As someone who only joined StackOverflow as a community because I had to in order to be able to become part of the moderator team, the read was disappointing in many ways.

Firstly, it reads as though StackOverflow (the community) was all that is of interest to the CEO and his whole development team. Communication with the community, acquisition, welcoming, and inclusion of state-of-the-art professionals in order to keep the community useful etc....all this is all but exclusive to the community of StackOverflow and poses challenges to all communities in the StackExchange Network. Should we infer that all these sites and their communities and moderators are not of interest to the CEO and the company? Since this blog post popped up as a must-read on Philosophy. SE, this feels borderline cynical.

Secondly, while the CEO has liabilities with regard to certain economic conditions, one cannot speak of how great one relies on communication with the community and at the same time sack some of the community leaders and speakers who have been held in highest esteem by the community. But again, maybe they've been too mundane in their interests and activities so that the software development focus just let them seem completely outlandish and unimportant. I mean, obviously the CoC changes have been made in close coordination with the community as well, if I read the blog text correctly (which one, which part exactly? MSE in general and a certain ex-mod in particular have been quite overtaken by the events in my book).

Thirdly, you aim to retain and develop the important role of SO in the overall profession of software development. That's fine. But why, exactly, does it seem to be more promising to completely put the working structures upside down (probably losing much of the existing user base, ie. the important few users which do the important job you repeatedly praised as being so important for the company's success) instead of, say, extending working structures like "jobs" to other communities like Math.SO? What is it, except activism and new employees proving themselves to be important by using language and topics which sound important, which necessitates putting the overall quality of all new StackExchange Network content at stake for the sake of - hopefully - drawing some new software developers away from emerging knowledge clusters and into sharing their knowledge and investing their time for free on SO so that their edge in a competitive job market is given away?

Be it as it may, I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all. At least the pieces fall into their place when looking into recent events: It's about being hip and diverse and attractive enough for the cool kids (which is the basic message of the whole post). But its basically just burning bridges in the hope of catching up to developments which are both hard to foresee where they are going to end up and faster than huge corporate (and especially community) structures can possibly adequately adapt to.

Philip Klöcking, elected moderator on Philosophy.SE

As someone who only joined StackOverflow as a community because I had to in order to be able to become part of the moderator team, the read was disappointing in many ways.

Firstly, it reads as though StackOverflow (the community) was all that is of interest to the CEO and his whole development team. Communication with the community, acquisition, welcoming, and inclusion of state-of-the-art professionals in order to keep the community useful etc....all this is all but exclusive to the community of StackOverflow and poses challenges to all communities in the StackExchange Network. Should we infer that all these sites and their communities and moderators are not of interest to the CEO and the company? Since this blog post popped up as a must-read on Philosophy. SE, this feels borderline cynical.

Secondly, while the CEO has liabilities with regard to certain economic conditions, one cannot speak of how great one relies on communication with the community and at the same time sack some of the community leaders and speakers who have been held in highest esteem by the community. But again, maybe they've been too mundane in their interests and activities so that the software development focus just let them seem completely outlandish and unimportant. I mean, obviously the CoC changes have been made in close coordination with the community as well, if I read the blog text correctly (which one, which part exactly? MSE in general and a certain ex-mod in particular have been quite overtaken by the events in my book).

Thirdly, you aim to retain and develop the important role of SO in the overall profession of software development. That's fine. But why, exactly, does it seem to be more promising to completely put the working structures upside down (probably losing much of the existing user base, ie. the important few users which do the important job you repeatedly praised as being so important for the company's success) instead of, say, extending working structures like "jobs" to other communities like Math.SO? What is it, except activism and new employees proving themselves to be important by using language and topics which sound important, which necessitates putting the overall quality of all new StackExchange Network content at stake for the sake of - hopefully - drawing some new software developers away from emerging knowledge clusters and into sharing their knowledge and investing their time for free on SO so that their edge in a competitive job market is given away?

Be it as it may, I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all. At least the pieces fall into their place when looking into recent events: It's about being hip and diverse and attractive enough for the cool kids (which is the basic message of the whole post). But it is basically just burning bridges in the hope of catching up to developments which are a) both hard to foresee where they are going to end up and b) faster than huge corporate (and especially community) structures can possibly adequately be adapted to by force.

Philip Klöcking, elected moderator on Philosophy.SE

As someone who only joined StackOverflow as a community because I had to in order to be able to become part of the moderator team, the read was disappointing in many ways.

Firstly, it reads as though StackOverflow (the community) was all that is of interest to the CEO and his whole development team. Communication with the community, acquisition, welcoming, and inclusion of state-of-the-art professionals in order to keep the community useful etc....all this is all but exclusive to the community of StackOverflow and poses challenges to all communities in the StackExchange Network. Should we infer that all these sites and their communities and moderators are not of interest to the CEO and the company? Since this blog post popped up as a must-read on Philosophy. SE, this feels borderline cynical.

Secondly, while the CEO has liabilities with regard to certain economic conditions, one cannot speak of how great one relies on communication with the community and at the same time sack some of the community leaders and speakers who have been held in highest esteem by the community. But again, maybe they've been too mundane in their interests and activities so that the software development focus just let them seem completely outlandish and unimportant. I mean, obviously the CoC changes have been made in close coordination with the community as well, if I read the blog text correctly (which one, which part exactly? MSE in general and a certain ex-mod in particular have been quite overtaken by the events in my book).

Thirdly, you aim to retain and develop the important role of SO in the overall profession of software development. That's fine. But why, exactly, does it seem to be more promising to completely put the working structures upside down (probably losing much of the existing user base, ie. the important few users which do the important job you repeatedly praised as being so important for the company's success) instead of, say, extending working structures like "jobs" to other communities like Math.SO? What is it, except activism and new employees proving themselves to be important by using language and topics which sound important, which necessitates putting the overall quality of all new StackExchange Network content at stake for the sake of - hopefully - drawing some new software developers away from emerging knowledge clusters and into sharing their knowledge and investing their time for free on SO so that their edge in a competitive job market is given away?

Be it as it may, I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all.

Philip Klöcking, elected moderator on Philosophy.SE

As someone who only joined StackOverflow as a community because I had to in order to be able to become part of the moderator team, the read was disappointing in many ways.

Firstly, it reads as though StackOverflow (the community) was all that is of interest to the CEO and his whole development team. Communication with the community, acquisition, welcoming, and inclusion of state-of-the-art professionals in order to keep the community useful etc....all this is all but exclusive to the community of StackOverflow and poses challenges to all communities in the StackExchange Network. Should we infer that all these sites and their communities and moderators are not of interest to the CEO and the company? Since this blog post popped up as a must-read on Philosophy. SE, this feels borderline cynical.

Secondly, while the CEO has liabilities with regard to certain economic conditions, one cannot speak of how great one relies on communication with the community and at the same time sack some of the community leaders and speakers who have been held in highest esteem by the community. But again, maybe they've been too mundane in their interests and activities so that the software development focus just let them seem completely outlandish and unimportant. I mean, obviously the CoC changes have been made in close coordination with the community as well, if I read the blog text correctly (which one, which part exactly? MSE in general and a certain ex-mod in particular have been quite overtaken by the events in my book).

Thirdly, you aim to retain and develop the important role of SO in the overall profession of software development. That's fine. But why, exactly, does it seem to be more promising to completely put the working structures upside down (probably losing much of the existing user base, ie. the important few users which do the important job you repeatedly praised as being so important for the company's success) instead of, say, extending working structures like "jobs" to other communities like Math.SO? What is it, except activism and new employees proving themselves to be important by using language and topics which sound important, which necessitates putting the overall quality of all new StackExchange Network content at stake for the sake of - hopefully - drawing some new software developers away from emerging knowledge clusters and into sharing their knowledge and investing their time for free on SO so that their edge in a competitive job market is given away?

Be it as it may, I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all. At least the pieces fall into their place when looking into recent events: It's about being hip and diverse and attractive enough for the cool kids (which is the basic message of the whole post). But its basically just burning bridges in the hope of catching up to developments which are both hard to foresee where they are going to end up and faster than huge corporate (and especially community) structures can possibly adequately adapt to.

Philip Klöcking, elected moderator on Philosophy.SE