Post #2330856

2026-02-23 18:17 UTC

@tinx@jit.social @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de I considered this before casting my vote, but we do ask the general assembly for the following and try to include it whenever we need guidance (e.g. opinions on controversial topics): https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md#8-general-assembly For a matter that is (from my perspective) in line with our non-profit's enshrined mission (see: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md#2-purpose-and-tasks) while representing both users and members, I am not sure why it's bad that we, as appointed representatives, did not (at least this time around).

Replies (2)

@n0toose@chaos.social 2026-02-23 18:19

@tinx@jit.social @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de It is also possible to raise hell if you think we're not doing our job properly and, as has happened in the past, if you'd like for Codeberg to stand for something but the "presidium isn't listening", it is possible to put a proposal forward and have everyone vote on it (in a more "direct democracy" kind of way).

Open ##2330857
@tinx@jit.social 2026-02-23 18:43

@n0toose@chaos.social I think this one is not very controversial. However, when I read Codeberg e.V. sign an open letter, in my opinion it could be valuable to inform the members about it before going public. It would at the very least prevent members from being surprised by the action. In more controversial cases, it would give them the opportunity to raise concerns before it goes public. It would also give the statement more power because the members would stand actively behind it. @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de

Open ##2330858