Much better.

We have a long way to go, and I still want to see licensing addressed (at least acknowledged), and some of this post kinda goes into "you guys are harassing people" territory which seemed a bit like the wrong time and place…

…but, nitpicking aside, this is the response that we hoped for and that should have been given to begin with.

Although it does not in itself undo anything that's happened, I absolutely thank you for it, and hopefully it's the start of improved relations to come.

I have been thinking about writing a reply for days now. I came back to this post multiple times, trying to write down what I feel I have been telling you for too much time now.
I am tired of seeing the same movie being played week after week. And I hope you too are. But I am already getting ahead of myself.

Before I start, first let me thank you for this post. I will be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with this post - and I would have liked it more if a previous "attempt" wasn't made. But I am not here to discuss the last incident. There is plenty of that already and I think that there isn't much more to add to further clarify what was done poorly. At least nothing I can think off now.

I am not even there to argue if the firing was deserved. I don't have access to the actual facts, and sadly an almost perfect work was made so that now there are different contradicting versions of the story. In an odd way, this reminds me of Rashōmon, no offence intended. Either way, I am not in a position to judge.

What I am here for is to ask you to please try to not make me watch this same movie again in 6-8 time units.

I have been on Stack Exchange for... at least 7 years now. And during those years I have seen an exponential increase in the free drama we get every week.
Mind you, it is not like we didn't have our fair share of problems 7 years ago.... it is just that at the time they resonated less. I remember Shog9 getting angry "because some chatrooms are surprised that they don't get to not-be-nice" and I even remember him shutting down some of those rooms... but at the time Stack Exchange seemed to lack a defined structure to handle those "Be Nice" problems. Employees picked their "small" fights to fight and that was it. Or at least that was the impression I got back then.

And then something happened. I am not sure what was the root cause - IMHO all of this was started by the financial problem Stack Exchange was experiencing at the time and the unexpected attention April Twitter post brought on the network: something had to be done to cleanse Stack public image, and it had to be done fast. I am not asking here for you to agree with this interpretation, but what I hope we can agree on is that an unclear point in time some years ago, something moved inside Stack Exchange.
Suddenly, no longer Stack was a mere observer of the "Unwelcome/Not Nice" problems, stepping in only when something really intolerable was done (assuming they actually noticed it, I saw users quit after being harassed multiple time in the chat rooms, with almost no consequence for those responsible). No, now Stack Exchange decided it was time to act. To stop just trying to fixing holes in the hull and instead try to trace a route that didn't cross so many asteroids fields...

It was the start of the "Welcome Wagon".
And mind you, it was a good idea: we needed and still need something to be done for our network to become a better place. But... something clearly got wrong along the road. The change brought fear, endless arguments over trivial things and simple miss understanding and with it a lot of drama and fights. But again, I am not here to try to convince any of you of where I think an error was made.

What I do want to do is bring to your attention a pattern I notice in all this mess. We had an interminable list of incidents in the latest months.... yet every single one follows the same "monster of the week" script like this was a poorly made TV show.

• An incident happens: usually it is either because a) the staff didn't communicate something they were doing, someone noticed it anyways and then posted an angry "You tried to slip the ads under the carpet!!" meta post or b) something bad happened because either the staff handled something without enough care or didn't react well enough to an unpredictable external issue.
• The Meta storm starts, for days the Staff ignores it.
• a poor answer is posted, usually skipping over many questions the community made
• (optional: the answer says that "We learned not to ship on Friday and that next time the process will be better")
• the war still rages, and now the community is split between users that want to be fine with just the answer that was given and people who now are even angrier because they think the answer is just a joke.
• time passes and nothing gets solved until the issue is no longer discussed (often because some chat room mod /owner decides to no longer discuss it in the room and ask others to do the same. Not a solution, yep, but can be understood in order to stop the pain I guess?)
• in a few weeks... return to the first point for the new episode in the Meta show.

Yep, sometimes fate like a wonderful show maker gives us some "unexpected" plot twist... What will happen this time?? Maybe a staff member will make a passive-aggressive threat to a user, telling him that "we could show you a form where you can request account deletion if you like"? Maybe a user will think that it could be funny to pour more fuel on the fire by using leaked e-mail addresses to send other users spam?? Yet the basic story is still the same.

And this happens again.. again... again... every single time wearing out the heart of the involved users like a water drop that consume a mountain over the years. Some users quit and get replaced by new, still "mint-condition" hearts - and the cycle continue.

I think we have a problem there. A big communication problem. This is has turned in a "blue team VS red team" mess - the only thing missing are the stadium hooligans chanting. And based on some messages I saw in the past I am not even sure.

I get everyone is frustrated.
I get your minds and hearts are tired.
I get you are angry.
But this is going nowhere.

I am asking you. All of you. Staff and users alike. Stop.
Stop acting like you hate each other.
Stop hiding stuff from each other.
Talk. And I said talk... screaming over each other like we do now only results in more rage.

And staff, please.... if you really hope to regain the trust you lost over too many small incidents, please...
Start acting faster. Reply faster. Problems won't go away if you ignore them long enough. The fact people stopped talking about an issue does not mean it is solved.
And when you reply, be sure everyone is aligned on your replies. Lately whenever an employee talks I don't know if they are talking for themselves or if their messages have actually been agreed upon before posting... Too many conflicting views to be had, too many contradicting messages to be posted.
Stop resetting character grown at every new episode: this is not a poorly made Carton Network show. I will be blunt: I have lost track of "how many times you learned to not ship on Friday evening": Monica, addresses shared with Amazon to fulfil a swag delivery, ads implementation, poorly tested April fools... the list is too long now.
Stop hand-waving valid concerns users express on the meta like they don't know what they are talking about. I agree that you get a lot of "just because" hate comments, but you should also agree that probably not everyone out there on a development-related tech site is claiming to be worried by fingerprinting ads just because they are making up things to make you look evil. Again, you need to talk. Talk inside the company and talk outside the company. I had the - hopefully wrong - impression that even inside the company there is no agreement on how things are being carried out. It is worrying for us when your own employees comment that they don't like where the ship is going.

Wonder what? There is only one ship here, and if it sinks all of us will. Users need the company if they want to have a site to post on. And the company kinda needs someone to actually post content.

......
Or you know, we may just stop pretending a community even exist. We can go on separate roads and try to pursue our own, personal goals. But if we have to come to that, please just shut down this parody of "community" Meta has become. I am bored to watch the same episode again and again.

Please, give me a plot twist and stop this painful Groundhog Cycle every day on Meta has become.

Until Monica is reinstated as a moderator, you clear her name in a follow-up article with The Register, and you take back the disastrous changes to the CoC and try again by asking for feedback from the community before making official changes, I can only conclude that your apology is hollow and insincere.

I've really struggled with how or whether to respond to this. I think others have already expressed my feelings in one way or another, but I fear that maybe SE will miss the message if they don't hear it from enough people.

For background, I'm a pretty active user; nearly 10 year veteran; top 2% on SO; I participate on Meta; vote in mod elections; attend SE events; have SO stickers on my computer; and fill out those developer surveys. I'm not a mod. The closest I came was considering running once. I'm just a slightly above average regular user who cares about this site, sometimes maybe more than I should.

We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

First, you need a better and more public apology for Monica. I'm glad that you finally figured out that this process should have been private from the beginning, but that ship has sailed. You dragged a moderator's name and reputation through the mud... you gave up the luxury of privacy. I can understand why SE corporate would really like to hide this now that it's blown up, but you can't just wish this away from public view, especially not under the guise of suddenly caring about Monica's privacy.

You need to apologize to Monica, by name, for failing to follow a fair process and jumping to judgment too quickly, and you need to put it out as a press release. Then, and only then, can you move forward with private conversations. At the very least, let Monica decide whether she wants a public apology. I bet that she'll be more gracious than you have been.

Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify.

Moral zealotry leads to collateral damage, always. Your intentions were honorable, but I see nothing in this apology that recognizes that the root issue here was an attempt to micro-manage a very diverse community under the pretentious and patronizing notion that a group of people needed your protection.

It's commendable to encourage honest and open dialogue, to give everyone a voice and to draw boundaries around acceptable forms of communication. But you simply cannot force everyone to speak with the same voice. Human dialogue is too complicated, diverse and nuanced to be neatly categorized by some rather ham-fisted guidelines. You have to be careful with those boundaries; the narrower you make them, the more they start to look like you and your culture and no one else's, and that creates division. You drove a wedge in our community where one was not needed.

I know we have lost the trust of many of you, and that trust must be re-earned over time by more than just words.

This, I think, is the truest thing you said. It's taken me a couple days to realize it, too. Because I really want to trust you, and it really hurts that I no longer do. I want this apology to be sufficient, but I don't really trust your sense of discernment or propriety going forward.

In short, I'm going to take a 3 month break from Stack Exchange in protest.

I'm just one developer and I rarely represent the majority. But I just want you to know that I'm logging out for the first time in almost 10 years, and I want you to know why.

I really hope that corporate reinstates Monica and issues the public apology she is still owed.

I really want SE and SO to succeed and include everyone who is willing to work in a diverse community. I hope the new CoC can be crafted without forcing divisions between people with amicable aims, who are willing to reasonably compromise, who can respectfully and even lovingly agree to disagree, even if that's not always comfortable.

I hope that the SE I log back into in 3-6 months is a better version than the one I've seen this past week.

3 months later.

Today I logged in for the first time in 3 months, and I'm disappointed. I had hoped that it would not require legal action for Monica to get a basic apology, but that's exactly what it took. Now both Monica and SE are under a gag agreement, so it is safe to assume that there will be no further updates and thus no real resolution for the community. Monica has still not been reinstated.

I missed my 10th anniversary. It's not a big deal, but it has caused me to reflect.

I've always been a stickler for the rules because I believed that they were crafted and policed by the community itself (at least the active part of it) and that they were what united us and focused our efforts. In an environment where nearly anything is possible, this shared vision was needed to prevent the community from tearing itself apart. But some very fundamental changes have taken place. Slowly at first, but now in much more tangible ways, requiring a change in my approach to this site.

My 10th Anniversary Resolutions

It's a new decade for me, in more than one sense, and I have made some new resolutions:

• I will focus on fellow users going forward. I will not rage quit, nor will I make a fuss about the status quo on meta. Instead, I will do my best to be a good neighbor and an honest citizen in this community.

  I will answer questions that I feel are interesting. I will ask questions that I feel are useful. I will leave constructive and helpful comments.

  I will do my best to avoid trouble, but I'm not going to go out of my way to keep up-to-date on the "rules" either.

  I will not worry about what a corporation thinks of my behavior, which is how I will think of Stack Overflow Inc from now on. I'll do what I think is right and, so long as the corporation doesn't kick me out, I'll continue contributing content.

• As the corporation has demonstrated that it has no real loyalty to the community and especially the community-elected leadership, I will no longer extend my loyalty to it.

  I will suspend most moderation activities for the foreseeable future, including the review queue, to which I contributed infrequently anyway; and close votes, down voting and flags which, combined, I cast frequently.

  As the corporation has taken direct ownership of the rules without regard for the community's input, and as it has taken on the mantle of summarily casting judgment on volunteers without regard for pre-existing procedures or precedent, it only makes sense that the rule-enforcement tasks now also belong to the corporation. I will no longer volunteer for what should be, under these new circumstances, a paid position. I'm sure that others will step up as mods, diamond or otherwise. Hopefully the corporation will pay them like employees since it has certainly started treating them as such.

I think, too, that this will be my last contribution to Meta. I have enjoyed posting here and on the SO meta and I hope some of my contributions have been helpful. To those who plan to continue fighting for a voice, I wish you well. I do hope that at some point the corporation might have a change of heart, but I will not hold my breath.

First of all...

Thank you.

But...

• ...how did it get this bad in the first place?
• ...why wasn't the new CoC proposal floated in front of the community, and placed in the hands of the people of Stack Exchange to decide whether to put it in place, and in what form?
• ...what action, if any, is going to be taken (has been taken?) against those who ran Monica out of Modville on a figurative rail, publicly spat on her good name, and quite possibly endangered her in real life (looking at you, Sara Chipps)?
• ...when are the staff going to stop dictating policy from on high, rather than acting only on well-supported proposals from the community (mandatory arbitration, forced [and illegal] relicencing, etc., etc., etc.)?
• ...how and when are we going to change things so that the staff answer to, and serve, the community, rather than lording it over them from on high? (At the very least, having the staff members be elected by the community, rather than chosen by the great disembodied hand, would be a necessary first step.)

This is a very good first step, and drastically better than the previous doubling down on the mistakes by SE. But the important part are the actions that follow in the future, as this apology acknowledges. This post stopped the situation that was quickly spinning out of control, but it doesn't solve anything unless followed by the right actions.

For me, the proposed actions are a necessary step in order to fix this mess, but they're not sufficient by itself. One aspect that creates significant uncertainty and doubt for me is that even now I don't understand how we arrived at this point. I don't understand why SE behaved in this way, and I especially don't understand the mysterious source of urgency. Without understanding this, I don't know how SE could convince me that this won't happen again.

It wasn't a single bad decision, SE doubled down on their mistakes several times. It wasn't a simple mistake, it looks from the outside like a very deliberate decision. And it's impossible to distinguish right now whether SE actually changed their stance, or just gave into the increasing public pressure.

I'm not saying it's impossible for SE to rebuild the trust, but it will be difficult and it will take much more than this apology.

Deeds not Words

Still, first of all: Thank you for the apology.

That said: Quite a lot of bad things accumulated to get the community to the boiling point. You adressed only but a few of them. What about the animated ads? What about the fingerprinting? What about the unilateral, retroactive (and probably not legal) licensing changes? Will you attempt to rectify those issues or will you sit back, hoping that the announced changes will be enough to "placate the natives" only to resume your previous course once things have calmed down.

Words are cheap, and while the apology is an important first step I (personally) will need to wait and see if more than token gestures will follow.

This apology is more or less the apology made by Sara Chipps but with more details on the situation. It reads likes Stack Exchange whispering sweet nothings into our ears – yes, it acknowledges wrongdoing on the part of David Fullerton and the decisions he had made but the only remedies that are offered are "We'll do better in the future" if the community was really the:

We recognize that the community is the heartbeat of Stack Overflow

Then why is there a problem in including the community's input the direction the company goes, and allowing us to set our own standards (I know it's a big request to allow the community to set community standards)?

Stack Exchange shouldn't call the community its "heartbeat" because the company has repeatedly shown us that they could live without us.

This post is nicely worded but untimely, it undercuts one of the apologies that is being made.

we also acted at a time which coincided with a Jewish holiday which she and many other members of our community observe

Understandably, we have all been waiting for an apology (for a while), but this apology coincides with a Jewish holiday that Monica and many other members of our community observe, and you shouldn't apologize for doing the action previously while continuing the action in the apology.

Why should "Going forward, ... we gather input and feedback" be trusted:

Going forward, we will be working with the community to overhaul how we gather input and feedback from our moderators and members of the community to make sure that your voices are heard and involved in the process

The community has been giving its input and feedback for the past couple weeks and there's been no action, just empty promises that we've heard before when Stack Exchange had made missteps "we'll do better in the future".

The apology reads lovely, great job on writing it, although, it says nothing but I'm sure you'll do better in the future.

The irony is that a large amount of the user base isn't upset and don't object to using someone else's pronouns if asked to, users are upset because Stack Exchange has continuously disrespected the active user base in hopes of new users. Displaying the community's anger as anger against LGBTQ+ individuals instead of we'll all anger at the ways the company disrespects its user base is deceptive (this isn't to discredit the problems the LGBTQ+ community faces).

What worries me the most here is the issue of agency. SE is nothing without its users: all of its value is created by its community; and yet, there is this for-profit company that has the legal right to call all the shots, and which has now demonstrated it is quite capable of making major mistakes. Anything we, as a community, create, might at any moment be re-cast into some new context that we find utterly unacceptable. Is it really a good idea for us to work for you for free?

I'm one of the users who felt personally hurt and betrayed by the company's recent actions. I have suspended moderation activities for a few days now, and today I was just about convinced that I could no longer act as a moderator in good conscience. I no longer wanted to be associated with SE, the company. You just changed my mind.

This is exactly what I had been hoping to see: a message written by one group of humans earnestly trying to communicate with another. This isn't the impersonal corporatespeak we've received in the past. This is an actual apology. You admit you dropped the ball and you are promising to do better. You are describing concrete actions you plan to take in the future. I do believe you mean this and I honestly hope you will succeed.

In any case, I wanted to thank you for posting this. It has restored at least some of my faith in SE as a company and lets me continue to believe that the values this place was built on are still alive in the heart of SE.

So thank you. For what it's worth, you have made me, at least, feel better than I have in almost two weeks.

THANK YOU!

Update

Sadly, the days go by and you still haven't issued any sort of retraction or public apology for dragging the name of one of your users through the mud and making her a target. I'm still happy you at least issued a human apology, but there's a lot more work to do.

Thank you. This is great to see, if a bit late.

I had taken the liberty to publish my own proposal for a turnaround plan (here), proposing five + one actions (see quote below).

I am delighted to see that you committed to act on five of these six actions. I would suggest that action 1 is no less important, both to Monica herself as well as to other moderators. Knowing you won't throw a moderator under the bus publicly is key to protect them and regain their trust.

Thanks again and we're looking forward to a new way of interacting between SO, its moderators and users.

1. retracting libelous public statements that were made in the press if the internal review confirms they do not match the reality
2. publishing for discussion and quickly implementing a process to remove a moderator (why not start from the existing process?)
3. publishing for discussion and quickly implementing a process to reinstate a moderator (and could start from Isaac Moses's proposal)
4. running "Monica's case" through the new moderator reinstatement process and being as transparent as possible, even if in a sanitized way to protect individual privacy
5. publishing the proposed new Code of Conduct for feedback and comments before implementation

The underlying and fundamental issues behind this series of mistakes need to be understood and addressed. This will likely imply changes in syndicating proposals ahead of time, behavior changes from some SO employees and possibly some personnel changes. This review should be announced now, carried out quickly and its results announced transparently.

This is the first communication I've seen from any of the Stack Exchange employees that seems sincere and heartfelt. (If I can use those two words next to each other without being too redundant.)

To me, it's the first sign that things can start to move in a positive direction rather than a negative one. I just hope that the spirit of this communication continues, and that the actions that take place in the coming weeks mirror the sentiment.

I only wish this kind of message could have been posted sooner. But, sooner or later, I'm glad to see it finally being conveyed at all.

As a very "casual" user of a variety of Stack Exchange sites, this is the first I'm hearing of this situation and the events surrounding it. I do not want or intend to be dismissive of the severity of this situation, nor is this a "naysaying" post in opposition to the apology given, but I consider this a pivotal moment for Stack Overflow as a company. I've tried to do a bit of research to get up to speed on the topic of conversation and, while I'm certain there's much more to the story than I've personally read (there always is), this apology seems to be a good first step in the direction of healing what has apparently and unfortunately been a very divisive and hurtful series of events.

To be clear, I:

• do not know the moderator in question personally, professionally, or even casually through any interactions on the Stack Exchange network,
• am not myself a moderator, Community Manager, or related to Stack Overflow in any meaningful way other than being a question asker and sometimes answerer on various sites in the Stack Exchange network,
• am not myself a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and therefore do not personally feel directly affected by the proposed changes to the Code of Conduct.

So, you may be thinking, "you really don't need to interject your opinion here... this doesn't affect you."

The truth of the matter is, though, that it does affect me, as it affects all users and moderators of any of the sites in the Stack Exchange network, as well as employees of the company that owns them. The way that Stack Overflow ultimately handles this situation will speak volumes about its "character" and that of the people who own and operate the company itself. A company that stands behind its people and attempts to work out a reasonable solution in the face of adversity will do its best to ensure a high-quality experience for its clients/consumers/customers. They know and appreciate the value of the individual.

On the other hand, a company that treats its employees and/or volunteers with disrespect will do the same or worse to its clients/consumers/customers. Such a company's only true motivation is its profit/loss statement and the metrics that some number-cruncher has determined are appropriate. When an "incident" occurs with one of the company's employees (or volunteers, or any other such entity that represents it), it's much more likely that those "in charge" will overreact to any perceived or assumed wrongdoing with a minimal amount of investigation into the matter in their own efforts to minimize the impact (of course, this tactic frequently backfires).

Unfortunately, this last bit is what appears to have happened in this case. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a very simplified description of the way I understand the situation: Allegations were raised against a moderator of some fairly egregious - and reportedly repeated - violations of the Code of Conduct. The "higher-ups" at Stack Overflow, by their own admission, took action - even to the point of bypassing their own internal procedures - without taking the time to fully investigate the allegations and research the details.

In the absence of a clear process for handling this kind of situation, we should have taken inspiration from our existing Moderator Action Review Process. We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing so skipped several critical parts of the process.

-David Fullerton (from the OP)

At this point, whether or not the moderator in question did, in fact, violate the CoC is almost a secondary concern (I do not personally have an opinion on this matter as I'm not well-enough informed). The larger concern is why an apparently well-respected member and moderator of the Stack Exchange community was treated with such seeming disrespect and disdain by official representative(s) for the company. Bypassing and ignoring established protocols and procedures - even ones that don't exactly fit the specific situation - sets a dangerous precedent for future interactions with not only the moderation team and company employees, but also for the community as a whole.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm absolutely not trying to minimize the personal effects these incidents have had on the moderator in question. Based on my reading of what has occurred, the outcome is truly disturbing on a number of levels. However, I also know that there's very little that I can do personally in the way of "helping" aside from being a part of the discussion and, if necessary, "boycotting" Stack Overflow. I'm simply attempting to look at the entirety of the situation from as dispassionate a viewpoint as possible.

I certainly do not have any answers here and I truly hope that the sentiments expressed in Mr. Fullerton's apology are, in fact, as sincere as they sound. I do appreciate the clearly outlined apology which includes actual action steps that I can only assume are currently in progress. The Stack Exchange network - and the Stack Overflow site in particular - has been an invaluable resource to me over the years for which I am grateful. However, this incident has significantly diminished my overall opinion of the company and damaged the trust I once afforded it and the people behind it. In the end, the way in which this situation is handled going forward will make or break the company's reputation in the minds of a great many people. I sincerely hope that, when all is said and done, the statement on the company's about page will remain true:

Stack Overflow is the largest, most trusted online community for anyone that codes to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

About - Stack Overflow (emphasis mine)

I’m responsible for that, and I’m sorry. We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

I certainly hope along with an apology, Monica will be offered her Mod status again without having to go through any process.

But I do hope you realize that this latest incident was just that. This action against the moderators just set off a lava flow underneath the volcanic pile. That pile includes the arbitration arrangements, the license 'change', the constant ignoring of feature requests/discussions (pressure that's been building up for years). Unless Stack Overflow begins to handle these issues in a responsible manner, it's just another eruption waiting to happen. I think you need to go back and revisit these topics. Try fixing these things at a fundamental level before letting things just build up yet again.

I appreciate some effort on your part. However, I myself will reserve all caution until I see those kind of changes happening.

This should be signed by the CEO.

While this is an interesting development, I cannot help be skeptical about a post about a serious crisis that is not from the CEO.

With all due respect to David Fullerton, you are the CTO and while you certainly have a responsibility to deal with this issue, a statement from the CEO, clear and unequivocal, stating that the company screwed up, regrets it and will make it right would be a lot simpler and less open to more ambiguity that a statement about intentions and futures with no actual commitment to immediate action. The company was intending to modify the CoC anyway (asking and taking advice would be better that forcing, of course), so that really doesn't count.

This is not a time for a CEO to try and keep their hands clean, but a time for them to show leadership. There is no evidence that this is happening. Caesar was not respected by his soldiers for staying out of the battle, but for appearing right in the middle of the fighting when it reached a crisis, leading from the front, not the back.

The suspicion is that, by not personally engaging, the CEO is demonstrating that they do not care about the community and see it as something they need have no contact with. This, I feel, is a key issue - engagement by the company with the community must be committed to at all levels.

EDIT 1

As "Mad Scientist" (love that name - envy :-) ) points out the CEO joined mid-debacle. Nonetheless, the current CEO does, IMO, need to touch base with the members (who write the material the site lives on - we're suppliers!) to confirm the direction is really coming from the top, not, as it were, from the middle.

I am, BTW, not of the personal belief that management heads are the heads that need to go. AFAIK, these people have served the site and community well to date (as did Monica). I want the root cause addressed, not those in the system that were (IMO) manipulated to achieve a political goals of a small number of individuals. It's certainly a sensitive issue that kicked this off, but how in the name of all sanity did that get escalated to removing someone who has served us so well? I do not believe in accidents without causes is the way I would would sum it up, and I think out of control political agendas are the cause - something that should never be a part of SE, but were put ahead of the health of the community this time.

No group were responsible, but I think a small number of selfish individuals were. That's my impression from the evidence and my gut instinct from my life experience.

Some small number of people created this trouble for their own purposes and hurt the community. I'm a simple person who likes simple solutions: those people are a cancer and need to go. Others will differ in opinion and I respect your viewpoints.

Monica Cellio - victimized and deserves justice.

As with most people I am appalled (as should the company's lawyers be) by the disgusting public attacks on Monica Cellio. To my mind the CEO must address this issue directly and promptly.

It is my feeling, and I doubt I am alone in this, that those who drove this action to oust Monica Cellio for their own political ends should be dealt with in kind. Saying "sorry" without punishing the guilty is saying "sorry we were caught". Only if the perpetrators of this are dealt with will the company be making a statement that it actually means its words.

Monica's reinstatement should be automatic, as should a public apology in the same press you attacked her in. Why delay this?

Heads, in short, should roll. I incline, after reading as much as I can about the development of Monica's removal, that there exists a clique within the company and community who drove this action for political reasons of their own. I hope it is a small clique. Those are the heads that need to do the rolling, IMO.

I'm not sure if Monica would want heads to roll, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure I am expressing a view held by many.

I am not asking for the removal of David Fullerton, Sara Chipps or Tim Post. I do not have enough information to make a call on who, precisely, drove this car off the road, but someone did. I am concerned there is an issue with a small minority of individuals who created and pushed this issue, not with the people they pushed (who probably should have known better, but I'm not perfect either).

" ... we made a series of mistakes ... "

Other than "should not have done this on a Friday" what do you think the mistakes were/are?

Enumerate what you consider the mistakes, because, Mistakes were made, I approved them, my bad ... is not an apology.

If you think he listed the mistakes, he did not. He listed the side effects of the mistakes. He lists We regret ... non-apologies!

we hurt ... is not really the mistake, it is the consequences or side effect of the mistake. The fact that he will not even say something like We unfairly removed Monica's moderation status and lied about why tells you this is a non-apology.

It is the exact opposite of an apology, putting the word apology in the title does not make it one.

That’s enough words for the moment,

Now let me see some action!

While you’re handing out the compliments,

You should also make things happen.

Since Poetry gave the gift of creation,

Take your orders then from Poetry.

You know what’s wanted here,

We need strong [commitment] to appear:

So brew me a [plan] right away!

Tomorrow won’t do what’s undone today,

We shouldn’t waste a minute, so

Decide what’s possible, and just

Grasp it firmly like a hoe,

Make sure that you let nothing go,

And work it about, because you must.

– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Part I: Prelude, lns. 214–230 (1808).

Thank you.

This reads like you actually thought about what you wanted to say before posting.

Trust needs to be rebuild and you could start with the following:

Going forward, we will be working with the community to overhaul how we gather input and feedback from our moderators and members of the community to make sure that your voices are heard and involved in the process, not just informed after decisions have been made.

Great.

• On Monday, October 7, we’ll be sharing a second draft of an update to our Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback
• On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced publicly

Ah... it seems I missed the part where the members of the community give their feedback to the proposed changes? We did it last time so this not only an oversight this time, it's actually a step back from what we had. Why do you always make it so hard for yourselves?

We don't want to dictate policy, this is your site, you are legally responsible, you decide. But you would have so much more support if you hear people out and find a compromise instead of forcing changes down their throat.

I appreciate this statement. I appreciate that you are owning the mistakes that SE staff have made and taking responsibility for them (whether you personally were involved or not).

The harm that folks who use pronouns different from those assigned to them at birth experienced is real and I applaud SE for working towards the goal of making sure that gender identity is not a barrier to participating here.

The harm that many in the Lavender aka queer aka LGBTQ (etc.) community experienced because of SE's actions is also real. Not everyone is attuned to see it and not every space on here had those comments. But it happened.

As a queer community member who is not trans or nonbinary, I did feel personally attacked in the aftermath of this. (Almost) no one said anything personal to me, but I felt it all the same. It was enough to send me into panic attacks and needing a leave of absence from my moderator position. The hate is real.

So thank you for acknowledging this backlash and working to fix it.

I ask here for two things:

1. Reinstate Monica to all of her former moderator positions right away. Then, talk with her privately and work out whatever you feel is necessary to work out and make further changes if required later.
2. Extend the discussion period for the CoC changes. We're about to go into Yom Kippur, the holiest and most time and energy intensive day of the year (sunset Oct 8th through twilight Oct 9th, with time needed on either side). I think you made the right decision to post this now, vs. waiting until Thursday, but the timing of the discussion means a lot of us can not participate much. These changes are important; let everyone have a chance to weigh in. Even those without a holiday may not log in every day.

Stack Exchange means a lot to me and I've been heartbroken over the reality that I might lose this community. I've only been here a year, but I've put a lot of time and energy into it and am now a moderator. I care deeply about the sites I'm involved in and want nothing more than to return to them and to my fellow users. Having Monica as my co-moderator on Writing and a moderator on other sites makes Stack Exchange a better place.

Being 'inclusive' should not be used to EXCLUDE others' rights! Nevertheless, SE, SO, etc should be used to share ideas and NOT a political platform.

I am 53 years old and have seen it all... I am going to guess that SE/SO has a new 'investor'.

I believe there should be a full disclosure (disclaimer) of who is funding SO/SE,etc, if at all. If there is one already please point me in the right direction.

This is a very good letter and appears to be sincere. It's appreciated.

Much is still unknown, so I will wait to see results, but just an observation: the letter seems like SE may be doubling down on some significant issues that were simmering prior to recent events, and which fed the chaos.

• The network and its reputation were built on quality posts. Certainly, we want new posters to feel welcome to the extent possible. But making everyone feel welcome has been done at the expense of quality. The ratio of good content to noise has degraded, heading in a direction where finding good content here will become too inefficient to support the network's reputation. This has also led to losing and burning out experienced users and subject matter experts, reducing the network's ability to build quality content. Making people feel welcome can't be the primary goal, as seems to be implied in the letter. The issue of returning to a quality and meritocracy focus is one that's been raised for years that still seems to be taking a back seat to the feel-good objective.

• All users need to be treated with respect, and the new CoC includes specific focus on one group of users who have expressed that there is a problem getting that respect here. The letter describes an intention to implement the new CoC after getting some feedback. Nobody is against including language in the CoC to better address such issues. But what was described some weeks ago had serious implementation issues that offered protection to one group at the cost of offense, hostility, even violation of religious principles, for other groups. There is even a question about whether any form of personal matter should have a place in the purely technical sites. I hope that the corporate objective for the new CoC is to ensure that it is something everyone can endorse.

• In addition, the letter talks about the process and the style by which Monica was fired, but it doesn't address the reason, which leaves moderators vulnerable. Nobody seems to be aware of any action by Monica that should have triggered any consideration of her being fired in the first place. That is something that needs to be honestly addressed, at least with the moderators.

It isn't my intention to downplay the importance of any issues or to rain on the parade. Understandably, everything can't be fixed at once. My concern is that the fixes may enshrine long-standing issues, pushing away more of the network's talent. I hope I'm concerned about nothing.

Thankyou David for this genuine apology. It was sorely needed.
[Update 23 Oct 2019: This "apology" turns out to be a well-worded PR stunt: there's no admission of error in removing Monica, the second blockquote below has not been honoured, and Monica has not been reinstated. I withdraw my praise, and I've downvoted your post.]

And thankyou to all the diamond mods and other users who took a principled and caring stand, without which this apology would not have appeared.

Third, we hurt the moderators and members of our communities. Community moderation is the backbone of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange, and our moderators are a vital part of us creating a more welcoming and inclusive place.

This acknowledgement is, appropriately, listed third in order of importance, but I'm glad it's been said. Our diamond mods certainly do the heavy lifting, but I'm one of the thousands of regular non-diamond users who contribute our time and effort in helping keep SE running. Flagging spam, abuse and CoC violations; voting on review queues to close bad questions, delete non-answers, approve suggested edits, and reopen worthwhile questions; editing posts to improve them; adding comments to provide useful guidance (and a positive welcoming message) to new contributors; putting thought into site management and improvement, via site meta; and doing many more generally unnoticed little things that keep our favourite sites humming along.

I have been "on strike" since last week, withdrawing from all the community moderation tasks I would normally do on the four sites I'm most active on. I'm on strike both as the best statement of support that I could give to Monica and to the mods who had resigned or taken other action, and as a response to my own feelings of discouragement and vicarious abuse as a SE volunteer.

Your apology is a significant first step towards rebuilding my trust, but I need more than words: owning your mistakes is necessary but not sufficient. There are important actions you need to take, some of which I expect to happen urgently - your direct communication with Monica being one.

I'm hoping these actions over the next few weeks will be enough to demonstrate to people like me that there really is a genuine intention by the company to improve its game and to treat our community with real respect. I am, cautiously, looking forward to ending my strike action and returning to "normal duties" in community moderation. But you need to entice me back, and if you don't do so quickly and decisively, there's a real risk that I won't come back at all.

It's important for you to know this, not because I'm a key user, but because there are dozens - perhaps hundreds - of other users like me: passionate about our SE community, deeply disillusioned with the company, and on the verge of walking away.

Going forward, we will be working with the community to overhaul how we gather input and feedback from our moderators and members of the community to make sure that your voices are heard and involved in the process, not just informed after decisions have been made.

A key test will be the new CoC. Will you involve us ordinary users in reviewing the draft, or will you simply inform us of the new rules we must abide by "after decisions have been made"?

I desperately hope we can take you at your word. [Update 23 Oct 2019: it turns out that David's words were as empty as the company's ethics. The new CoC was imposed on us with no opportunity for broad community input, the farcical implementation has further alienated the SO/SE community and, most ironic and concerning of all, the process has created even greater difficulties for many of the diverse users the new CoC was supposed to protect.]

First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them.

No, First of all apologize to Monica. You harmed her first - apologize to her first. Don't pretend to "care" about the LGBT community and whistle to them first, showing "look how woke I am - I apologized first to you, and only then to Monica." No. Apologize to Monica first. Then to any others you have harmed.

It's easy to apologize to a community - there's no personal responsibility involved. Apologizing to a specific person is harder.

This entire post can be paraphrased as Mistakes were made, I approved them, my bad ... which is a non-apology.

Unless you specifically list what you think was done wrong and actually take action to re-mediate those wrongs and explain how they will be avoided in the future this is just more gas lighting marketing speak get back to the salt mines nothing to see here non-apology.

I just got an email from Gitlab and thought it is pretty much a excellent PR template for the situation SE has ended up in. Their response:

• is timely (reversal - 1 day, response - 7 days),
• the tone is much more respectful,
• the actions (particularly "we reversed course the next day" and encouraging collaboration) far more clearly describe both the thinking, reflection, and new plan to include more people in the decision, and
• communicates directly with the user base, rather than waiting for them to find our/back down/disappear.

I have removed context so you can fill it in in your head. :-)

This is probably copyrighted but the email was not marked as private or confidential. Nevertheless, I have duplicated it here for educational purposes only.

Dear [platform-name] users and customers,

On [date of incident], we [describe action]. Based on considerable feedback from our customers, users, and the broader community, we reversed course the next day and removed those changes before they went into effect. Further, [company] will commit to not [negative action]. This clearly struck a nerve with our community and I apologize for this mistake.

So, what happened? In an effort to [describe intended positive outcome], we decided to [describe intended action]. Clearly, our evaluation and communication processes for rolling out a change like this were lacking and we need to improve those processes. But that’s not the main thing we did wrong.

Our main mistake was that we did not live up to our own core value of collaboration by including our users, contributors, and customers in the strategy discussion and, for that, I am truly sorry. It shouldn’t have surprised us that you have strong feelings about [proposal] and many other topics, and we should have listened first.

So, where do we go from here? The first step is a retrospective that is happening on [date] to document what went wrong. We are reaching out to customers who expressed concerns and collecting feedback from users and the wider community. We will put together a new proposal for improving the user experience and share it for feedback. We made a mistake by not collaborating, so now we will take as much time as needed to make sure we get this right. You can be part of the collaboration by [reference for forum/chat/meta-article]. If you are a customer, you may also reach out to your [company] representative if you have additional feedback.

I am glad you hold [company] to a higher standard. If we are going to be transparent and collaborative, we need to do it consistently and learn from our mistakes.

Sincerely, [name] [title] [company]

I'm so glad you said all this. Looks like George's sample response was not all that farfetched. This is a complete and thorough that I'm taking to heart. I'm going to give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume this is sincere.

Thanks again. We needed this. In short, this is a godsend.

Edit

I have to admit, this doesn't sit right. It seems suspicious that you posted this reply days after it should have been posted. It almost seems like Sara's post was something you're trying to cover up with this apology.

I'm not saying this isn't sincere - something is very wrong and I can't put my finger on it.

A lot of folks have answered, and I apologise if I covered the same ground.

I saw this this morning, right after I woke up, and well, after having a lot to say, I had no idea what to.

It's a start. There's so much work to be done.

This has always been about doing right by one of our own. Monica's gone through a lot and I hope SE makes it right.

I do realise there's an idea that folks on meta - and not just this one - are troublemakers and miscreants. That we're the loud 0.1%. We're also folks that care about this place.

Also, it's been a long bumpy road. I hope the relationship between the folk who run the site and and all of us gets on the road to being mended. And that the message sent is well - even if y'all are the landlords, this isn't just any place - it's home and we care about it.

It's worth recognizing that there's folks who worked in this in the background - community members and staff (and a few folks who're both). I'm sorry I can't name all of you - there's a lot of you, and honestly, it's been a complete and utter period of productive chaos once folks got in gear.

Hopefully we can work out ways that we can work together and try to stop stuff like this going out of control.

Let's get the gang back together.

Thank you, albeit: the journey hasn't even started. And of course, one wonders, what took you so long? Is it truly the outcry in the community that caused this move, or rather the damage to the public reputation/image of the company?! But I am not here to rant.

As all the other answers, and so many other postings here, and on other META sites have reminded us: the rift goes deep, and it grew over years. Every time the company made mistakes and just moved on, ignoring the breakage that decision created, every time, that rift grew deeper.

When we honestly look at the situation, there are easily 30, 50 "work items" that worry many members of the different communities.

Thus: that schedule about CoC updates and next steps: give us more like that.

Meaning:

1. I am asking the company to compile a list of "work items" that they think need to be addressed (MSE should give you plenty of inspirational input).
2. Then they should put up some kind of poll that allows to the community to give its priorities on these points.
3. Then align that input with the business plans and come up with an outlook/schedule when and how each "work item" will be addressed.
4. Every quarter or so, repeat that exercise.

Walk the talk. Now. And for the months to come!

And sure, that is a lot of work. But we will be with you, as long as we can trust you that you are with us.

Edit: oh, how easy it is to walk back.

We didn't solicit feedback from the wider community on this change. We have a robust roadmap and we are selective in asking the community for feedback on specific releases.

That is the exact attitude everybody here is complaining about, see here for context.

You really still didn't get it.

First of all, thank you so much for this apology, it means a lot.

Second of all, could you share how things got as bad as they did? Was the team under a lot of stress that caused them to act a little more abrasive than they otherwise would have? Was this triggered by a "bad apple" who has since been removed? Did you get poor advice from a consultant that told you to do what you did? I'm not asking in order to bash or criticize, but to get some understanding into not only what a long-term solution might be, but how other organizations can avoid getting into this kind of mess at all.