They should at least made a resume of the charges, not necessarily with the full facts, but the real points that led to this, like pointing the paragraphs of the "Guiding Principles" that were in dispute.
I can agree with the non-disclosure decision in relation with the real persons involved, but (if I were an OpenSuse member) I would like to know if the decision was correct in my point of view. If it wasn't then I could decide to not vote for them in the next election.
How can someone tell if it was a subjective (could be something that was bad in some cultures and not in others) or a real transgression (direct crossing of a major guideline)?
I'm not implying nothing in here. I'm sure it was a good decision to reach this point, but they are acting like a military tribunal in relation to transparency.