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

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#71

Post by CRConrad »

sillywalk wrote: post #38
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."

And it seems to have had the intended effect: Several people here(1) have been reading it as if that was the "cause".

Weasel wording at its finest.

(1): Including, it seems, poster "isantop". Who is otherwise coming off pretty much as one of those secretive board members, here to defend their decision and procedures, so it's hard to think it's unintentional in their case.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#72

Post by CRConrad »

ranger_danger wrote: post #62
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…

Saw this on the thread: > 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.

Yeah, I saw that too. Not about to get a posting ID there, so I'll say here what I thought there:

> I worry that it could start unnecessary drama.

What that commenter apparently missed was the worse possibility (or probability), that it will suppress "drama" that would have been necessary.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#73

Post by CRConrad »

oliwarner wrote: post #49
djfhag wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, also one needs to investigate if the 503c organizations that claim to be in "the public interest" are really in "the private interest". Many software foundations serve their directors and the power of a select group of developers, do not fund actual development and largely serve as self-marketing and propaganda groups.

Your sweeping statement would have more impact if you offered some examples of foundations you think only serve themselves.

Well, the Gnome Foundation sure seems to be sailing up as a candidate...

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#74

Post by CRConrad »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #54
giancarlostoro wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure, but code of conduct was breached, so could be the usual whenever code of conduct is brought up.

How do you know "code of conduct was breached"? We only know that there was a complaint, that it was breached.

AFAIK, the word "breached" can also be interpreted as "brought up in discussion". So maybe that was what the GP meant.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#75

Post by CRConrad »

tssge wrote: post #15
constantcrying wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20240527 This is simultaneous hilarious and frightening. Wtf is going on at GNOME?

Now I don't know what the parent said, but if you mean frightening as in taking up people's time, worry not, as commonly in small orgs such meetings don't take place in reality even though the minutes might indicate so. These minutes may be signed by the attendees via email (or mail) without ever meeting up in reality. This is very common for small orgs where communication is already daily or the matter is trivial in…

You seem to have missed the point of the comment you replied to rather entirely.

What was "simultaneous[ly] hilarious and frightening" was that the "minutes" on the linked page said absolutely nothing about what was actually decided (and how) at that meeting. It's all just formalities about "not[ing] the presence of a quorum" and how the "agenda was approved"...

But the actual business of the meeting -- "one resolution was approved, and one resolution was approved unanimously as amended" -- all happened in an "executive session", so you can't even see WHAT those resolutions were.

They could just as well not have published any minutes at all, and we'd know just as much as we do with them. That is simultaneously hilarious and frightening.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#76

Post by CRConrad »

CRConrad wrote: post #74
funcDropShadow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know "code of conduct was breached"? We only know that there was a complaint, that it was breached.

AFAIK, the word "breached" can also be interpreted as "brought up in discussion". So maybe that was what the GP meant.

Or, come to think of it, is the phrase "the subject was broached in the discussion" what I was thinking of? Note the 'o', not 'e'.

Sorry, now I'm thinking I was wrong above.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#77

Post by tssge »

CRConrad wrote: post #75
tssge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I don't know what the parent said, but if you mean frightening as in taking up people's time, worry not, as commonly in small orgs such meetings don't take place in reality even though the minutes might indicate so. These minutes may be signed by the attendees via email (or mail) without ever meeting up in reality. This is very common for small orgs where communication is already daily or the matter is trivial in…

You seem to have missed the point of the comment you replied to rather entirely. What was "simultaneous[ly] hilarious and frightening" was that the "minutes" on the linked page said absolutely nothing about what was actually decided (and how) at that meeting. It's all just formalities about "not[ing] the presence of a quorum" and how the "agenda was approved"... But the actual business of the meeting -- "one resoluti…

Ah, that explains, thanks! I was scratching my head for a while wondering if I am missing the point totally... seems like I did
Post reply on HN