of crap, you said nothing. That's not a defence, Roy-- you could [18:32] schestowitz > have said ANYTHING. You just sat there. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > It wasn't that you attacked me in chat (you didn't) or even that you [18:32] schestowitz > said nothing. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > It was that I understood the implications. I understood that you didn't [18:32] schestowitz > have any respect for me anymore-- if you ever did. (You still seemed to [18:32] schestowitz > in August). [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > THAT is why I left. The complete lack of respect. Too strong a word? The [18:32] schestowitz > complete lack of fairness, then. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > Roy, I trusted you. I think that was a mistake. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > But I don't think you're anti-FSF or anti-Stallman, I thought you were [18:32] schestowitz > anti-corruption. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > Just like Pocock, I assumed being anti-corruption was alright. I didn't [18:32] schestowitz > think you'd throw anybody under the bus for that. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > My mistake. But not a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I hit the nail on [18:32] schestowitz > the fucking head with that one. [18:32] schestowitz > [18:32] schestowitz > Goodbye, Roy. Good riddance. I'm sure you'll have a good time explaining [18:32] schestowitz > and bullshitting reality into "what really happened" and you'll probably [18:33] schestowitz > win. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > But if it's "et tu, Techrights?" then I wasn't pessimistic enough. I [18:33] schestowitz > still held onto that shred of hope for this movement. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > Mea Culpa. I was wrong. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > But it wasn't a misunderstanding, it was misplaced trust. You're an [18:33] schestowitz > opportunist, and you placate people to manipulate them into doing more-- [18:33] schestowitz > all for "record years!" in terms of audience engagement (still not as [18:33] schestowitz > bad as ZDNet or any IDG Garbage) but you're telling people like me that [18:33] schestowitz > people appreciate the work I do, over and over-- then you turn around [18:33] schestowitz > and act like I was just some fool you suffered. Maybe I was, indeed. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > I know from a lifetime of experience (I'm still older than you) that [18:33] schestowitz > misunderstandings happen, and those are worth fixing-- but with some [18:33] schestowitz > people they just keep happening for increasingly ridiculous reasons, and [18:33] schestowitz > that's because the person isn't being honest. You're not Lunduke, but [18:33] schestowitz > today you're playing his sort of game. He does it to Stallman, then you [18:33] schestowitz > do it to me. Not appreciated, not at all. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > Funny thing is, I think people who want to do some good can still [18:33] schestowitz > benefit from contributing here. I won't bother explaining why, only that [18:33] schestowitz > I don't regret the time or effort spent. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > I regret the misplaced trust. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > Long live everyone with the kind of integrity that rms has, and Happy [18:33] schestowitz > Christmas. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > You can spend the next 10 years explaining, while the FSF continues to [18:33] schestowitz > endorse Microsoft's takeover of free software, and we both tell people [18:33] schestowitz > about it, but somehow I'm the baddie for saying so much of what you've said. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > Now you're making the differences in what we are saying out to be a lot [18:33] schestowitz > more than they really are. I suppose your readers can figure that out, [18:33] schestowitz > but I don't expect them to care. [18:33] schestowitz > [18:33] schestowitz > But Fuck You for selling me out, Roy. I can't put it any more plainly [18:33] schestowitz > than that. "Deb Icaza" was mine, and I was happy you started using it. [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > You want to be like them? Are you, or aren't you? [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > I've got better things to do. It's not much, that's for sure-- but it's [18:34] schestowitz > honest. We are surrounded by hypocrites. I didn't realise you wanted to [18:34] schestowitz > be like them. Oh well, if you can't beat them, eh? Fuck typos, sending [18:34] schestowitz > draft as-is. [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > Tom: Talk later, maybe. Your choice, obviously. Yes, I'm deleting this [18:34] schestowitz > email as well. [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > You don't really have the "thick skin" you claim to, Roy. What you have [18:34] schestowitz > is a tendency to wait until someone gets fed and up TRIES to walk away, [18:34] schestowitz > before getting them with their back turned. [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > Copyright (C) 2020 figosdev [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > Ordinarily I think this is a stupid license, but if the shoe fits: [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE [18:34] schestowitz > Version 2, December 2004 [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar > [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified [18:34] schestowitz > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long [18:34] schestowitz > as the name is changed. [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE [18:34] schestowitz > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION [18:34] schestowitz > [18:34] schestowitz > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. [18:36] MinceR i don't understand him [18:39] schestowitz I need to think how to approach this. He's a good person, but taking time to think how to respond would be better. To me, personally, this really came out of nowhere, and not for the first time. IIRC, the first time was, I argued that a BSD licence would be a regression. (Because it's what companies that exploit "free labour" code prefer us to use) [18:59] schestowitz > This is Galia Mancheva or somebody else? How much attention did it have [18:59] schestowitz > already? [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > She mentions another person was fired before her, do you know who that is? [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > It looks like people were removed in this order: [18:59] schestowitz > Susanne Eiswirt [18:59] schestowitz > Galia Mancheva [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20191001042154/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html [18:59] schestowitz > Susanne Eiswirt, Galia Mancheva, Ulrike, Francesca [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-web.archive.org | About Free Software Foundation Europe - Team [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20191001042154/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html [18:59] schestowitz > Susanne Eiswirt, Galia Mancheva, Ulrike, Francesca [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20191001042154/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html [18:59] schestowitz > Galia Mancheva, Ulrike, Francesca [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20191020123524/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html [18:59] schestowitz > Galia Mancheva, Ulrike, Francesca [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-web.archive.org | About Free Software Foundation Europe - Team [18:59] schestowitz > [18:59] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20191020123524/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html [18:59] schestowitz > Ulrike, Francesca ● Dec 21 [19:00] schestowitz Re: Manchester ex-FSFE? [19:00] schestowitz > Do you know Anna Morris and Ben Webb and the reason they left FSFE? I [19:00] schestowitz > think they are close to you. [19:00] schestowitz > [19:00] schestowitz > Anna Morris [19:00] schestowitz > [19:00] schestowitz > Ben Webb [19:00] schestowitz I have heard the names, esp. the first, but I heard nothing about it. ● Dec 21 [21:32] *hook54321 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) [21:34] *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-doftibnowizrzpao) has joined #boycottnovell [21:36] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [21:36] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [21:36] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [21:37] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [21:55] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [21:55] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) ● Dec 21 [22:25] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [22:26] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-106.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell