Update: an agreement with Monica Cellio

I'm glad some kind of agreement could be reached, and I'm hoping to see more of this light. This is a step in the right direction, but the paragraph below is something that needs a bit more work though.

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

Analogy: I'm sorry your foot hurts when stepped on, now you may ask me to get off of it.

Hopefully, it is easier to see the problem with it now.

This is an empty apology

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

That is a strawman. It was not at all the problem.

We acknowledge our responses to her requests for clarification were not satisfactory.

This is an extreme understatement. The responses were hostile.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

You hurt someone by means of misconduct, and the only thing that you do is just say that you regret it?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

This is not a correction of the bad actions.

Is it really an agreement?

You could say that SE has been digging their heels in by trying to go to the bottom in the legal process and turning it into a battle.

• Instead of sincerely admitting their mistakes, apologising to Monica and do whatever needs to be done when you admit you made a mistake (no matter the legal consequences, since a person that admits their mistake should agree with those consequences)...

• Instead of that they state they can not do and say anything for legal reasons and let their lawyers do the apology to Monica.

Maybe this has been settled, but it is very unsatisfactory for the community.

This ugly apology/update shows to the community that Monica has not been on the winning side of the settlement. It is prove, or at least an indication, of the maltreatment path that SE/SO takes towards their respected moderator (is this really respect?). This behaviour can now be hidden behind polished pretty words that do not mean anything.

SE/SO can show of their trophy 'that they reached an "agreement"' and for the rest they can refer to a non disclosure agreement. Thus the settlement allows this sad story/apology, but it doesn't allow a single word/statement from Monica how she thinks about it? That sounds very much like a forced agreement to me.

We acknowledge our responses to her requests for clarification were not satisfactory.

A good step in the right direction, however...

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent. We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This comes under the impression that Monica committed wrongdoing in the first place. Violating an unclear, unrefined code of conduct by asking for clarity about it that wasn't even applicable to the site as a whole yet in a private chatroom (the Teacher's Lounge) designed to garner clarity around difficult issues.

I'm happy that there's finally a degree of agreement between SE and Monica. It's been awhile without much update, but as the situation had turned legal, I suppose that's to be expected.

Lastly,

We invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

Her issues with the reinstatement process were rather detailed as an answer on your meta post and the specific issues Monica had with it were largely ignored. Though to be fair, the comments got very numerous.

I'm firmly of the position that SE will never reinstate Monica without forcing her to go through the reinstatement process. During which, as far as I understand, a single community manager can choose to halt the process entirely.

Instead of focusing on Monica's issue specifically, I feel as though we should focus on SE's rather erroneous lack of transparency not only on this issue, but on many other issues detailed in this longstanding meta post.

Keep moving forward, SE. This is your chance to start to make things right.

Everyone else has pointed out that this reads like lawyer speak, likely because it is and I'm guessing this is the outcome of the discussions between lawyers. Since nobody can talk about the actual agreement, there's not really that much to say.

I do note that there doesn't actually appear to be an public apology from Stack Overflow to Monica Cellio in this post. I also find it very interesting that you didn't just reinstate Cellio as moderator and are making her go through a "reinstatement process." Having seen similar situations, I'm going to interpret this as "Didn't quite have the legal grounds to fire you at the time, so if you apply for a job again maybe we will hire you again." Of course, most reasonable people don't want to return to work in a hostile work environment.

On a lighter note, I find it grimly ironic that as a child I was given detention for telling another student "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said." but as an adult I see similar language being dictated by lawyers.

After reading the "Update" and many, many answers I have a few thoughts. Some of my thoughts will echo what a lot of others have said.

(This part is just my speculation)

This "Update" sounds like it is part of an agreement, this is not the agreement. The lawyers made SE post a recant of their actions. Each paragraph touches on one of the points of pain here. CoC, the "warning", media, policies and processes, and reinstatement.

The reason neither side can comment is because no doubt there is a non-disclosure clause in the agreement. Meaning that when this is finally over and done, we (the community) will get to know nothing.

I can only hope the agreement Monica and SE have come to is fairer than this legalese.

As soon as I saw this I wondered about when this was posted... (Granted they did not post on a Friday afternoon.) Is it a coincidence this was posted during the lowest point of activity for the whole year?

Now SE can easily brush that off by saying "this was an important issue for many in our community, as such we wanted to get the information out as soon as possible."

But that's not good enough for me.
The Update reads like a coerced post, there is no soul to it. It is all meaningless words, and it sounds like SE's lawyers are trying to admit as little as possible, while maintaining their position.

From my perspective I'm again saddened by this "Update."

...we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

People have already pointed out the assumption of guilt here, and I would like to add that this feels very much like a strategic move to "officially" torpedo, or at least severely handicap Monica's mod status. Even if Monica chose to go this route, this reinstatement process would put her mod status in the fate of 3 CMs who are supposed to be impartial, but I question if any SE CM would fit that description now (i.e, if there is anyone left who could approach this from a "clean slate" so to speak). Further still, if she passes this and isn't given the official thumbs down, the reinstatement process allows for arbitrary preconditions that she would have to follow "or else" - and I can only imagine what kind of conditionals would be enforced here.

Many responses here to Update: an agreement with Monica Cellio deal with the last two sentences.

But given, the preceding text, the last two sentences don't come as a surprise.

The language used in the update induced me to search for "fake apology". Some apt quotes follow in the hope that there can be a beneficial closure to this sad affair:

From The Top 12 Fake Apologies — And What Makes For An Authentic Apology

Apologizing can renew trust, soothe hurt feelings and return the lifeblood to a damaged relationship. But when someone hurts you and gives you a fake apology, it can make things worse, not better.

From Sorry, Not Sorry

There was a time in American public life when atonement was seen as a form of strength—a way not only to own up to one’s missteps, but also to do that classic work of crisis management: control the narrative. (“I’m the responsible officer of the government,” John F. Kennedy said of the Bay of Pigs. “This happened on my watch,” Ronald Reagan said of Iran-Contra. “I take full responsibility for the federal government’s response,” George W. Bush said of Hurricane Katrina.) Bucks stopped. Power came with responsibility.

From 6 Types of Apologies That Aren't Apologies at All in the section Mistakes were made

For those who feel that "deeply regret" is admitting too much responsibility, they can upgrade to "mistakes were made," the highest level of non-apology, used at the highest levels of government. Presidents as diverse as Reagan and Clinton have used the phrase, which one-ups "deeply regret" by not only leaving it open whether they are actually the culprit but existentially questioning whether there even is one.

This statement was made strictly to address the libel Monica suffered at the hands of SE employees. The issue of libel is the only thing Monica is able to hold SE legally liable for. How SE chooses to manage mods on their sites is up to their discretion. So this is probably the most Monica could hope for via the lawsuit.

Reading between the lines, this statement was mandated by the settlement. But the people involved in stripping Monica of her diamond don't really want her back, and it's up to their discretion, so they're "offering" her a way to get her diamond back that they know she'll refuse. They're not the least bit sorry, and are continuing to wield their power in a toxic way. SE's relationship with the community is still really, really toxic, and the internal employees responsible for this are not changing tack.

(Conjecture: having it appear on "Featured on Meta" across all SE sites was probably also part of the settlement. Having this specific employee post the statement may even have been part of it too.)

To sum up your statement: despite no evidence or details of Monica's alleged misconduct, you still believe she was in the wrong, but you are willing to (condescendingly) admit that maybe she didn't do that (whatever that is) on purpose. The only fault on your side is perhaps miscommunication. In light of that, you graciously allow her to petition for reinstatement.

// todo: insert "I am a merciful God" meme

About the agreement: it's important to point out that both sides have published the same notice. Ms Chipps, as Director of Public Q/A, did it here, while Ms Cellio did it on her GoFundMe page (locked for now). Nothing has been posted on Monica's blog as of this post was written.

It seems important that we allow both sides to keep working, without disturbing/bothering them. Sure, we can still talk about the processes, about things that need to be improved around the network, but please, let's be careful not to harm Monica (who can't comment, as she stated). Under what seems to be a standard NDA, Ms Chipps can't comment either (as she stated in a comment). So, if we write or spread wrong things or ideas, it may do more harm than good, we should just be very careful not to do that.

This statement is a first step. Many people wouldn't think it could even happen, but it did. If Monica agreed to this, let's assume it's good enough for her? Negotiation is almost always a give and take game. Let's trust Monica to be smart enough to have gotten the best she could get for her because she's clever.

People who supported her can still do. People who fought for an improved community can still do. Defaming this statement, agreed by both sides, while same both sides can't comment or defend themselves, might not be the best way to discuss all still pending and related issues. Healing takes time, and we might just be still "licking the wounds". Just my two cents...

I don't believe that your agreement precludes you from admitting fault.

I do believe that the agreement protects you from further legal action.

If you are protected from further legal action then there is no legal risk in admitting fault. I can only surmise that you avoided admitting fault because you don't believe you did anything wrong.

This is clearly the final nail, and it's clear that you haven't been building a bridge.

I won't reiterate in detail what others have said (for short: forced apology, false apology, "invitation for possible reinstatment", lawyer speak, etc...). Criticizing the wording and speculating about the reasons and implications of the wording won't help here anyhow.

But I'd like to express one concern:

Announcing an "agreement" for one particular case does not mean that the issue is resolved. And one of the root issues (abstracting from the specific case of Monica) is: The CoC established certain rules (particularly speech codes). The enforcement of the rules is completely arbitrary. The consequences of not following the rules are also arbitrary, and SE made an example of Monica: It shows the (abuse of the) unlimited power of the authorities. It proves that not only violating the rules, but also questioning the rules or (and that's a severe problem: ) even just talking about the rules can have devastating effects. This is confirmed to some extent by further cases, like that of Robert Harvey.

The case of Monica will undoubtedly have a chilling effect. Even if there was an "agreement" for one particular instance now, hardly anybody will have the guts to risk damaging the own reputation, being defamed publicly and having to silently swallow false accusations that are made by SE. Hardly anybody can afford hiring a lawyer for that, and when there are dozens of GoFundMe-campaigns of people who try to stop SE harming them, none of them would achieve ~$25000 or even come close to an amount that could cover the possible expenses.

The bottom line is: There may have been one agreement, but this does not mean that any of the problems that are summarized in Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community? has been solved. Subjectively and personally, I won't even consider contributing anything to the main sites only because some people agreed on (probably not much more than) no longer talking about one specific instance of a much broader problem.

This announcement update reads like lawyer-speak; as others have already noted, likely because it is. It also reads rather like another of the series of non-apology apologies that have been posted in this matter, which at first glance appear to offer an apology but once you start picking them apart turn out to not be apologetic at all (except in the sense of "we're sorry we got caught").

However, Monica Cellio has, within the last few hours, turned off donations for the Defend Monica from Defamation by Stack Overflow GoFundMe campaign and linked to the statement here from that campaign. Even though Monica is clearly not allowed to comment on the agreement, and Sara Chipps has stated that further comments will not be forthcoming from company officials, until otherwise indicated, and even though I do not know any details about the agreement beyond those posted in these two locations, I'm willing to take that action of Monica's as a proxy indication that Monica accepts the outcome of the negotiations.

unfortunately I can't comment further. Apologies in advance for any frustration that causes. – Sara Chipps♦ 1 hour ago
we truly can't for legal reasons. – Sara Chipps♦ 1 hour ago

I'm hopeful that this agreement between Stack Overflow Inc and Monica Cellio is a positive, at least partial, resolution specifically between them.

I also note that this does little to address the many other issues raised by various members of the community over the recent months and year(s). Stack Overflow Inc therefore, in my opinion, still has a long way to go in repairing the damage caused by the events that have taken place since long before Monica was summarily dismissed as a moderator, some of which I have enumerated in other posts I have made on the network, and others of which have been discussed by other users.

It's good that Monica finally has some closure. To me, though, this post is, in a sense, worse than nothing. SO Inc. (SOI) would have been better off simply stating that an agreement was reached, and leave it at that. Everything else in this post is problematic.

Monica was hurt in many ways:

• Maligned publicly in the media. A statement on Meta SE does nothing to repair that.
• Stripped of all her mod diamonds. These were not restored, and subjecting her to a reinstatement process after all details have already been clarified and worked out in negotiations is a sham, and unfair burden.
• Put through a hellish process and treatment. SOI made a business decision to settle, but clearly still presents that the underlying fault was Monica's.

So after enduring a long process and being worn down by the company, Monica accepted some terms to gain closure. But this post would have been very different if the settlement was anything along the lines that the community would consider appropriate, righteous, and fair.

The current announcement still does not clarify what behavior was deemed as proper motivation for SOI's actions. That affects all users. In the first non-apology apology, SOI went so far as to acknowledge that the timing of its actions was inopportune. In this non-apology non-apology, SOI acknowledges that some version of the CoC might have been a little ambiguous, so Monica might have been confused (but still the onus was on her and she did something wrong, which has never been explained). In fact, the post acknowledges that SOI didn't satisfactorily respond to requests for clarification.

This post does express some regret, albeit with qualifications, that stuff happened, as stuff is wont to do. It describes how much the company respects Monica, thinks she's a good person, has so much to contribute, etc., etc. But apparently not so much that SOI sees fit to simply reverse its actions. So really, how sincere can these compliments be? Well, it's the kind of language the lawyers came up with that both sides can live with.

Where does that leave the rest of the community? Chaos has reigned because of a host of actions and policies by SOI. These were epitomized by Monica's treatment, but that was the tip of the iceberg. Had SOI done right by Monica, it could have restored a lot of faith in the company.

Instead, this post crystallizes the concerns and opinions the community has had. Anyone can make a mistake. When it happens, own it and make it right. Here, company management just kept digging a deeper hole, ostensibly because stockholders and lawyers and the easy solution. The deeper the hole, the more people must be thrown under the bus to fill it, rather than admitting and fixing your own mistakes. That's not business decisions in the real world, it's just very ethically challenged.

This announcement does provide a kind of closure for all of us. It makes clear how the company will operate. We can come to terms that the platform is what it is and live with it, or there's the door.

Our decisions and actions won't affect SOI's policies or behavior. It's their platform and they don't care. We can piss and moan on Meta SE, but it appears that SOI is simply ignoring it. At home, I DVR TV shows so I can fast-forward through the commercials and not have to see them. SOI is doing the equivalent. Who knows how much our protests may have affected Monica's outcome (it doesn't appear that we gained her more than lawyers, alone, could have done). SOI has also doubled down on its policies and priorities. At this point, it seems like we're accomplishing little more than marinating in our own toxic thought bubble.

Now I have a decision to make.

I think it's enough of discussion here. Monica has moved on, and so shall we. As per her latest blog post - she has been recruited in a Community driven Q&A site.

Time for leaving Stack Exchange and join that new Q&A site - actions of SE shall decide.

Ah, nothing like legalese BS. and NOT GOOD ENOUGH

TLDR:

1. NO admission of guilt on the part of SE
2. No admission of wrong doing on the part of SE
3. The implication that Monica is an idiot with this statement "she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct"
4. You are lying when you said you respect her, if you did, you would have just reinstated her, rather than make her go through a process. If she did nothing wrong, then there should be no process for her to go through. But I assume your lawyers told you that you had to hold your ground on that one.
5. "We regret we used her name". Nice, you don't regret what you said about her, only that you used her name.

In short, this is a transparent attempt to smooth things over without admitting just how effed up you are.

FULL ANALYSIS

Stack Overflow and Monica Cellio have come to an agreement.

Translation: You were in the wrong, and still won't admit it.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

No, your lawyer told you to post this. The timing of her firing (right before a high Jewish holiday) in addition to some of the comments I've seen made leads me to believe that there was a degree of antisemitism involved.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

Bascially, you are saying she's an idiot. I don't believe this sentence at all. If you thought she didn't understand something, you should have explained it, not fired her.

We acknowledge our responses to her requests for clarification were not satisfactory.

By not satisfactory, you mean malicious, nasty, stone-walling, and libelous.

The verbiage in our Code of Conduct could have been more explicitly detailed about what was expected.

It wasn't the verbiage, it was the malicious, draconian, selective enforcement, based on actions you claimed Monica MIGHT take. Not only did you convict her without any sort of process, but without any sort of offense

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

Complete and utter BS! Your actions speak volumes, and you took no action at all until AFTER this went legal. If you valued her, you never would have fired her at all, you would have responded to her inquiries, and you would have reinstated her once you realized your mistake. All this is, is a collection of empty words, meaning nothing, drafted by a lawyer and about as sincere as a politician 3 days before an election

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

What you regret is that Monica fought back, and that so many of us supported her.
you libeled her in a news piece. You don't regret anything other than the legal entanglements your own bad actions caused you

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications, and that there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked as well as a process for reinstatement.

Too little, too late

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute. We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community. In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

If you TRULY respected Monica, there would be no process for her to go through to correct YOUR ERROR. You see, this is where any semblance of sincerity on your part crumbles to so much dust. You say that Monica did not act with malicious intent, and that at worst she didn't understand the policy.

Now, either you are saying that she's the dumbest person on SE, and that everyone else understood it, or you are just lying even more. I have bumped heads with Monica in the past, but she is far from dumb. If the policy was unclear to HER, that should have been a red flag to you that the policy should have been reviewed.

You screwed up, and now you want Monica to crawl back and go through a process to fix the mistake YOU made.

I can't stress this enough anymore:

It's time to leave the Stack Exchange network.

Without rehashing everything said in the top upvoted answer, it's clear SE wants to just bury this whole thing, and move on. Over the course of the last week, I've only grown more angry at this resolution: Leaving Monica without her diamond, and offering likely nothing but hush money, with a heartless legalize statement.

This isn't the Stack Exchange network I signed up for, and it's not the Stack Exchange network I intend to stay in. Me, employees of SE, and many others have done the same. It's time to send a message: Going down this path is going to lose the most loyal and trusted members of this network.

Sounded good enough - not really contrite but standard 'I'm sorry you were offended' style / could perhaps have done better / Monica is not REALLY the creature from the pit of hell / ... .

Bearable enough, probably.
Seemed to be leading up to a "So we have offered to reinstate 'Ms Cellio' [whoever] with a mutual understanding of the rules of engagement that now apply."

But, then, instead ...

" ... we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. ..."

Why bother posting this?
What has really changed from the stuff we've been hearing 'for some while'?
Does anyone, of any persuasion, really think that that is an 'answer' to the 'problem'?
As opposed to "Well, we made the offer. So, we're OK .... It's in her camp."

Really?

Try this question: "If YOU were treated like this in circumstances that were essentially equivalent for YOU, how would you feel / react ?"

Really?

This seems so superficial. This is not even an apology for releasing her name to the reporter and maligning her name; attacking her personally.

It should be noted that this response has only come after legal actions are bring pursued. This is a half-hearted attempt at best and certainly not an apology!

When I think I am wrong I say: Sorry, I was wrong. Please, come back, if you want.
When I think I am on the right side I say: You misbehaved, and possibly You can come back, only if you apologise.

In this regard, your statement does not make crystal clear on what side is the wrongdoing (much like a politician's speech). The lack of a bold statement works against you, harming your reputation more than it is supposed to help.

More Generally
When you have the responsibility of affecting other people's fortunes and misfortunes with a click, it is unavoidable to occasionally click through in the wrong direction. In those circumstances, the best action is always to recognise the error, if there was one.

You've got another window of opportunity. There's always another chance.

Reinstate Monica. Think about it: The above sanitized statement makes it abundantly clear that you've said what you've legally obligated yourself to say.

That means that if you reinstate her, it will be apparent that you are not doing so out of legal obligation, but rather out of a desire to do something decent, just because it's the right thing to do.

Give in to doing what's right. Trust me, it will feel good.

This answer is filled with "lawyer speak", but if the sentence:

We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

is really true, then why does she have to apply to become a moderator again? You regret any other damage that she suffered (for example losing her job as moderator), so if you regret it so much, why not re-instate her and allow her to step down if she doesn't want to be a moderator anymore?

I would like to point out that, out of all days possible to release this statement, it was decided to post it again the day before a major holiday? I believe Stack Overflow commented multiple times how one of the failures on the firing of Monica was the fact it was done the day before an important day? This seriously makes me doubt whether SO learned anything from the major outcry last time, or even worse, the promises made that communication like that would not happen anymore.

Other than that, this statement is so filled with void that I personally don't even feel anything positive or negative around it.

I don't see anyone mentioning the fact that the second round of clarifications showed that what Monica was asking if she could do was perfectly within the code of conduct. Her question was actually one important to the community at large.

This whole issue isn't just about Monica. It's about whether the desire to help trans people was ever legitimate in the first place. I at least still largely suspect that the whole thing was a PR stunt, and you needed some mod to be the fall guy so you could make a public announcement that you were fixing the problem. Anyone with any knowledge would know that revoking her privileges would cause a controversy, giving you a chance to get your changes into the news.

Everything you do is so clearly tailored to PR (like when you released this, at the lowest time of the year) that we have very little reason to assume any of this is legitimate. And you very clearly did not involve the SE trans community in making the new rules, as many were upset by Monica's removal.

You continue to act in ways that normal human beings do not act when actually sorry. You want to "save face," meaning you still only care about yourselves. Why should any of us think you actually have a social conscience if you're that selfish?

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused

Usually settlements of lawsuits have some language that says each party promises not to speak disparagingly of the other. The statement above disparages Monica Cellio by suggesting that the mistake was hers: she did not understand, and she was confused. There is considerable evidence that the officers of the company have little ability to understand anything except software code, and that they were the ones who did not understand and were confused.

Maybe this public disparagement of her should be brought to the attention of the court.

If Monica is happy, I'm happy

I think the two key points here are:

SO:

Stack Overflow and Monica Cellio have come to an agreement.

and Monica:

I can't comment further for legal reasons.

So, obviously Monica has settled. Since the statement contains virtually nothing of benefit to Monica in itself (not even an automatic reinstatement of the moderator flag), and since Monica is smart and has legal representation, I think it's safe to assume there is a financial settlement here.

If she's happy with the lukewarm apology and outcome offered above, then so should we be. It's still a shitty path that they have taken, and I'm sure there will be more of them, but as far as this particular battle goes, I think it's done.

My ideas:

Stack Overflow and Monica Cellio have come to an agreement. We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent. We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

IMHO, she always understands the CoC. Also it doesn't seem (at least for me) that she will be harming.

We acknowledge our responses to her requests for clarification were not satisfactory. The verbiage in our Code of Conduct could have been more explicitly detailed about what was expected. We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

Again, if Monica was always valued on her skills, I don't think such a rude firing was needed.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

Okay.

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications, and that there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked as well as a process for reinstatement.

Why? How didn't Monica obey the previous CoC already?

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute. We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community. In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

A possible reinstatement? Just do it now? Why not? Also after this firing moderators crime, how would she be so happy to come back? She may not even want to come back. If she wasn't fired it would be peace.

Why even post this question? Just reinstate her. Nothing to talk about, or have the question title as "Monica is successfully reinstated!" and have Monica with her original position.

Thanks for posting this notice of an agreement. Here is my little feedback, for what it's worth:

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

Unfortunately, you did not make that as clear as possible right from the beginning. The harm to her name has already been done and it will be lasting, no matter what, especially because this message doesn't sound very convincing (and there is no other statement).

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

Then why did you harm her in the first place? If you really valued her contributions, there might have been other ways to resolve the conflict.

... we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

This is the most important point for me and I would hope it could be printed in bold letters. This is indeed an apology, even though it's not placed very prominently in the text.

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications ...

That's also important and good to hear.

We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community.

I sincerely don't believe a single word of this sentence. If that were true, I would have expected a much more sincere apology, one that never materialized. And that's indeed the main criticism of this contribution. I wish it would have been more sincere, open and ... in search of a better word, true.

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

Everything in the post is good for the community because you (Stack Overflow) are willing to solve this problem. But the last paragraph is a bit giveaway. The title and the remaining question sounds like you have realised what mistake was done. To correct that mistake, you are ready to reinstate Monica as a moderator.

But the last paragraph seems like that intention was clear.

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here,

When you have written an apology post for the mistake happened from the company side, I think there's no issue in making clear whose mistakes led us here. Whose mistakes are you referring to?

As I understand, you have invited Monica to apply for reinstatement following current moderator reinstate process.

If your intention is to reinstate her believing she is a good person and having no malicious intent, the process of long formal reinstatement wouldn't have been required now. We don't know for sure what was she exactly offered so we (users) can only speculate.

You invite her for reinstatement (which involves a long process) following rules but she was not removed through formal moderator removal process.

First, thank you for posting an update on this. I think that dialog can go a long way here.

With that said, I'm confused about the last paragraph. It's never been made clear exactly what part of the Code of Conduct Monica was supposed to have violated (especially with the more recent version, which apparently allows what she was asking to be allowed to do). That being said, why is it only "possible" reinstatement? Why is there a question as to whether she'd be reinstated or not? Why does she even need to apply in the first place? Why not just reinstate her forthwith?