Recently, Tobias Bernard posted a retrospective of his (and our) experience engaging with the GNOME Foundation regarding the removal of Sonny Piers from our community, followed by a response from Allan Day. I know it's difficult and stressful to talk about; a lot of people just want it to go away. It took a long time to write this.

The details regarding the removal of Sonny Piers will never be publicized, but I respectfully disagree that all discussion of the community impact should happen internally. Regardless of the circumstances at the time, the GNOME Foundation made a decision to publicly remove Sonny Piers from the community and if we are asked to assume good faith, we should be able expect the same good faith when we criticize governance.

# Safety in the Community

The case of Sonny Piers includes GNOME Foundation membership, a seat on the board of directors and employment as a project coordinator. Circumstances these complex do not relate to the Code of Conduct Committee (CoCC) in its typical operation.

The Engagement Team also plays an active role in day-to-day moderation, as well as the community members from diverse backgrounds serving as moderators in the many project channels. Recently a member of the CoCC helped organize a communication channel and new guidelines for moderators, which has already improved coordination and response times across the various platforms.

The GNOME community is a safe place to engage in open source and the matters discussed here should not prevent you from reporting an incident or flagging content for moderation.

CoC Links

• Code of Conduct
• Report an Incident

# Opaque Context

The following is a very incomplete timeline, providing some amount context for my personal perspective.

In July 2024, many of us in the community were shocked to hear that Sonny Piers had been removed as a GNOME Foundation director, stripped of his membership, had all accounts locked and a permanent ban put in place. More unsettling, he was named as the recipient of a Code of Conduct complaint, but obviously without any details regarding the incident.

With such limited information, for many there was little justification to protest the decision itself, except that the degree of disciplinary action implied behaviour extremely out of character for Sonny.

By October, three months had passed and lacking any meaningful resolution, enough concern had grown in parts of the community to have a conversation. It was decided to compose a letter directly to the Board and, after lengthy discussion of the content, those that agreed signed and it was received generally well by the Board.

The resulting meetings were draining for everyone involved, often with visible exertion of good faith from those present. The many constructive results include several amendments to CoCC procedures, more comprehensive and equitable agreements for contractors, and a fair amount of clarification regarding the constraints the Board was under at the time.

By December, I had withdrawn from most social spaces in the community. During the period of engagement with the Board, there were a conspicuous number of public references made to toxic influencers and after a very disappointing comment from a relevant party, I closed my Mastodon account. Aside from compounding the stress of the meetings, I considered I might be compelled to publicly defend Sonny and compromise our efforts with the Board.

In January, Tobias published Re-Decentralizing Development and seeing the reactions include sentiments like "Cult of Sonny" more or less vindicated my decision to withdraw from social spaces. Some clearly assumed there had been no effort to resolve the matter internally and the spectre of a toxic influencer meant attempts to engage publicly were unlikely to be taken in good faith.

# Good Faith

There are legitimate concerns about an effort to undermine the Code of Conduct (CoC), for the sake of meritocracy. In other words, there are those concerned about different rules being applied to those who contribute more substantially or have more social capital. This is not paranoia; it's the state of justice in many of our real-world societies.

The opposing concern is that the CoC has been used as a tool to defend the status quo or enforce minority opinion as policy. Or as Tobias puts it:

[...] we’re now in a situation where large parts of the community do not trust our CoC structure because they feel it can be weaponized as part of internal power struggles.

Code of Conduct reports must be confidential and the decisions of the committee must be unimpeachable; under no circumstance can they become a matter of public opinion.

Unsurprisingly, there are very few situations that justify revealing any participant of a Code of Conduct report. Doing so has resulted in reputational damage such that an uncensored Google search of the name "Sonny Piers" returns pages of tabloid smear and speculation of criminality. Yet in the many months since, there has been no indication that this served the interests of community safety.

Although I acknowledge the community ban has since been relaxed to one year, I would like if we could each appreciate that to be stripped of membership, barred from ever holding a position in the Foundation and permanently banned from all community spaces is to be told, "You are irredeemable". Again, in the time of Sonny's absence, there have been no signs that the safety of the community ever warranted a permanent ban.

The good faith assumption seems to be that these actions were taken to send a message: the Code of Conduct will be enforced, regardless of a person's stature in the community. Unfortunately, if that was the intention, a number in the community have already expressed confusion that this situation received treatment so different from their own.

# Trust and Accountability

I spent a fair amount of time recently deciding whether I would renew my Foundation membership or not. Those in the Foundation working to rectify the breakdown of communication and policy are the reason I decided to stay. However, there are also those in the Foundation who have made me feel an unwelcome bystander to the very public condemnation of a colleague, only be told not to cause a fuss.

I strongly believe the CoCC operated on an unfounded assumption of bad faith: that Sonny Piers is a toxic influence to be immediately and permanently removed from the community. Since July, none of the corroborating signs have surfaced; few have had more contact with Sonny than a short email response, there has been no public appeal to gather signatures, no coup d'état in the Foundation and, with two months left on the community ban, fears of him being exempt from the rules seem moot.

A number of the recent policy improvements were prompted by the findings of the external review commissioned by the Foundation, but I'd like to clarify this was an assessment of whether the Code of Conduct Committee acted within its scope and authority; not a judicial review. The severity of corrective action has not been justified, nor did any review findings or policy changes apply retroactively.

While the Foundation has and will continue to improve, it seems unlikely we will see accountability for the mishandling of a situation that has caused damage to an individual, to the community and trusting relationships. For trust to be restored, we must be assured that Code of Conduct Committee is free from conflicts of interest and is only applied in the interests of community safety.

# Final Thoughts

I don't know what to do about this. I know there are those in the Foundation working very hard to improve the situation and those on the Board aware that they can just ignore criticism until their seat is up for re-election.

The GNOME Foundation is becoming a more important part of the GNOME project every year, but it is still extremely opaque to most of us. If there is a way to educate oneself as a voter I do not know it, and we must accept that has become a serious problem.

We can not have confidence in leaders elected on vague familiarity and then expect accountability from elections separated by two years. And the GNOME Foundation can not build trust in governance by appealing to its own authority.