Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[Allan Day <aday gnome org>]

Benjamin Berg <benjamin sipsolutions net> wrote:
...
> I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
> continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
> this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
> chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority by doing so.

Or, to put it another way - Neil and I made a small number of edits to
a document which had previously been worked on for 14 months, which we
then put to the board to review and vote on.

It should be noted that the board group includes every active member
of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So
"without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without
including Ben". As already stated, this was a direct response to
repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.

There is no formal process for the code of conduct working group, so
talk of "authority" and "legitimacy" is moot. However, I do believe
that the proposal that has been sent to the board is a fair reflection
of the group's work as a whole, and that's the important thing.

> As
> such, I do not consider the current documents to be a legitimate
> proposal from the WG that the board could even start to consider.

The proposal that has been sent to the board is the result of the
entire group's work for 14 months. It is also the outcome of the
community consultation that we ran. The vast majority of the working
group will have the opportunity to review the proposal before it goes
to a vote.

Allan