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

The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it

[(Anonymous)]

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336175/what-is-the-process-for-reinstating-a-moderator

The CM decides if they should recuse themselves?

One obvious problem is CM2 reviews what CM1 did instead of independently coming to their own conclusions. Instead of being open to what might be ambiguous and finding otherwise, the bias would be to take the "This is bad" annotations or "I don't see any problem" and rubber stamp them. CM2 will have to work in the same office with CM1 so there would be that too.

In most states Juries have to be unanimous and can't discuss the details until they are sent for a verdict.

If both truly worked independently and both had the same verdict it would be a bit better.

[If] "reinstatement is deemed impossible, the request is denied and the reasons for it will be stated back to PM". - Reasons? Will you get to see the annotations or where you were said to have violated things or ignored requests to change something? Or will it be a blanket "You were found to have violated the Code of Conduct" and nothing more. This will open them up to defamation either way.

That's just the structural part. The other half is I don't think people trust them enough now, and have to go to the accusers to be reinstated.

And just the complexity. Someone who has voluntarily resigned over the drama now has to go through this process to get reinstated?

Re: The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it

[cellio]

Yeah, there are lots of problems in that new process.

Re: The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it

[a_i_breveleri]

The Moderator Reinstatement Process is for the repentant guilty.

Its biggest flaw in your case is that you are neither guilty nor repentant, so it doesn't apply to you. You can't use it. Ignore its existence.

Your position cannot be, nor cannot ever be perceived to be, that you need a process to follow. Stick to your assertion that SE must follow its own processes.