The boards decission has the taste of a non-public trial where the boards decission is a final verdict, but usually a person has the right for public hearing in an independent trial. (far fetched but anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial ) The affected person can of course yield his right to a public trial, especially when he/she can predict a negative outcome. If he feels wronged though he/she should be allowed to say so.
All countries have the option / possibility of non-public trials, especially in circumstances where the publicity could compound the original offence, harm the victims or prejudice the outcome. Examples are libel, blackmail and some offences judged as disgusting by society.
From what Pascal said, this was something which fell into that category. Their judgement was that holding a public debate about it would have compounded the original offence.
We can either: trust them to agonise over this privately; or request that an independent member of the group talks to them to understand, and then confirm to us their agreement (or not) with the board's judgement; or request the board resigns. And if this independent adjudicator doesn't agree? Then we vote for a new board whose judgement we do like. Or we can just request that the board step down every time there's a difficult decision to make. I, personally, believe that the board have discussed it at sufficient length, and have come to the best decision they can. They have my support in how they've handled this. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org