Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

discourse.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#31

Post by rpdillon »

isantop wrote: post #18

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 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 cause, what exactly that cause was.

I think blindly accepting decisions of authority is dangerous.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#33

Post by isantop »

znpy wrote: post #28
isantop wrote: post #18

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…

> 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. And? On the other hand, allowing people to be removed "no-questions-asked" and accepting zero transparency is dictatorial. There's a reason why courts proceedings are usually public: there cannot be justice without transparency. Otherwise it's an easy…

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 was a CoC violation, potentially of a sensitive nature, and discretion is therefore warranted.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#34

Post by lotharcable »

znpy wrote: post #29
cosmin800 wrote: post #13

Gnome is kind of junk nowdays, right? Haven't used since slack 7.

Last time I tried was in Ubuntu 20.something and ... yes it was trash.

Ubuntu desktop is Ubuntu desktop, not Gnome desktop.

It uses Gnome but it isn't Gnome.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#35

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

bananamerica wrote: post #27
lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanna be relevant to the conversation you're gonna have to clarify for me: are you in the camp that thinks Gnome treats its users like they're stupid, or not?

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.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#36

Post by 3v1n0 »

lotharcable wrote: post #34
znpy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried was in Ubuntu 20.something and ... yes it was trash.

Ubuntu desktop is Ubuntu desktop, not Gnome desktop. It uses Gnome but it isn't Gnome.

It's 99% GNOME with few additions that can be disabled if you want a more pure experience

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#37

Post by cmxch »

isantop wrote: post #33
znpy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And? On the other hand, allowing people to be removed "no-questions-asked" and accepting zero transparency is dictatorial. There's a reason why courts proceedings are usually public: there cannot be justice without transparency. Otherwise it's an easy…

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.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#38

Post by sillywalk »

isantop wrote: post #18

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…

It's also ambiguous as to if he was removed for a CoC violation. It just says he was removed "for cause". It then goes on to state (emphasis mine):

"A Code of Conduct complaint was also made against Sonny Piers."

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#39

Post by michaelmrose »

isantop wrote: post #33
znpy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And? On the other hand, allowing people to be removed "no-questions-asked" and accepting zero transparency is dictatorial. There's a reason why courts proceedings are usually public: there cannot be justice without transparency. Otherwise it's an easy…

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…

What reason do we have to trust that it isn't a arbitrary decision concerning petty clashes of personality? We are talking about the organization that hired as its head a literal criminal scam artist.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#40

Post by michaelmrose »

lotharcable wrote: post #34
znpy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried was in Ubuntu 20.something and ... yes it was trash.

Ubuntu desktop is Ubuntu desktop, not Gnome desktop. It uses Gnome but it isn't Gnome.

By that definition virtually nobody uses Windows. Shipping gnome with extensions doesn't make it not Gnome. It is in fact the only Gnome that the majority of users have used given the relative popularity of Ubuntu vs Fedora.
Post reply on HN