[sulam]

This as least is something I can understand (and it seems he understands it too, as he apologized for it). When you're not involved in a discussion, are in a leadership position, and apologize to someone for the outcome of the discussion, you are undercutting the authority of the people involved in that discussion, the decision they made, and the entire organizational process that produced the decision.

[orless]

Yes I get it that he may have stepped over other moderators, I can understand this. But how is that in violation with Code of Conduct, exactly? Just don't say it is "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting".

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[foota]

I would go with:

- "Focusing on what is best for the community"

- "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting" (yes you said not to but it does apply)

[fatbird]

It's not a violation of the CoC, it undermines the CoC, which is generally inappropriate. It's basically broadcasting "Don't take the CoC seriously".

[orless]

For this apology to undermine CoC, the moderated contributor (to whom the apology was made) must have violated CoC with his contribution (or whatever it was). Nobody links to that discussion anymore (probably better so).

Somehow it is quite hard to make an informed opinion in this case.