Questions and criticism about candidates are a legitimate part of the election process, and I want to be clear that I’m not seeking to shut that down. However, some comments in this thread make specific claims about a Code of Conduct decision that I think require a factual response from the Foundation. I therefore want to make four points:
Ban decisions are taken very seriously and are only recommended following a defined process, which includes assessment criteria for the severity of the case. A ban requires evidence of serious infractions, typically over an extended period. To characterise the decision in this case as a response to a single minor incident is factually inaccurate.
I also want to address the targeting of named individuals in this thread. Code of Conduct decisions are made collectively by the committee and, in ban cases, by the full board. Placing personal responsibility on individual volunteers is wrong and damaging. Volunteers who work on code of conduct for all of us should not face pressure for carrying out that work.
An independent third-party review of how this case was handled concluded that the Code of Committee and Board of Directors had acted in good faith.
Finally, I want to address the characterisation of a mutual non-disparagement proposal as a “gag.” What was proposed was a mutual agreement would have restricted what both parties could say in public. The Foundation proposed this as a way of drawing the matter to a close in a way that would allow both parties to walk away without damage to their reputations. That proposal was declined.
In closing, I want to ask everyone in this thread to consider the impact of these conversations on those who have been affected by these conduct issues, including those who you may not be aware of.
I want to add, to what Allan wrote, that the Discourse mods have already had to intervene in various cases to clean up this topic, since it has been linked by well-known bad actors and grifters, so we are all keeping an extra vigilant eye.
I appreciate and understand you are in your role as current GNOME Foundation president and interim Executive Director.
Ban decisions are taken very seriously and are only recommended following a defined process, which includes assessment criteria for the severity of the case. A ban requires evidence of serious infractions, typically over an extended period. To characterise the decision in this case as a response to a single minor incident is factually inaccurate.
That may be so today and indeed the new board undid my ban after reviewing evidence presented to them.
I also want to address the targeting of named individuals in this thread.
I named 2 actors by first name only due to their excessive responsibility and for a bare minimum of transparency during elections. I was very careful not to name any other director, committee or staff member.
The individuals in question didn’t have to stay or run for elections all this time after they had been disavowed multiple times.
An independent third-party review of how this case was handled concluded that the Code of Committee and Board of Directors had acted in good faith.
Good faith does not mean acting appropriately. I’m sure everybody involved has a good heart and thought there were doing the right thing.
That does help clarify, but if it is true that there was a threat of publishing a defamatory statement about Sonny if the agreement was not signed, this doesn’t really make it look any better. AFAICT, it just confirms that multiple people (“The Foundation”) were involved.
In any event, I won’t harp on this, thanks for bearing with me.