4 ms·
> > So if and only if Larry did not violate the Code of Conduct, then apologize to Larry and rescind your request to remove himself from the community (if there
by nebabyte 10y ago
> > So if and only if Larry did not violate the Code of Conduct, then apologize to Larry and rescind your request to remove himself from the community (if there was a violation, provide the details to Larry and confirm to the public)
TL;DR : Please continue iff there was a violation we don't know about
> We want to be clear that the decision to remove Larry's DrupalCon session and track chair role was not because of his private life or personal beliefs. The Drupal Association stands by our values of inclusivity. Our decision was based on confidential information conveyed in private by many sources. Due to the confidential nature of the situation we cannot and will not disclose any information that may harm any members of our community, including Larry
> This decision followed our established process. As the Executive Director, charged with safekeeping the goodwill of the organization, I made this decision after considering input from various sources including the Community Working Group (CWG) and Drupal Project Lead, Dries Buytaert. Upon Larry’s request for an appeal, the full board reviewed the situation, all the evidence, and statements provided by Larry. After reviewing the entirety of the information available (including information not in the public view) the decision was upheld.
> In order to protect everyone involved we cannot comment more, and trust that the community will be understanding
TL;DR : We're continuing, there was a violation you don't know about
Sounds like it's done, then
- evunveot 10y agohttps://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-part-3 https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-part-3 TL;DR : The Drupal leadership hasn't accused Larry of a code of conduct violation publicly or privately but they're happy to imply that a secret violation exists so they can cover up the fact that they ousted him because his lifestyle is icky and bad for PR.
- chickenfries 10y agoStill, that's a bit ambiguous. They should clarify that the initial evidence of his beliefs was not what got him in trouble, but the evidence that they're keeping confidential. Otherwise, it just seems like Garfield is being ousted for his for all we know harmless lifestyle choices.