It would have been helpful had the leadership team discussion focused on a review of the process by which community members are assigned positions within the Joomla! project. That was the crux of the problem and reviewing and adjusting that process would have been a helpful response.

Unfortunately, the conversation did not go that way. Instead, the mistakes of the individual who was banned a year earlier were put on display and the conversation shifted to the integrity of those who would involve him.

As is often the case, there was a single voice in the discussion dealing with the real issues. That voice was not heard.

At this point, I think it would be best to remove the display of the wrong doing since it had no bearing on the problem. And then, go back and focus on the process issue that created the problem to begin with.

It can be very tricky business to deal with problems of this nature. It’s never to late to make things right and it’s important to give people another chance.

Not here in the US. In fact, you can go to a web site and see a list of former sex offenders (who have already served their full prison sentence) who live in your neighborhood, complete with their names and current addresses.

I can see reasons both for and against such a practice, so let’s not open that sort of a debate, OK? I just bring it up to show that’s far from a universal practice.

But in the specific case of the person in question, I have mixed feelings about the situation you describe. While I agree it was ugly to see the spectacle he made of himself rehashed, and quite possibly made him squirm to have it waved in his face again, it also may have the salutary effect of reminding us all that our actions have consequences, and that what we say and do out here on the web can stick with us for a long time. It’s a reminder that we all need to control ourselves out here.

“As it was, so shall it ever be” is a sad mantra. It denies life, for the essence of life is growth and change. It’s the trap of the Devil, which to this day continues to snare otherwise intelligent and good people.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemies.’ But I say to you, love your enemies. Pray for those who hurt you. If you do this, you will be true children of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on good people and on evil people, and he sends rain to those who do right and to those who do wrong. If you love only the people who love you, you will get no reward. Even the tax collectors do that. And if you are nice only to your friends, you are no better than other people. Even those who don’t know God are nice to their friends.

Matthew 5:43-47

If you don’t take this as a professional view, personally I think banning someone who has done nothing wrong might well have had legal implications, at least in theory.

It is a sad thought that a quiet ATAAW ban might have been less harmful than his name being pulled through the mud in the leadership discussion that followed Rob’s correct decision not to give in to undue pressure. Even heavy criminals see their names omitted in news reports.

I don’t know that I said it, but thanks for writing your thoughts here.

It’s something I’ve found to be quite disheartening at times. There’s a tremendous tendency to shift focus away from principles; it almost seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. This is understandable, perhaps, in writing code; working code trumps principles. But interactions within a community must begin with clearly defined principles, and only descend from there to cases; the alternative can work quite well in small groups, but it doesn’t scale at all.

One thing I didn’t mention, mainly because I have uncertain knowledge of it (I am not, after all, a lawyer): Would there have been any legal liability unleashed upon you or the All Together As A Whole community for barring someone who had not given the community cause to take such action? Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, but were I in your shoes, that is certainly something that wold have concerned me.

The sad part is, the discussion is still being steered toward the third party and totally dancing around the issue I raised in my blog post.

It’s pathetic.