The two month ban of James raises serious questions about Sangoma’s approach to managing criticism within the FreePBX community. Having worked closely with both FreePBX and Asterisk, I’ve seen firsthand how essential it is for open-source projects to foster communities that welcome—even encourage—challenging viewpoints. I have been there, done that, and still have the trade show tshirts…Open-source thrives when contributors, shareholders, and users can raise issues without fear of heavy-handed responses. And to be fair, if you review my post here, I’m certain you can probably dig up a few heavy handed responses, I can be that guy too. However as once being the person responsible for the community as well as monetization of the platform itself I speak from some direct experience.
When a long-time community member and Sangoma shareholder like James voices concerns, the best response isn’t to silence but to engage openly. According to the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Discourse’s moderation guidelines, handling dissent constructively is key to healthy community management. Here’s what a more open and constructive approach could look like:
-
Address Financial Priorities Directly: Instead of banning critics, Sangoma could offer transparency about executive compensation, community support, recent staff lay offs and how resources are allocated to FreePBX. Addressing these financial concerns openly would reassure contributors and shareholders, showing that Sangoma values both transparency and trust. In a previous life I was on that executive team, and can vouch for the amount of work it was to have 16 straight quarters of growth. FreePBX may not be as large of a percentage of the revenue pie as it once was, and priorities shifted, but those investing in the ecosystem should have a clearly communicated path for the project, something that I would assume fall under @penguinpbx’s advocacy roles, or maybe fall under @mwhite who assumed part of my prior role after I departed Sangoma five years ago.
-
Engage in Dialogue, Not Censorship: Discourse’s guidelines advise moderators to engage with active users gradually, beginning with private discussions and addressing concerns with clarity before taking more severe action. Rather than reacting emotionally to criticism—even if it feels personal—moderators are encouraged to see dissent as an opportunity for dialogue and understanding. Here, the private conversation with James might have defused the situation without the need for a public suspension, but in the same breath, you get hope to see you at Astricon and bygones be bygones and, bty you are banned, Just because someone’s feelings might get hurt doesn’t mean it’s time for the “nuclear option.” Effective moderation builds understanding and respect, even in challenging discussions.
-
Demonstrate Tangible Commitment to FreePBX: Sangoma could highlight ongoing efforts to support FreePBX—such as GitHub contributions, development roadmaps, and specific investments in open-source initiatives. Discourse’s moderation philosophy also recommends that when action is taken, it should be clearly explained to the community. Being transparent about community support efforts and explaining decisions strengthens credibility and shows Sangoma’s commitment to FreePBX’s future. To many the code of conduct references seem like a stretch. If the reason for a ban has to be explained in that detail it probably shouldn’t have happened. I banned plenty of users here during my tenure, and every time it would be apparently clear as to why the ban happened.
-
Foster Constructive Criticism: Both FSF and Discourse guidelines emphasize that dissenting voices often bring valuable insights. Instead of treating criticism as disruptive, moderators are encouraged to welcome it as a way to build a stronger, more inclusive community. Inviting critical perspectives demonstrates Sangoma’s commitment to collaboration and openness, core principles of the open-source ethos. Even when I put in my sales hat, upset customers are an opportunity to improve, either your product or performance.
In open-source communities, trust is built on transparency, respectful engagement, and collaboration. Moderation shouldn’t be used to defend a corporate image—it should foster an environment where every voice can contribute. Sangoma has a real opportunity here to reaffirm its commitment to FreePBX by inviting open dialogue, addressing valid concerns head-on, and embracing constructive criticism. This approach would honor the spirit of open source and strengthen the community’s trust in Sangoma’s stewardship of FreePBX.