Woah, looks like some people took those JTRIG slides quite literally.
The problem with (in)justice in open activist communities is
that, even should the facts be clear, those facts affect
private details of life of either contendants or third parties,
which makes it inacceptable to disclose in public.
NGOs solve this by having some leadership figure that takes
some measures in a benevolent dictator manner and if you don't
like the resolution, you just find a different NGO to join.
Some other groups simply do nothing which is also unsatisfac-
tory, since once the strategically oriented people have noted
that harming others will go unpunished, they will start doing
it more frequently and the entire cohesion of the group is
drowned in frustration and paranoia.
The only solution that I find more or less acceptable to this
dilemma is how political parties do it. A previously elected
court of arbitration is entitled to hear all sides of the
dispute, including the intimate things they are not allowed
to disclose, and as they conclude who was right and who may
be to be sanctioned, the rest of the activists are supposed
to shut up the gossip, stop the quick and easy judgements
which are 50% likely to be wrong and trust the court.
Unfortunately even young political parties do not understand
this and have a tendency to do the shitstorm dance, which is
the fastest way to implosion of the political group. A good
example is what happened to Julia Schramm who did everything
right, yet 50% of pirate party members think she did something
wrong.
And the best way to get rid of an important political activist
is to attack them on whatever real or ficticious grounds. The
doubt will persist. Some shit will always stick. A classic
strategy for a political takeover of a group is two-headed:
One is the leadership figure who works hard to get on top of
the de-facto hierarchy while their right-hand wing-person has
the job of throwing themselves at any potential opponent.
Ironically the leader will then find ways to recover their
wing-person, just think of the Kohl/SchÃuble team, so it isn't
even bad for person #2.
In the past six years I've seen some pigs fly and my conclusion
is that for a solid activist group to survive threats of take-
over or Zersetzung it takes a solid architecture of separation
of powers and a solid discipline to trust the justice system
rather than your own guaranteed-to-be-incomplete view of the
situation.
I have no idea if my scenario has anything to do with the
case at hand since I am disconnected from it, that's why
I thought I may share some things learned from previous
activism in a generic philosophical way.
If you want to solve this dispute in a fair and reasonable
way for all, "elect" three unrelated people to be the jury,
have all affected persons tell their story to them in
person, Tox or PGP - then express a verdict and respect it.
Public KKK-style trial is certainly not the appropriate way.
In fact it is quite disgusting.