On 5/1/25 10:04 PM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
> This situation is being currently handled by the AUR moderation staff.could you add some transparency though, because otherwise it gives off some Stasi vibe.
I'm not sure the comparaison was relevant, necessary and really appropriate here...
To quote our Code Of Conduct's [1] enforcement chapter [2]:"warning will usually be communicated *in private* to the user and needs to be acknowledged in writing in order to make sure that the user has read and understood the scope of their transgression."
As said above, this is usually dealt with concerned parties *privately*. Our enforcement decisions logs doesn't have to be made public.
Regardless, in case it has any impact for you whatsoever, you'd be please to know that both parties have been formally warned for their respectives transgression :)
Now let's please move on. [1] https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/ [2] https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/#enforcement -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
OpenPGP_0xFDC3040B92ACA748.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
