This is false, [...]
apart from the subjective 'properly announcing', it is indeed false and here's evidence:
- https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253
- https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-against-ai
by the end of the post, it's clear the author already knows that though:
The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled. While I appreciate the info about the ToS change, I wish I’d gotten a banner back when the platform was still deciding whether to go down this road, and I wish it had linked to a discussion thread, or at the very least a poll, so that I could have voiced the concern I have, which is about the freedom of the platform as a whole, rather than about any single category that ended up banned.
but still does not take back the false statements, just proceeds to share feedback to codeberg, in their private blog, on what 'properly announcing' would have looked like to them specifically.
honestly, some decisions just suck, miscommunication is frustrating - i don't mind reading that, the internet can be a place for emotions too. but if one wants to channel those solely into platform criticism, then stick to some basic facts at least. to read "rewrites its terms of service on a whim" is absurd when there was literally a 14d open discussion and poll happening in a channel predefined and communicated by the platform.
ok, in the narrow literal sense of "users can't automatically vote just by signing up" that is true. but it's misleading by omitting the important fact that any user can participate in governance if they desire to do so (which is very different from saying "users have NO way to weigh in").
if sb is interested in taking part on smth, it's fair to expect them to look up how to do that. that's not true only of codeberg, but co-ops, nonprofits, associations, ur local gov and the laws they're passing...
plus, the author is an OSS contributor, critical of corporate ownership. they explored github alternatives with that in mind, AND decided on codeberg. it'd make even more sense that they would look up how governance works, since that was part of why they left github. that is not to say "the author should've known better", but it makes it less of a "how would a user supposed to have known..." kind of case here.
and, finally, even if you're not interested, codeberg encourages participation right through its landing page, for whoever wants to read, above the fold and in 18px font. can't say they're not trying at all lol
no communication is perfect, and the author's feedback on the transparency of the ToS change continues to be valid, even despite all points above. just there was no need to escalate constructive feedback and personal lack of awareness into unfair and biased criticism of the entire platform - bit of an attitude there, i get people saying 'just leave'.