[brudgers]

After I wrote my previous comment, I went and looked up the applicable code of conduct. [1] I suspect the relevant passage might be:

  Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the
  Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or 
  permanent repercussions as determined by other members
  of the project's leadership.

As I said, due process is a three way street. And the more I read the statement linked as the story here, the less I think this is about anonymous complaints and the more I think it is related to whether or not actions by a committee member reflect the level of good faith expected in order for the committee to function efficiently.

In some contexts, voting people off the island is sufficient due process. If it is not sufficient here then many people will have to have acted contrary to good faith. I don't see evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

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

[ChuckMcM]

Thanks for adding this: I don't see evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

I see you are concerned with other comments here and elsewhere arguing a conspiracy of some sort to get the author banned. I have no opinion one way or the other on that specific accusation. I also don't think it is germane to my claims in this thread.

I was remarking that "Due Process" the specific legal term associated with the how the legal system deals with accusations, was designed to avoid the situation the author writes about where he asserts he was not told who is accusers were, what he was accused of, or given an opportunity to refute those accusations. This works because it removes information asymmetry that can be exploited by the attacker or the attacked. An recent example of how this can be exploited is the story of a venture capitalist who was accused of sexual harassment anonymously by someone who turned out to be a competitor[1].

In a system where, as part of the process, an accuser and accused are made aware of the real identities of each other this would never has passed the first examination.

If such a process were in place in this particular case, and the code of conduct violation was the one you cited, then the email to the author would have said

   "These {insert identities} have accused you of failing 
    to enforce the code of conduct elements {identified paragraphs}
    in the following situations {links to exchanges between author
    and community}. We would like to hear your side of this 
    before we render a judgement." 

And they would get back the authors point of view, then they might ask the accuser or the author for more information, and then they would render some judgement and an explanation of why they ruled the way they did so that in the future people would either recognize that it wasn't an issue or that it was and to not do it.

Processes are like programs or math proofs, if you do each of the steps in the right order you get the right answer regardless of the intent or opinion of the people carrying out the process.

[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/25/lawsuit-sexual-harassm...

[brudgers]

I believe it is likely that the author was told the nature of problem and that the nature of the problem is related to acting in good faith regarding the code of conduct as befits a community leadership position.

At the point where the legalese is called for, the working relationships necessary for a functioning committee within a voluntary association have already broken down. There aren't full time human resource staffers and legal council and there's no lateral move to another department available. The TSC's rules stipulate that removal of a member is by a normal committee motion.

I'm avoiding picking apart the statement because I don't want to pile into the internet witch hunt that is throwing titillation and innuendo at the twitters. I think it is a practical problem regarding the function of the organization. Part of it is probably a result of success changing the organization. Part of it is probably the result of changing attitudes among wider stakeholders. And for better or worse, part of it is probably deliberate choices by the people involved over a period of time.