* Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@gmail.com> [01-17-11 12:22]:
None of the topics on the plaform say anything about 'reinstating' anyone, neither I never said the perpetrator was to be forgiven. But I am worried when 2 applicants have public statements fully supporting the Board's actions which remains untransparent, and the question I made were ignored since the very start...
1. Was the perpetrator given a proper chance to defend himself against the charges? If so when and how.
I guess you need to re-read or read more thoroughly the "public announcement", ie: <quote> After receiving a series of complaints from numerous members of the Community regarding violations of the Guiding Principles by that person over a prolonged period, the board began working to uphold its obligation to the membership by attempting to resolve the conflicts through discussions and mediation with all involved parties and ultimately issuing a warning of possible expulsion. In December, complaints were renewed and the Board felt that despite repeated warnings and discussions, the Board could no longer abide by actions that violated the principles which our Community is built upon. </quote> Doesn't a "prolonged period" fit or are specifics necessary?
2. Why was the perpetrator booted from the IRC meeting where this was all solved?
No answer, but probably that happened to be when the "expulsion" took place. I fail to see that this particular point has any revelance. Would it have been any better/worse to have continued conversation and increased the anamosity generated? The *end* was reached. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org