> Debian, like any organization, is free to shut the door to people they don't really care for.
Yes, if they follow the rules which have been defined to deal with stuff like this. Which they didn't. They came to a private decision and just went ahead, revoking his privileges before informing anybody (including himself) about the allegations and the decision. The "evidence-gathering" is starting now, after the decision. Which makes a lot of people itchy, understandably.
> He's been asked multiple times (the Debian team was nice enough to have clear links about emails) to shape up, and he's not being teachable.
That seems to be the private stance of the anti-harrassment team, but none of the developers who have chimed in seem to understand why this has happened. At least I don't see anybody standing up and yelling "Good lord, finally!".
Yes, if they follow the rules which have been defined to deal with stuff like this. Which they didn't. They came to a private decision and just went ahead, revoking his privileges before informing anybody (including himself) about the allegations and the decision. The "evidence-gathering" is starting now, after the decision. Which makes a lot of people itchy, understandably.
> He's been asked multiple times (the Debian team was nice enough to have clear links about emails) to shape up, and he's not being teachable.
That seems to be the private stance of the anti-harrassment team, but none of the developers who have chimed in seem to understand why this has happened. At least I don't see anybody standing up and yelling "Good lord, finally!".