Stack Overflow Inc.: call for company action

[cellio]

I just posted the following on Meta.SE under the title "Stack Overflow is doing me ongoing harm; it's time to fix it!":

---

Over the last month, Stack Overflow Inc. has violated its own policies and precedents to cause egregious and unnecessary harm to me -- to my reputation (personal and professional), to my health, and to my safety. This harm is significant and ongoing. It is past time for the company to correct its errors, repair what can be repaired, and move toward a spirit of working with rather than against its users and volunteers.

Whereas:

1. The company removed me without due process or warning and ignored procedures it already had in place, which an executive admitted to, and did so in the midst of a discussion with a community manager to understand the new Code of Conduct (which was previously unclear); and

2. A representative of the company violated longstanding privacy policies by immediately (within seconds) announcing my firing to a large audience, denying me the standard privacy afforded to subjects of such discipline; and

3. A director, speaking for the company, posted on various resignation announcements (example) in a way that maligns my character and violates the Code of Conduct; and

4. Company representatives violated common corporate practice of not commenting to the media (now codified) by speaking with The Register to further malign my character, paint me as a bigot, and make unsubstantiated claims; and

5. A company representative made an official post on Meta accusing me of "repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM's repeated requests to change that behavior", a claim that has never been substantiated, and featured the post across the network where it was prominent for 77 hours; and

6. Representatives of the company including executives, a director, and the Community Management team have failed to respond to my repeated requests to be shown these alleged violations and warnings and, more broadly, my requests for discussion to find a mutually-agreeable resolution to the situation; and

7. Company claims of an urgent need to act before resolving the ongoing discussion, despite my having left the Teachers' Lounge nine days earlier and otherwise behaving normally across the network, have never been substantiated; and

8. The new reinstatement process is unacceptable in my case because my removal did not follow the paired removal process (or any process), the reinstatement process proceeds from a presumption of a legitimate guilty finding, and I cannot appeal charges that have never been communicated to me; and

9. The issue I asked about has now been confirmed to comply with the new CoC;

Therefore I call on Stack Overflow Inc. and its individual representatives to:

1. Retract all of the negative statements about me described above, publicize that retraction to all places where the original claims were made or are known to have spread, and to the best of its ability clear my name; and

2. Reverse the original decision, restoring me to my position without prejudice. The model here must be akin to declaring a mistrial, not akin to an application for early parole.

Stack Overflow Inc. is a private company and its representatives are free to treat users badly. They can ignore #2 if they do not value fairness, respectfulness, and diversity; that is their right. However, they must address #1, and given the many errors that got us here, they should address #2.

My patience is not infinite; the company has already dragged this out for nearly a month while harm continues to accrue. It is past time for a meaningful response. I remain available to discuss the matter. Please prioritize resolving this ongoing, painful, damaging situation in the very near future.

Comments

[a_i_breveleri]

This is a "demand letter". A demand letter must set time limits. Without a time limit, as long as SE does not respond to this communication, you cannot say they have rejected the demands.

One of the difficulties with a demand letter is that the respondent can later attempt to claim that you said you would be satisfied with the demands in the letter. This can prevent you from asking for more. In order to counter this, you need to show that the letter was rejected.

In this case, you have demanded a retraction and a publication of the retraction. You have not demanded monetary compensation for current or future damages to your career. Should you eventually ask a court to order such compensation, SE could argue that it should merely satisfy the demands in this letter, which would still be on offer. You would be in the position of filing a lawsuit while in the midst of negotiations, which shows bad faith and vexatious litigation.

You must resubmit these demands to SE, but with a reasonable time limit -- say, "30 days from receipt of this letter" -- instead of the accommodating "in the very near future". Then send it via registered mail to SE corporate offices. (The 30 days would start from the date of the SE agent signature on the receipt.)

[cellio]

It's kind of a "pre" demand letter. I haven't delivered it directly into their hands with a paper trail; it's a public, open letter. An actual demand letter to follow would specify both time limits and financial damages and be properly served.

If they meet my demands to my satisfaction, I am willing to forego further demands. I'm giving them a chance to end this without more cost and damage. I hope they accept that offer.