Snipping most of your reply because I refuse to allow this thread to decend into yet another nonsense flame by rebutting your endless counter rebuttals - consider my previous points to stand reinforced in disagreement with you.
All I wish to point out is..what on earth gives you any idea that "Sarah's application and its wording and expressed opinion" had anything to do with the Code of Conduct violation?
It's the impression gained from what the board and other members made public on the mailing list.
Speaking from my own experience as a previous Board member, the vast majority of Code of Conduct violations we had to mediate in my time occured within non-public discussions between individual contributors or groups of contributors. Given the Board's clarifications for their decision did not point to any public record, I would absolutely expect that their decision was based on incidents between contibutors outside such public records as Sarah's application.
If that would be the point the board could have clarified that point and could have specified in which situation and under which circumstances that violation of the Code of Conduct occurred. But the board left if fully to speculation and reading between the lines - and I am convinced that has good reasons and does not work to the boards advantage. Otherwise the board could have done so without disclosing anything confidential or private.
Is your entire Call for No-Confidence based on the likely flawed premise that the Board sanctioned someone because of something they said on the lists?
Likely flawed? That's very vague. But the Call is not in first place about sanctioning but about having a fresh start and leaving the unfortunate events behind. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org