Stack Overflow Inc.: more delays

[cellio]

Continuing from my previous post, the company published policies for moderator removal and reinstatement on Friday to all moderators. I understood this to be an announcement, so when I hadn't heard from David Fullerton with an update by Sunday, I sent email asking about it.

It turns out that what they posted was a draft, and they are making updates based on feedback. I'm glad to hear they're listening to feedback, but this introduces another delay. David said they are finalizing the policies "this week" and will send me the final version when it's done.

Reminder: the company has absolutely refused to reinstate me now, even though they admit that they failed to follow the process they already had for moderator removal. Even though David admits that I deserved the benefit of a private, comprehensive process, and even though a senior employee, Sara Chipps, subsequently maligned me repeatedly and very publicly (which is causing damage), they are unwilling to revert the change and then look at the original situation afresh. I have to instead apply for reinstatement.

From what I've heard through the rumor mill, the process, once started, takes two weeks and is probably biased toward the status quo.

With that as background, here is the email I sent to David tonight in reply to that message:

Thank you for the update.

Can we expedite any of this? Sara's public, defamatory accusations, made in violation of all prior Stack Exchange rules and conventions about privacy, are actively causing me harm every single day. They also resulted from a lack of due process for me. Reinstating me alone will not fix that, but it seems reinstatement is a precondition before SE will mitigate the harm done by these actions. From what you've said and the rumors I've heard about the timing in the policy, we're looking at another three weeks of delay and thus continuing damage.

I don't think you intend to cause serious ongoing harm to me. What can we do to alleviate it?

---

While I'm posting... a couple people have asked me questions privately, so:

• I was not warned either that I was violating the CoC or that I was facing possible removal.

• If SE is considering the messages in TL from Sara on September 18 to be warnings, then I did not subsequently violate the CoC, current or future. (I also did not interpret them as warnings that my status was in danger.)

• There was one piece of email from a CM that suggested that if I couldn't see a path toward resolving the matter, I should step down. But I did see a path and said so. So (1) that wasn't a warning of impending termination and (2) even if it had been, the condition was not met.

• I didn't go disrupt something elsewhere on the network after leaving TL. I didn't do anything that would call for an urgent response.

• I think it is likely that the reinstatement process will be rigged against me. Nonetheless, I will go through it if that path is made available in the reasonably near future.

Edit 2019-10-22: The next email I received was on October 21, when a community manager emailed me to let me know the new processes were about to be posted.

Comments

Re: Please be careful Monica

[(Anonymous)]

My subject above was Kafka Trap, but this puts it in a much clearer way.

They already mention now they have a "no comment" policy, but it wasn't a PR person or someone giving their own opinion as their own opinion on The Register, it was expressed as an official Stack Exchange position. This needs a formal and well advertised retraction.

In addition, they should reinstate you. Justice delayed is justice denied and they still are delaying. Once reinstated, (with a proper retraction), I think that gets back to zero.

You may want more and should go for it, but I don't think SE's moderators will consider less as anything but SE trying to do more damage control. And every time as I've been watching this and think they can't make it worse, destroy any remaining good will, and make more enemies of the very community that gives them value, they do. You are the issue because the problem is "If it can happen to Monica...", no amount of tweaks to policies and procedures which they didn't follow can fix a trust issue.

That might be the TL;DR - If you can be convinced that they have fixed things and you can trust Stack Exchange again, I think the rest of the community would follow.

That is even a problem with reinstatement and retraction (and an apology) - they can fix the break in a way that doesn't regain trust, or one that would. And the community isn't based on rules, it is based on trust, and rules are corrosive to trust. This is even the problem with the "pronoun rules".

SE doesn't have infinite time or iterations to regain trust, and it won't happen by changing the rules.