![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a4139df10120ce151e457fd1faff018d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 4/11/24 5:54 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2024-04-11 09:23, Simon Lees wrote:
During the period of writing this email Someone has said something which is clearly a CoC violation and has been given a one and only warning, which I believe is fair if we are going to start properly enforcing higher standards after many years. Personally I'm slightly supprised its taken this long. But equally while I expect the CoC to be upheld I also don't believe in punishing people without evidence and due process.
During the process of writing this email, the board has also been given some more specific information about other instances that are more then just "Toilet Humor" and are clear CoC violations which again means appropriate action can actually be taken.
If I compare your responses in this thread with that of folk like Shawn, Attila and Gertjan I'm struck with the unshakable feeling that you're either utterly ignorant to their established positions in the community, or somehow believe your casual engagement for a couple of days somehow outweighs their expertise.
Gertjan is both a Board member AND a most grizzled veteran forum moderator for ages Attila is our most active moderator on the busiest platforms we have these days Shawn's been around the block for years also and been consistently engaged in recurrently problematic communities with overly demanding entitled users
I am at a loss how you could possibly think to overrule their opinions based on a brief overview of a channel which is clearly problematic.
They have been using terms like "a kick in the nuts for moderators" and "the Board want to selectively enforce the Code of Conduct" to describe your responses on this thread.
These responses seem to have come from a view that I don't think the CoC should apply in all channels. This is clearly false and i'm sorry I didn't make it clearer in my follow up message.
Now they need to read that their views were actually meaningless because the Board is only considering things now they've been given "specific information"
Our moderators are there so the Board shouldn't need to be given "specific information".. our moderators should be trusted.
I fear the attitude you are demonstrating here shows contempt for those who do significant work keeping our community aligned with our Code of Conduct.
If those volunteers choose to no longer do that work, the Board will be increasingly burdened with more such nonsense, nonsense which you could have left to our moderators if you trusted them.
I know that as of this thread, Attila is has already ceased moderating reddit and telegram. Shawn will be using his upcoming vacation to decide whether or not to continue working inside openSUSE. If he chooses not to I expect the death of his Kalpa project.
This is already causing a greater loss to the openSUSE project than sensible moderation, or even the entire removal of #opensuse-chat would have been.
I hope you re-evaluate your priorities as a Board member going forward because I do not think this is a sensible operating model.
All I will say is as a board member, I will personally not take action to remove any member of the community unless I can see good reason. Initially the board did not receive a detailed report that user X should be banned, just a I think there is an issue here and we might need more moderation. As the boards action on this topic I was asked to monitor #opensuse more closely, which I have, and then more recently #opensuse-chat to see if that was true or if there was one or two isolated instances. Until today in my time of monitoring I hadn't seen any issues even close to worth reporting and or moderating (The one I bought up in this list is an example from memory years back and me guessing based off the reports received). As such I made the truthful and accurate statement that in my time of monitoring the channels I hadn't seen any issues and so that was what the basis of this thread was. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B