Hi, On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Alexandre Franke <afra...@gnome.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day <a...@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 >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
