As someone who’s just catching up on this conversation now, I find it very hard to gather the information in order to make an informed decision.
It appears that this issue starts with this comment: RetroPGF 3: Voting badge distribution - #22 by Carlosjmelgar, but the trail of posts is extremely long and breaks off into different directions.
I realize the foundation is only playing an administrative roll here, but by saying that “sufficient evidence has been provided” without disclosing that evidence, where does that leave the rest of us as decision makers? The rebuttals by @Carlosjmelgar seem reasonable but I am not even sure where to go to find the other side of the story.
That leaves the options to be either:
a) Trust the foundation’s decision on the evidence and vote to to process the violation, without really understanding if Carlos’ rebuttal sufficiently challenges that evidence.
b) Go against the foundations evidence and vote to reject the suspension using the rebuttals in this thread by Carlos
c) Abstain in order to avoid being pulled into any controversy as a delegate in what appears to be a close call.
Personally, I’d like to see this case postponed until we have the CoC Council set so that those elected representatives can make the decision with all the evidence in front of them.
Edit: I will be voting against with the recommendation that this report is re-submitted once the CoC Council is established and strongly encourage @Carlosjmelgar to avoid any behaviors that could have the perception of breaking community rules going forward.