deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Agreed. It’s possible that as a matter of substance it’s all fine - I don’t see why a committed developer can’t get a laptop or whatever other hardware they want. Whatever keeps them working, happy, and engaged with the project.
You should still have a good process, you should follow the processes you set up, and you should bend over backwards to address any concerns that get raised instead of dismiss them, and generally have an ethos of accountability and transparency. Instead they hid the thread, stripped his mod powers, still haven’t really explained anything, and are trying to make it about him.
The whole thing about trust is that you follow a process, and you show you value and commit to that process, so that if something comes up, people can trust that it will be handled in an accountable away. I don’t know how anyone reading this can feel like there are good processes in place.
There’s a huge discrepancy between this post and the post of jonathan. The conflict is clearly not yet resolved. And no, the opposing side being removed (even if it actually voluntarily stepped down) does not resolve the conflict. Because such a conflict is a problem of the organization. Conflicts always happen, but it requires a functioning organization for them to be resolved.
This conflict remaining unresolved up to the point where someone left the organization is the absolutely worst possible outcome and needs to be taken as a point for reflection. You cannot just cover it up and move on. Conflicts will happen again and with members knowing that bringing up a conflict might lead to them losing their job, they’re not going to talk about them. Which does not make those conflicts go away, they’ll rather become worse. Without talking, more people will “voluntarily step down”.
Exactly.
I think it almost would be better if (hypothetically) there were an ethical breach, but they corrected it, spoke openly and were accountable. That would be much less alarming than a case where there was no breach, but they didn’t follow the process and were dismissive about concerns raised - that tells you what they will do when there really is a problem.
Yep, and what’s even worse here, is that the person raising concerns is now gone from the project. They not only showed that they’re atrocious at dealing with these things, they’re also going to be worse at it in the future.
Drama in the Distro!
deleted by creator
I’m at a loss as well. Was Jonathon overreacting with his post, or was he attempting to blow the whistle? Why did Phil attempt to unlist the thread (eroding transparency)? Apparently Jonathon was also removed from being a forum mod… ugh, I really like Manjaro too. =/
deleted by creator
Say it ain’t so Boss!! Ugh, I guess I just don’t want to see them as bad guys ;~~~~;
Lol. Gonna write that down.
IMO most of the functionality of Manjaro can be replaced by Arch + a graphical installer.
I feel like the caption of this post is rather sensational. It doesn’t actually say Jonathon (correct spelling here) was fired at all:
This disagreement culminated in Jonathon announcing that he was stepping down as the administration of donations.
Okay, but the very next sentence says:
The initiative for this came from him, but the way it was enacted left him feeling kicked out, which led him to publicly announce his side of the story while the events were still unfolding.
And then later:
Because of his methods of highlighting his views, his position within the team became untenable.
He felt that a process was not handled appropriately, and the team decided that he was no longer one of them.
I am grateful that Jonathan went to the community to allow these events to get public scrutiny they deserved. That clearly was not going to happen if it was up to the Manjaro team, which hid the thread, stripped his mod privileges, and even now are saying that he shouldn’t have said anything.
What’s the other side of the story?
This is the post that Jonathan, the former treasurer, made: https://forum.manjaro.org/t/change-of-treasurer-for-manjaro-community-funds/154888
deleted by creator
Nothing? Do you consider misuse of OpenCollective funds and silencing and removing core project members for doing their jobs “nothing”?
deleted by creator
What is your interpretation of the situation?
Where do you get the idea there was a misuse of funds? I quote from the post you linked to yourself:
The inciting incident for the conflict eventually leading to this was a hardware purchase for one of the team members, but the disagreement was not caused because the purchase was inappropriate. Everyone involved was mostly on the same page about how the money should be spent. The actual disagreements were about the process of allocating the funds.
We want to be clear, there has not been any financial misuse of the donation funds. We are committed to ensuring that this will remain so.
You are quoting from one side of the story.
The problem even with this version is that they are doing a bit of a two-step, saying the funds were not technically misused, but they don’t appear to be disputing that the request was handled in a way that didn’t comply with their own procedures. By way of illustration, it’s like if money goes mysteriously missing, but then shows back up in the right place. No technical harm done, but an alarming breakdown in procedure just the same. Maintaining an integrity of procedure and handling concerns in a way that shows you take them serious is critical to raising yourself above suspicion. If they don’t want to follow their own procedures, they should thank their treasurer for raising the issue, work with them to discuss a way to change the procedure, and then change the procedure to one that they won’t ignore.
deleted by creator
Jonathon (everyone seems to get his name wrong) also doesn’t mention the misuse of funds, tho. He’s arguing that this payout wasn’t following their written reimbursement policy. Which is absolutely a fair argument to be had, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not misuse of funds.
deleted by creator
