On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 05:46 Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:

On Jul 23, 2020, at 3:52 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:

Apparently there was agreement to hide this kind of information, and that's
worse than the original behavior that was acted on. Who will be next? For what
reason?  I am not questioning the decision, at least we voted for our delegates,
so I have to respect that decision even if I would disagree.  If you don't want
to communicate in public, then email committers separately, or create a private
ML for committers.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to allow the core developer the chance to come back in 3 months without all of their “colleagues” (for lack of a better word), knowing they’ve had disciplinary action taken against them. 

The problem with this reasoning is, the disciplinary action was for things the core developer did *to* those colleagues, in public.

Imagine two hypothetical scenarios: in both of them, you're at work, and you see one of your co-workers punch another in the face. Then, in scenario 1, management makes an announcement that people shouldn't punch each other, and that the offender has been disciplined. In scenario 2, as far as you know, management doesn't do anything.

In which scenario are you going to find it easier to work with that colleague in the future? The one where you know that they've learned something about appropriate behavior and that if they repeat what they did before there will be consequences, or the one where they "have the chance" to pretend that everything was fine and that punching co-workers is totally cool and consequence-free?

I'm all for CoC violators having the chance to make amends and come back, but the most effective way to do that is to acknowledge the problem and, well, make amends, not sweep things under the rug.