Why do you think the action was based on “complaints of behavior” and not an “objective evaluation of evidence of bad behavior”? (Remember I’m not on the SC and recused myself on the Conduct WG for this, so this isn’t meant to be a leading question or anything.)
How far back are you thinking here in thinking it’s “coming up often now”? I fully agree that’s come up a lot this month and last, but I think it was a rather abnormal situation and I don’t feel like it’s been that often.
I would hope so as well, but I don’t know if we can “expect” that short of expecting people to not do things that require privacy/secrecy.
Why is that (if you can share)? As I said earlier there are unfortunate gaps in everyone’s knowledge, so the best we can do is speculate. But obviously speculating it guessing and that means we can be wrong about how we guessed.
I don’t think anyone involved didn’t weigh that concern (either this time or any other time). I can say that from my time on the SC and the Conduct WG there has never been a conduct decision made where the cost of some action wasn’t thought about or acknowledged when making the decision. I’m not saying you can’t disagree with the balance decided, but I want people to know that in my experience these decisions have historically not been made in a flippant or casual manner (which makes these decisions that much harder, painful, and stressful to make; it was the worst part for me when I was on the SC).
I think there are two ways to disagree with what happened:
- You distrust the SC and/or Conduct WG (somewhat), and so you think (some of) the list of violations are false which negates the corrective action
- You trust the people involved and thus the list of violations, but you think the corrective action was wrong for the violations (in either direction; too lenient or too severe)
To be clear, I don’t think taking either view is inherently wrong (and the same goes with agreeing with what the SC chose to do). But I do want to say that I feel like we are avoiding using the word “distrust” here even though it’s implied. If the SC and Conduct WG are saying “trust us”, either you do or you don’t (I realize you can trust them on some things and not others, but that still means there’s distrust there to some degree). No one is saying you have to like that you have to put your trust and faith in the people involved and wished there was more transparency somehow, but I think that’s a separate concern from this specific case.
And if you don’t trust the SC then you can totally show that by voting for different people in the next election as Ethan pointed out (the Conduct WG you would take that to the PSF board).