[isantop]

CoC violations — particularly ones egregious enough to warrant removal from a project — often involve topics of a highly sensitive nature regarding events which could potentially reveal the identity of the victim party, which is entirely not appropriate. While I completely understand the frustration around the current lack of communication regarding this incident, it's fully appropriate given the situation at hand and those party to the proceedings are the only ones at liberty to discuss what happened.

[djfhag]

They absolutely do not, certainly not "often". In many cases mediocre corporate developers who have taken over a project demand more deference in purely technical matters (which they do not understand) and remove opposition.

They then close down all communication channels so the real victim (i.e., the person that was removed) cannot tell the truth.

Then they engage in vague accusations that there was some other issue that cannot be mentioned in order to "protect a fictional aggrieved party".

Which is criminal libel.

[isantop]

Suggesting that the aggrieved party is fictional is, indeed, criminal libel.

[CRConrad]

An intentional misreading egregious enough that one can't help wonder which of the murky-dealings-behind-closed-doors-and-vague-unsubstantiated-allegations fans on the Gnome board that removed mr Piers you are.

(If you think that's criminal libel too, then sue me; I'm not that hard to find.)

[laksG]

You know perfectly well what was meant despite being technically correct due to the misplaced quotes.

[em-bee]

if the aggrieved party is fictional, then why should the person that was removed not be able to make a statement claiming that the accusations are false?

[isantop]

Exactly. The only thing which might prevent Sonny from explaining the situation is the pending resolutions, which means that no party can comment on the ongoing situation. Realistically we don't know what's going on, and because it's all ongoing it's not actually appropriate for us to know one way or the other. After it's been settled, any party can make a comment, but still none are obliged to (and I'd caution that drawing conclusions based on only one source is inherently biased and unreliable)

[CRConrad]

And it's not as if that gives anyone on the CoC committe who has it in for him a motive to leave those resolutions pending forever, now is it...?

[laksG]

Because the communication channels that matter are locked down, and the person who was removed is censored. This has happened in multiple projects (I think Debian was the latest), so all developers associated with project $X think that the foundation members are right and the removed person is wrong.

You can set the record straight on your own website and hope that e.g. a HN submission stays longer than 10 min on the front page. Which would again be prevented by the foundation members who will flag.

The web is no longer open like it was in 2000.

[rpdillon]

I see what you're getting at, but this requires far too much trust in the administrators. Transparency is critical in proceedings like this.

Also, the statement is worded in a way that suggests he was removed for a cause that is unknown, and independently had a CoC violation brought against him that is still being mediated. Therefore there can be no outcome there yet. Which makes me wonder when they removed him for cause, what exactly that cause was.

I think blindly accepting decisions of authority is dangerous.

[isantop]

If you use GNOME, you have inherent trust in that administration as the governing body for the software on your computer. Outside of explicitly checking every line of code and then compiling yourself, there's no way to actually validate what you're truly running on your computer other than that trust.

If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?

[fwn]

> If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?

Regardless of where someone stands in this particular conversation, perceived injustice is bad even for those who are only indirectly affected by it.

I guess that most of the injustice we read about in the media is about something that doesn't directly affect us as a reader.

Yet we are affected by it. This is because people tend to want to contribute to a just society. ..so essentially, people tend to dislike injustice.

[kelipso]

This is some variant of the "you are using your iPhone while criticizing corporations" argument.

[CRConrad]

> If you use GNOME, you have inherent trust in that administration as the governing body for the software on your computer.

Yeah... And this goes to show how misplaced that trust is.

> If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?

1) As a confirmation and reminder to myself of my decision never to use that stuff, should I ever waver in the future.

2) As an argument to convince others to also avoid it like the fucking bubonic plague.

HTH! (But honestly, that was pretty obvious; how could anyone not see that for oneself?)

[bacchusracine]

>If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?

GTK?

[ranger_danger]

Saw this on the thread:

> I think that choosing to reveal that it is a code of conduct violation, but then refusing to state why, is less responsible than both being completely transparent, or saying nothing. I worry that it could start unnecessary drama.

[CRConrad]

Yeah, I saw that too. Not about to get a posting ID there, so I'll say here what I thought there:

> I worry that it could start unnecessary drama.

What that commenter apparently missed was the worse possibility (or probability), that it will suppress "drama" that would have been necessary.

[znpy]

> often involve topics of a highly sensitive nature regarding events which could potentially reveal the identity of the victim party, which is entirely not appropriate.

And?

On the other hand, allowing people to be removed "no-questions-asked" and accepting zero transparency is dictatorial.

There's a reason why courts proceedings are usually public: there cannot be justice without transparency. Otherwise it's an easy playbook to avoid accountability.

[isantop]

The fundamental difference here is that this isn't a court of law deciding justice, it's a private organization deciding who is allowed to participate and under what grounds someone should be barred from the same. Transparency in this case extends to making it known that someone is banned from formal participation, who made this decision, and under what grounds the decision was made. We have that in this case; there was a CoC violation, potentially of a sensitive nature, and discretion is therefore warranted.

[michaelmrose]

What reason do we have to trust that it isn't a arbitrary decision concerning petty clashes of personality? We are talking about the organization that hired as its head a literal criminal scam artist.

[benj111]

That like saying that some software that a company throws over the wall every so often is free software. It may be in the literal sense but it misses the point.

Transparency isn't simply knowing that a thing happened. Transparency is knowing why it happened, what steps were taken.

Is this guy a rapist? Transparency means he won't get employed at a women's refuge? Did the foundation make a mistake? Transparency can hold them accountable and make sure the correct fix is made.

And at the risk of sounding like Richard Stallman. Since when did we start treating the gnome foundation as just a 'private organisation'? If anyone knows about the benefits of open collaboration and sharing, it should be them.

[cmxch]

Redefining transparency to a perfunctory level does nothing but reinforce the idea that it is a star chamber.

[Exolon]

"Star chamber" is a fabulous term that would seem to describe the situation quite well. Thanks, added to my internal dictionary!

[isantop]

Saying anyone was removed "no-questions-asked" is not correct. The board asked many questions over the course of its investigation into the matter. And they just today held an annual general meeting of the entire foundation at which pubic comment or questions were accepted.

[sillywalk]

It's also ambiguous as to if he was removed for a CoC violation. It just says he was removed "for cause". It then goes on to state (emphasis mine):

"A Code of Conduct complaint was also made against Sonny Piers."

[CRConrad]

And it seems to have had the intended effect: Several people here(1) have been reading it as if that was the "cause".

Weasel wording at its finest.

(1): Including, it seems, poster "isantop". Who is otherwise coming off pretty much as one of those secretive board members, here to defend their decision and procedures, so it's hard to think it's unintentional in their case.