The article clearly has gaps simply by not being an hour long read on the Atlantic, one obvious gap is that it doesn't seem to have a statement from the person removed after they were removed.

> one obvious gap is that it doesn't seem to have a statement from the person removed after they were removed.

I think the article is written by the person that was removed. It is lacking any statement of the standard foundation who removed him. No such statement exists, even on the internal committee mailing list it is just an "fyi, that person is no longer on the committee" without any reasons.

I can piece something together from his previous behavior on the committee mailing list, but that information is not public and I'm not at liberty to share.

That is entirely possible. We simply lack corroborating sources at the moment so we can't jump to any sort of conclusion.

As far as I am concerned this whole thing might not have happened until I see another couple of sources.