First, I consider centralization of power bad. I consider it generally a good thing if there's independent projects, and not single people get control over many major projects.

Now, let's consider this another person helpfully mentioned

> Freenode is registered as a "private company limited by guarantee without share capital" performing "activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified", with Christel and Andrew Lee (PIA's founder) as officers, and Andrew Lee having the majority of voting rights. Any profits are not to be distributed under their articles of association, making it a not-for-profit company.

Meaning that Andrew Lee alone has control over Freenode. And, looking by it, also Snoonet. And also indirect control over many open source projects. A single person having influence over major parts of the open source world and infrastructure.

I'm not sure if you consider this bad, but I do consider it bad if a single person starts buying up everything I use daily. And I will try to prevent this centralization of power. (For the same reason I dislike Google, which also concentrates far too much power in the hands of just two people).

But that's the problematic part. You're now completely dependent on a single person for funding, and if they demand you add something to your software (or they'll end funding), you're fucked.

Do tou really want to give this power to a single person?