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

[meg ford <meg387 gmail com>]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Alexandre Franke <afranke gnome org> wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day <aday gnome org> wrote:
> because Ben's behaviour had become so unacceptable (despite multiple
> warnings regarding basic behaviour) that it was difficult to get
> anything done within the wider working group context.

And on Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added:
> 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".

The WG is a group working on a document that invites people involved
in a conflict to seek assistance from a third party. Yet it seems
that, when a conflict arised, they didn’t call for external
arbitration, and even went as far as issuing warnings to one of the
parties involved on their own. I find this highly disturbing.

I do not completely agree with Allan's explanation here. While I have been involved in the current discussions about the CoC proposal, it has been as a member of the Board, not as a member of the WG. I was not involved in the final draft of the document as a member of the WG. As Allan stated, many of us had stopped participating in the WG before the final draft was finished because Ben's behavior had become unacceptable.

Meg

He then concludes:
> As already stated, this was a direct response to
> repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.

Whether that was the appropriate behaviour is still an open question though.

Cheers,

--
Alexandre Franke
GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director

_______________________________________________
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list