Many summaries are possible. Here’s one take:
- In the context of an bylaws vote, advocated the least popular position.
- Did so not for himself but for the future health of the community.
- Believed he was helping address past injustices and preventing future injustices.
- Believed he was speaking truth to power.
- Communicated in a style that had been effective and welcomed for 30 years.
- Did not anticipate the response would be about the provocative style rather the substance of his arguments.
- Did not expect that moderation would happen after the discussion ended and was unlikely to recur.
- Did not expect to have commit permissions suspended, thus precluding non-political technical work.