Q: WHY DID YOU MAKE THE SITE?
A: We made the site because we wanted other people to be aware of how Jake behaves. There has been a whisper network for years, but it doesn't reach everyone, and even if it could, open secrets do not protect people. We didn't want anyone to be victimized by Jake just because they hadn't been warned about him. Making a public site is the best way to make sure that everybody is aware of the stories about him.
Q: MAKING A SITE LIKE THIS SEEMS AWFUL. WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY OTHER WAYS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS YOU WERE HAVING?
A: People have tried lots of things, including speaking directly with Jake and asking him to stop. People have talked about his behavior inside the infosec and internet freedom communities for years, and have tried many strategies for making it harder for him to victimize people. People have complained inside the Tor Project and been dismissed (until now, of course). Jake's behavior has been an open secret, in some circles, for years. He has still kept doing the same things.
Q: AFTER JAKE RESIGNED FROM THE TOR PROJECT, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS SITE ANYWAY?
A: When sexual predators are kicked out of one community, they often move on to some other community where they do the same thing. Silence lets them do that. We didn't want him to be able to move to a different community and do the same thing to people there.
But there isn't any formal power structure. The only things "communities" can base decisions on are legal records and social reputation.
If you don't want to be at a conference where someone can be abusive to others, what exactly do you suggest they use to determine who can and can't get in? An extralegal quasi-judicial system that weighs rumors and conjecture to keep undesirables out? And how do you keep that process meaningfully distinct from a conference where a bunch of people pile onto someone for whatever reason to ruin a reputation?
tl;dr: It's not possible to have it both ways.
Maybe many tech communities are capable, and you just don't realize it because they're not having public showdowns.
If the accusations are false, I wouldn't want to be at a conference where a bunch of people would pile onto someone (for whatever reason) to ruin the person's reputation. If accusations are true, I wouldn't want to be at a conference where someone can be that abusive towards others -- for years -- with impunity. Either way, sounds like a bad place to be at.