[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.