Stack Overflow Inc. fiasco: timeline
Oct. 5th, 2019 09:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioThis is a timeline, to the best of my recollection, of the events that have been brought up as relevant to the current moderator-firing mess. (Current tally: 73 moderator positions currently vacant or suspended.)
Preface: The Teachers' Lounge (TL) is a private room where the convention has been that people can let their hair down a little. Discussions of policies, how to handle specific moderation situations, and (often) outside politics and other hot topics are often vigorous. It's like when programmers discuss/argue about some technical design point extensively. Often it is programmers discussing some technical policy point extensively In both cases, the goal is to refine the final product. Shog9, a senior community manager, described this dynamic in more detail somewhere that I can't find right now. It's also a place where people sometimes talk about deeply personal things.
June 2018: There was a TL discussion about gender-neutral pronouns and then "preferred pronouns". (I know they're not "preferred", but this was the phrasing used by the people bringing it up.) Some moderators who are not native English speakers expressed confusion. I said I avoid singular they for that reason, 95% of the time you can write around the problem, and (on SE) I'm offended when someone edits my posts badly to solve a gender-neutrality problem. (Editing well is fine, which usually means pluralizing or using a name or something like that instead of either generic "he" or singular "they".) Some people said not using preferred pronouns invalidates the person; I said for me it's not about the person at all but the quality of my own writing (an important part of my identity). Tension rose, other people said some things I saw as bullying, and I stepped out. For a long time after, I didn't enter the room unless strictly necessary. Note: no employee said anything to me about my role in this conversation, and while some other mods disagreed with my position, none said anything like "this is a Code of Conduct (CoC) violation". Employees witnessed this discussion.
End of June 2018: I was the second-choice candidate for a community-manager position at Stack Overflow Inc.
August 2018: another moderator made some very bigoted attacks against nonbinary and trans people, targeting one moderator who was out as NB. The messages were completely inappropriate. Some mods called for that mod to be fired, and a community manager said you don't get to do that. There have been no public consequences for the rude moderator to this day.
January 2019: a different moderator (henceforth OP) asked a question, tagged "discussion", on the moderators' private Q&A site ("team"): should we require people to use people's preferred pronouns? (Again, the moderator, who is trans, used the term "preferred".) OP self-answered to say, somewhat vehemently, that we absolutely must require this and using wrong pronouns is misgendering. I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper, but this question calls for adding a positive requirement to use specific language and we shouldn't do that. I talked about writing in a gender-neutral way, that we rarely even need third-person-singular pronouns in our discussions, and not using a pronoun at all isn't misgendering. This was the top-voted answer, something like +53/-10 last I saw it. Note: Three different community managers posted answers after I did, and none said my answer was inappropriate in any way. (One disagreed with it, which is fine.)
February: A community manager said, in an answer, "we're working on this; send email if you have concerns". I sent email, got no answer, pinged, got no answer, I think pinged again with no answer, and set it aside. The question wasn't getting new activity at this point and fell out of my view.
May: the moderator who was attacked by that other mod in August stepped down. I later learned that some people want to blame the departure on my conversation from nearly a year earlier, but that doesn't add up.
Late August or early September: The same community manager from February (who didn't answer my email) posted a team question asking what kinds of optional training moderators would like SE to provide, if there were to be some budget for such things, to help us do our jobs better. The question listed some things that were already in the works, including diversity & inclusion. I posted two well-received answers, one about data mining and one about intellectual property. OP posted an answer saying "D&I training specifically about trans, and require mods to take it". The tone of the answer was pretty combative and people downvoted for that reason (as noted in comments). OP interpreted downvotes as transphobia. There was another answer that said something like "cultural awareness / different cultures, as part of D&I" that was presented positively and got a lot of support. (I know gender != culture; I'm pointing out that another D&I answer, presented constructively, was well-received.)
Mid-September: I went on vacation for a few days. This isn't directly related, but there should be one happy thing in this saga of woe. Also, it means I didn't look at the TL transcript for about four days.
September 18: I got notifications of several voting events on that team post from January about pronouns. Usually a flurry of voting on a dormant post means it was linked somewhere, so I looked at the TL transcript, where I saw another mod refer to (and link to) my answer and call it "bigoted". (I would be happy to have this answer, along with its question for context, made public to challenge this claim, but I don't think it's legal for me to release even an answer I wrote myself.) I responded to that message saying something like "you falsely accuse me; please tell me what specifically you object to so I can clarify". The response persuaded me that the only problem was that this person disagreed with me.
Same day: An employee with a "director" title posted and pinned a message saying the company is changing the CoC to require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden. I asked questions, most importantly: would it now be a violation of this new policy to write in the gender-neutral way that I already use? And how are you judging "avoiding", which requires knowledge of intent? Other people had questions and issues too. One moderator pointed out a problem with something I was proposing to do and I agreed after it was explained and said I wouldn't do that. The employee did not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours later to tell me "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment". Confused, I left. This transcript was leaked on Reddit over Rosh Hashana. It had been taken down by the time I got back online, but I was able to find a copy. On review, I don't see anything I said that would violate either the current or future CoC. No employee indicated to me any problems with my behavior.
I stayed out of TL from then on except to (1) flag something (two days later) and (2) respond to my firing (very briefly before being kicked). The discussion continued for the next two days, and on September 20 a community manager declared the topic closed, saying to send email if there's anything else you want to say. One queer moderator posted several messages objecting to this, and a CM (I can't remember if it was the same one) froze the room for the weekend. Two moderators who tried to post anyway were kicked out of chat.
I didn't read much of the transcript for the next week and don't know what was said after the room was unfrozen.
September 23: I received a reply from the CM I'd emailed back in February. It seemed to be an aggregate reply to that message and one I'd sent to the CM team on September 20 about the new policy. The email I received said some things that made me think my recent message had been misunderstood -- quite possible, as I'd written it quickly before Shabbat. I replied with questions and clarifications. The employee promised a reply "tomorrow", then got sick and said it'd be another day, then was still sick, and finally promised a reply on September 27. (The employee was definitely back to work that day and handling other matters.)
September 26: A queer moderator resigned in anger, with complaints about community managers, other moderators, and the "entrenched power structure", and vague accusations of bigotry. The notice accused employees of dealing in bad faith with queer moderators and putting them in difficult situations. The notice said a single incident prompted the resignation but did not elaborate. When I read it I assumed that incident was the shutting down of the conversation the previous week, which the resigning mod had objected to at the time, but that has not been confirmed. Edit: now confirmed.
September 27: That email response never came. Instead, I was fired because they thought I wouldn't follow the future code of conduct. I've written elsewhere about the many problems with how this went down. Moderators across the network began resigning or suspending their moderation activities. I sent (separate) email to the person who fired me, the CM I'd been having that email discussion with, and Joel Spolsky, chairman of the board and (then-)CEO. I received no replies. Sara Chipps, Director of Public Q&A, left responses on various moderators' resignation posts maligning my character. You can see an example on my Mi Yodeya post. The cut-and-pasted message included, specifically referring to me: "When a moderator violates [inclusion and respect], we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately." Both halves of that statement are false.
September 30 (Rosh Hashana): When SE knew I would be offline and unable to respond, Sara Chipps made a statement to the press saying I'd been fired for CoC violations. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first claim of a current violation.
October 3: Sara Chipps posted a non-apology "apology" in which she said I was fired "for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change that behavior". Note the escalation here: she now says current CoC, repeated, and repeated requests. I said "citation needed". This accusation was linked prominently on the front page of every site on the network. The next day, after a bunch of other answers had been posted that called her out on various issues, I added an answer of my own.
That's where things stood right before Shabbat.
Breaking news, October 6 21:00 UTC: the CTO stepped in, accepted responsibility, apologized to the community, and promised to contact me directly to apologize and discuss next steps. Finally! I look forward to that contact.
Update, October 7 19:00 UTC: No contact yet.
Update, October 8: I received email from David Fullerton today at 15:10 UTC. I am not satisfied (and this is a vast understatement). I asked for a discussion, which was rejected.
Update, October 13: David said, in his meta post and in email to me, that they planned to develop processes for removing and reinstating moderators by this past Friday (October 11) and that I could apply to go through the latter process once it existed. They did publish these processes to moderators on Friday. As of Sunday afternoon, I have received no further contact from SE about this process and how to set it in motion. I sent David email asking about it and have received no reply yet. Further updatess.
Dictionary usage advice from 1992
Date: 2019-10-06 06:26 pm (UTC)The opinions you expressed about using ungendered language strike me as just what I expect to find in dictionary usage notes, at least in dictionaries from before the latest round of culture wars. Some dictionary just recently announced its addition of nonbinary singular "they", with much fanfare, implying that until extremely recently they didn't recognize this usage. I dragged my dictionary off the shelf (American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, 1992; I also own a fourth edition from 2000 or so, but it's at work, so that one will have to do) to see what it said about personal pronoun usage. That's new enough to be within my (and your) adult lifetime, but old enough so some of those participating in the current online culture wars weren't born yet. (Some of these battles seem to be a generation-gap thing.)
Under "they", it has some plural definitions, as well as this one:
2. Usage Problem. Used to refer to the one previously mentioned or implied, especially as a substitute for generic he; Every person has rights under the law, but they don't always know them. See usage note at he.
Going to the entry for "he", there's this item in the definition:
2. Usage Problem. Used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown: "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence" (William Blake)
The definition is followed by an entire column's worth of usage notes. It's noted that "he" is the traditional usage for indefinite or unknown gender, but that this is being increasingly objected to as unfair to women. It also notes that "they" for such usages is common but also regarded as colloquial or informal, and some think of it as ungrammatical due to the mismatch of number. It says, "As a substitute for coordinate forms such as his/her or her and his, third person plural forms such as their, have a good deal to recommend them; they are admirably brief and entirely colloquial and may be the only sensible choice in informal style... But in formal style, this option... may be misconstrued as being careless or ignorant rather than attuned to the various grammatical and political nuances...", going on to say "Writers who are concerned about avoiding both grammatical and social problems are best advised to use coordinate forms such as his or her... Some writers see no need to use a personal pronoun implying gender unless absolutely necessary[.]"
It's noted that 37 percent of their usage panel favored "his" in such constructions, 46 percent used coordinate forms such as "his/her", and only 3 percent favored forms of "they". (A few other options were favored by a minority.)
The notes ended with "The entire question is unlikely to be resolved in the near future."
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-06 09:02 pm (UTC)None of these people care about rules lawyering, which makes you look weak and clueless. The rules are whatever results in the preferred outcome of the ruling clique, nothing more or less.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-06 09:11 pm (UTC)Your values are out of alignment
Date: 2019-10-06 09:47 pm (UTC)So true
Date: 2019-10-06 10:46 pm (UTC)Consider taking this a step further...
Date: 2019-10-06 11:01 pm (UTC)Given the enormous outpouring of support and backlash, I'd like to suggest that you take it a step further and hire an attorney who specializes in labor or civil law. That might seem extreme, but I think it could help to serve as a landmark case that could set precedence for others to come, and in any case would help to establish facts that otherwise will surely remain locked behind closed doors.
I think labor law applies here because although you weren't technically being "paid", you were conducting work for the organization and representing it as evident by your moderator agreement, which establishes terms for that representation which you were obligated to abide by, and which gave them the authority to terminate that representation. You were also accruing "reputation points" which can be used like currency on the site, such as adding bounties, downvoting, etc… and how different is that from virtual currency like Bitcoin, or even stock which allows one to vote in corporate shareholder meetings.
Clearly the actions taken by the organization not only impacted your reputation on the site, but publicly since they gave quotes to the press about your alleged behavior. This unwelcome notoriety could impact your ability to earn a living if employees came to view you as a "troublemaker" or someone who was unwilling to accept policy decisions, thus impacting your ability to earn a living.
It's also evident that this organization seems poised to assert their power over its users, which have similarly invested a good chunk of their lives into, and their cumulative work is paying for the operating costs, salaries, and future profits for the organization's investors.
So although it would seem not to be a legal dispute, it very much does involve labor, earnings, and profit. If a corporation is focused on paying dividends, the most effective way to impact their policy is to demonstrate legally that they're jeopardizing this through poor management decisions and policy mishandling.
If you explained to the community why were you pursuing this course of action, I strongly believe they'll continue to back you. They have become aware that this is not just about inclusivity, but about the bottom line. And you don't have to seek a monetary judgement if you don't want to (or you could donate it to a worthy cause).
Note that I'm not lawyer, just a fellow user who "reviewed" the situation and found it very unsatisfactory and unfair. It appears to me that you seem very capable of standing up not just for yourself, but for others too. I believe taking this to the next level will not only help the community at large, but minorities who likely feel they'll be targeted now as part of that backlash.
That is of course easier to suggest than to do :-) Regardless, I wish you the very best, and hope that in the future you'll be able to look back and say, "Wow, that was totally nuts, but I'm glad I went through it, wasn't defeated, and came out stronger in end." IMHO, you can already hold your head high, and it's just a decision as to whether you see this as an opportunity for a cause worth fighting for, or something you need to move on from for your own well-being. Either would be very understandable. Best of luck!
In follow-up to myself...
Date: 2019-10-06 11:43 pm (UTC)It could very well be by the way that Sarah is asserting her own power here, since she previously wrote a blog indicating that she did not like others questioning her ability to manage. In fact, her actions very much seem to be in response to a challenge to that.
So you might actually be doing the other employees there a favor, who could be afraid to speak up against her. They're an inexperienced company as a whole and are likely very afraid of litigation, including from their own staff. I believe this is why the CEO has been completely absent - he walked right into a minefield and is likely letting Sarah take the reins and consequential fallout, instead of stepping in to try to repair the rift with the community so it doesn't escalate further, as he should.
In terms of how to fund it, I'd suggest having someone start a GoFundMe or similar campaign. Just the attention from that alone might serve as enough pressure to get Stack Exchange to bend and become more flexible. It would be very easy for them to just say, "We heard you, we saw the errors in our ways, and we're going to try to work things out for the community's sake."
Sorry to hear this
Date: 2019-10-07 12:11 am (UTC)And the usual suspects are blaming the whole thing on homophobia and transphobia, because of course they are. But the term is wholly inappropriate in this case. A phobia is an irrational fear, but when the message comes down from on high, in such an official and heavy-handed way, that anyone even suspected of maybe at some future point doing something to cross the trans and/or homosexual people will be made an example of in this way, there's nothing the least bit irrational about the fear that that causes. It's a chilling effect, specifically intended to bring about exactly that sort of very rational fear and self-censorship.
SE is an American company, and they need to remember what it means to be American. Compelled speech is something our society considers to be at the lowest, filthiest level of unacceptable behavior. Inclusion is well and good, but thuggery, even in the name of a laudable goal, is still thuggery and should be condemned by any reasonable person. And it's good to see that it is being so condemned; the company's posts on this topic are getting downvoted in record quantities.
Keep telling the truth, Monica. For whatever it's worth, we've got your back, and we won't let this drop until things improve.
-- Anonymous, because I speak for all of us
Great summary.
Date: 2019-10-07 03:33 am (UTC)A theory--you're being picked on because of your involvement on Mi Yodea. There are a lot of virulent anti-Semites in various activist communities, and I find I've had very non-controversial posts on SE voted down en masse when the post indicated that I worked for an Israeli company, or that I was a Hebrew speaker. Obviously, assume good faith, but when you're being attacked for very shaky reasons, this is a real possibility.
Shanah Tovah
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-07 10:47 am (UTC)Re: Great summary.
Date: 2019-10-07 06:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-07 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-07 08:10 pm (UTC)What should we do?
Date: 2019-10-07 09:47 pm (UTC)I'm all for treating everyone with respect, I think we all have a responsibility to be respectful, but this seems to be actively undermined.
- Luke McGregor
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-08 01:23 am (UTC)This is not what I wanted to come back to, and I'm glad at least that at least a lot of the community is also upset about it.
Re: Great summary.
Date: 2019-10-08 04:05 pm (UTC)It seems obvious to even the most disinterested observer that you were ghosted, fired, and libeled in order to silence you while the new CoC is rushed into effect. The new code is said to include odious terms that would require correspondents to sacrifice the quality of their writing to accommodate.
As you are widely respected across the SE community, known as a staunch practitioner of a welcoming and inclusive policy, and famous for your excellent content and style: if you object to certain terms in the CoC then everyone is more likely to suspect that those terms are actually harmful to welcoming, inclusion, content, or style.
In that event the advocates of the new terms would be obliged to provide rational and convincing argument for their inclusion. They are well aware that demanding that a person learn and use a new language in support of another person's political agenda is a tough sell. It was much easier, in this case, to just destroy the source of opposition.
The only possible reason for Sara Chipps to email the Register was to erode your credibility so you could not seek support from the wider world. She was afraid you might focus public attention on the way SE staff treat SE volunteers.
David Fullerton could have restored your diamonds by now, but he won't even talk to you. He will continue to ghost you, and will not allow you to appear in TL until all CoC debate has closed.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-08 08:38 pm (UTC)צום קל וגמר חתימה טובה
(no subject)
Date: 2019-10-08 09:01 pm (UTC)Secrecy will only help them
Date: 2019-10-09 01:39 pm (UTC)With that, I mean that *maybe* you might want to limit any further communication with stackexchange to public communication, or put a condition on any conversation you have with them allowing you to publish the exchange verbatim. If what you wrote is even close to the truth (and all indications say it is) then you have nothing to lose, and everything to win, while stackexchange can only lose (if they talk) or lose (if they refuse to talk publicly). When talks happen in private, it only helps stackexchange's game of he said she said. This is true especially for phone calls.
Of course, only you know the exact circumstances you are in, and you have to think of yourself and what is best for yourself, so I am writing this merely as something you should consider, but not necessarily do - good luck to you!
One more word of support
Date: 2019-10-09 03:20 pm (UTC)Re: Dictionary usage advice from 1992
Date: 2019-10-09 07:14 pm (UTC)TRiG, who should perhaps acquire a Dreamwidth account.
Re: Dictionary usage advice from 1992
Date: 2019-10-10 01:05 am (UTC)Re: Secrecy will only help them
Date: 2019-10-10 01:08 am (UTC)Umbridge
Date: 2019-10-10 03:44 am (UTC)Re: Umbridge
Date: 2019-10-10 04:17 pm (UTC)