[vertex-four]

> That information, Garfield says, made it to Drupal's Community Working Group (CWG), which concluded there was no code of conduct violation.

Or, from his own writing on the subject:

> Eventually that information made it to the Community Working Group (CWG), who concluded "there was no code of conduct violation present for [them] to take any action on".

[rszrama]

Larry also writes,

> Dries, from what I understand, was first informed, without my knowledge, of the matter in early February, by the CWG.

Curious that the CWG referred the matter to him as part of their documented process (i.e. when an issue exceeds the scope of their charter). You may not be inclined to believe a word they say, but at the very least Larry's timeline does not contradict this detail as provided by Megan / Dries:

> The Community Working Group, which is part of Drupal’s governance structure, provided conflict resolution. When it became clear that some of the issues raised went beyond the scope of their charter, they determined that it was appropriate for the matter to be escalated to Dries. This is consistent with their existing policy and process.

The FAQ section on this post provides the clearest timeline from the "other side" that I've seen: https://www.drupal.org/association/blog/working-through-the-...

Regardless, multiple decisions were made before Dries and Larry talked, and it is your characterization of Dries as a meddler who is circumventing a process that I am declaring untrue by anyone's accounting of the facts.

We don't live in a binary world, there are other options here besides Dries abused his power or Dries did everything right... for example, the process itself may be deficient and in need of reform. Before slinging mud, we should at least consider that possibility.

[vertex-four]

> we should at least consider that possibility

That would require that someone provides some evidence that this had nothing to do with what the accused suggests it's about - as it is, all we have is a short jump from being harassed because Gor to being kicked out of the community. That sort of thing is, unfortunately, quite common - I have friends within the scene who've lost their jobs because someone sent a picture to their bosses. The world is largely not a bastion of tolerance towards people who practice alternative relationship styles and sexualities.

[rszrama]

I believe Dries's words in his apology post were sincere, so I do submit that as evidence but understand you may find him untrustworthy. However, the willingness of people who practice BDSM who actually work for him to speak out on that post provides even more compelling evidence that Dries isn't known for discriminating on that basis:

http://buytaert.net/comment/132641#comment-132641

If Preston and other BDSM practitioners like him are fired from Acquia or removed from the Drupal community, I'll eat whatever crow you care to dish up.

[vertex-four]

Unfortunately some kinks are judged harsher than others. For example, if someone got sent a picture of their employee engaging in some flogging or even caning in the privacy of their bedroom, it's unlikely they'd care - but e.g. a branding ceremony? Needle or scalpel play? Presence at a high-protocol, strictly gendered event (e.g. male clothed, female nude)? Making a speech at a wedding between people in a relationship based on power exchange, that touches on the inequalities those people have chosen to make part of their relationship? All of those things bother some people a lot, potentially to the point of severing all ties that they legally could.

If he has harmed someone in the community or been put in a position to harm someone by his place in the community, you'd think Dries would be able to say that. If there's a police investigation or court case sufficiently far along that Dries thinks it's likely it happened, you'd think he'd be able to say that. But he's said absolutely nothing aside from his vague "because equality" statement.