Richard, honestly, I don't have the time to quote me again and again: I read the announcements completely and thoroughly. What I read in it's entirety ultimately lead to what you read in my very first email.
Both departing Board members left the Board in a manner clearly intended to minimise the possibility of any humiliation.
You just need to read the announcements to see that was it obvious the Board intended that those impacted by the Board's decision to enforce our Code of Conduct could save face. This was true both for the subject of the Code of Conduct breach and the dissenting Board member who resigned in protest.
If you ask me, what I read was mainly intended to minimise any humiliation of the board members and trying to shut down speculations. It did in no mainingful way justify their actions at any point and left important points unmentioned.
In both cases, the departing Board members would appear to have made public statements (either here or via other public forums) that undermined the shield of privacy which the Board had allowed and encoraged to be wrapped around their departures.
This then led to rampant nonsense on the mailinglists and the Board needing the clarify as much as they can in such an obviously sensitive situation.
Rampant nonesense... well, you should have maybe read some of Christian's mails, then you maybe wouldn't call the protests on the mailing lists a rampant nonsense.
Remember, Code of Conduct violations can rarely/never be handled publically, there are always multiple parties, the accused, the accusers, the aggrieved, and all of them deserve the right for their incident to be handled discreetly and privately. Else there is no point having a Board to handle such sensitive disputes and we can just have a project led wholly by endless arguments on the mailinglists.
Code of Conduct violations don't have to be discussed publicly. But in such an important situation where a board election candidate is accused of such violations, those violations should be handled. Immediately and not months later after the community legitimately elected that person into the board. And if those violations are handled, why don't we see that someone on the board who is obviously breaching this very same Code of Conduct - in my eyes - in an unacceptable manner is held responsible for it and has to resign?
Given the public statements made by the departing Board members and the direct causal relationship they have to the subsequent mailinglist flames and reluctant Board clarifications, I can't help but feel that any 'humilation' felt by the departing Board members is their own fault.
They had a clear opportunity to leave in a way that saved them face and maintained a good position in the community, I think it's unfortunate they chose not to make the most of it.
I can't help myself here but to say honestly and with all due respect: In the light of the words of Christians comment about the boards official announcement those last words from you are quite cynical, disrespectful, maybe even rude and disgusting. Sorry, that I have to say that in those clear words. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org