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

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day <[email protected]> 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.

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
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list