The fundamental difference here is that this isn't a court of law deciding justice, it's a private organization deciding who is allowed to participate and under what grounds someone should be barred from the same. Transparency in this case extends to making it known that someone is banned from formal participation, who made this decision, and under what grounds the decision was made. We have that in this case; there was a CoC violation, potentially of a sensitive nature, and discretion is therefore warranted.

Redefining transparency to a perfunctory level does nothing but reinforce the idea that it is a star chamber.

"Star chamber" is a fabulous term that would seem to describe the situation quite well. Thanks, added to my internal dictionary!

What reason do we have to trust that it isn't a arbitrary decision concerning petty clashes of personality? We are talking about the organization that hired as its head a literal criminal scam artist.

That like saying that some software that a company throws over the wall every so often is free software. It may be in the literal sense but it misses the point.

Transparency isn't simply knowing that a thing happened. Transparency is knowing why it happened, what steps were taken.

Is this guy a rapist? Transparency means he won't get employed at a women's refuge? Did the foundation make a mistake? Transparency can hold them accountable and make sure the correct fix is made.

And at the risk of sounding like Richard Stallman. Since when did we start treating the gnome foundation as just a 'private organisation'? If anyone knows about the benefits of open collaboration and sharing, it should be them.

Saying anyone was removed "no-questions-asked" is not correct. The board asked many questions over the course of its investigation into the matter. And they just today held an annual general meeting of the entire foundation at which pubic comment or questions were accepted.