61–70 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am firmly in the camp where I am not answering this question only to satisfy an irrelevant need to take things literally while ignoring the actual issue being discussed.
You shouldn't have responded then, because we have nothing to talk about.
CoC violations — particularly ones egregious enough to warrant removal from a project — often involve topics of a highly sensitive nature regarding events which could potentially reveal the identity of the victim party, which is entirely not appropriate. While I completely understand the frustration around the current lack of communication regarding this incident, it's fully appropriate given the situation at hand an…
> I think that choosing to reveal that it is a code of conduct violation, but then refusing to state why, is less responsible than both being completely transparent, or saying nothing. I worry that it could start unnecessary drama.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental difference here is that this isn't a court of law deciding justice, it's a private organization deciding who is allowed to participate and under what grounds someone should be barred from the same. Transparency in this case extends to making it known that someone is banned from formal participation, who made this decision, and under what grounds the decision was made. We have that in this case; there…
Redefining transparency to a perfunctory level does nothing but reinforce the idea that it is a star chamber.
2. Code of Conduct All users of the licensed work must:
Treat others with respect, fairness, and dignity. Not engage in harassment, discrimination, or any form of abusive behavior. Foster an inclusive and welcoming environment for people of all backgrounds. Respect the intellectual property rights of others. Refrain from using the licensed work for any unlawful or unethical purposes. 3. Termination This license is automatically terminated if you fail to comply with the Code of Conduct in Section 2. Upon termination, you must:
Cease all use, reproduction, modification, and distribution of the licensed work. Destroy any copies of the licensed work in your possession.
Ah, the good old gnome drama. They consider users , stupid and make their system as stupid as possible and never let the user to do advance customization as they please. Their gate keeping nature back fired I guess.
Not only does it go against long-established principles and ideals of our society in a lot of ways, to the point that I think even many proprietary software developers would be somewhat uncomfortable with decisions about justice and punishment taking place behind closed doors (even if they're fine with source code being closed), but it goes against the spirit of open source, which is rooted as a concept in the notion that transparency is good and opacity is harmful.
I am concerned that the idea that victims should have their identities kept private to protect them from harassment is increasingly used as an excuse to punish people suspected of wrongdoing in private proceedings and not disclose much if anything about the evidence or the nature of the proceedings, and instead demanding that the public trust authority figures behind closed doors. That is, transparency and openness seem to be vanishing from society in general, in favor of an emphasis on security and a victim's right to privacy, which means we're back to a system where most proceedings take place behind closed doors. Sure, official legal proceedings might still be open, but almost everything of importance these days happens within the domain of very large private organizations and their regulations, meaning that their internal processes affect us almost as much as laws do in some cases.
I worry not only for the future of GNOME, but also for the future of open source and open societies based on the principles of transparency in general. It's possible that the Internet making everything so connected and causing information to flow so rapidly has made it so that it is too dangerous to be open, and thus freedom and transparency are ultimately being killed by the combination of technology and private ownership favoring authoritarian approaches and unilateral, backroom decision making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely do not, certainly not "often". In many cases mediocre corporate developers who have taken over a project demand more deference in purely technical matters (which they do not understand) and remove opposition. They then close down all communication channels so the real victim (i.e., the person that was removed) cannot tell the truth. Then they engage in vague accusations that there was some other issue…
Suggesting that the aggrieved party is fictional is, indeed, criminal libel.
(If you think that's criminal libel too, then sue me; I'm not that hard to find.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if the aggrieved party is fictional, then why should the person that was removed not be able to make a statement claiming that the accusations are false?
Exactly. The only thing which might prevent Sonny from explaining the situation is the pending resolutions, which means that no party can comment on the ongoing situation. Realistically we don't know what's going on, and because it's all ongoing it's not actually appropriate for us to know one way or the other. After it's been settled, any party can make a comment, but still none are obliged to (and I'd caution that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what you're getting at, but this requires far too much trust in the administrators. Transparency is critical in proceedings like this. Also, the statement is worded in a way that suggests he was removed for a cause that is unknown, and independently had a CoC violation brought against him that is still being mediated. Therefore there can be no outcome there yet. Which makes me wonder when they removed him for c…
If you use GNOME, you have inherent trust in that administration as the governing body for the software on your computer. Outside of explicitly checking every line of code and then compiling yourself, there's no way to actually validate what you're truly running on your computer other than that trust. If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?
Yeah... And this goes to show how misplaced that trust is.
> If you don't use GNOME, why is this interesting to you anyway?
1) As a confirmation and reminder to myself of my decision never to use that stuff, should I ever waver in the future.
2) As an argument to convince others to also avoid it like the fucking bubonic plague.
HTH! (But honestly, that was pretty obvious; how could anyone not see that for oneself?)