The question Official FAQ on gender pronouns and Code of Conduct changes was recently deleted by its poster (a CM, if that matters). And an another revision of CoC was introduced.
What I want to know is:
- has this always been the case that a new revision of a policy was preceded by suppression of the information by limiting access to the earlier revision(s) of the policy?
The urge to set things right, or otherwise, might tempt a person (includes legal persons) to suppress the information which is not in that person's interest. However, given that the community has a direct stake in a policy, shouldn't transparency (access to information - necessary for individuals to know the past and to frame convincing arguments in the future if an aforesaid person makes a similar or a more severe mistake) be given priority here?
I can neither find nor can access any reason on the deleted post for its deletion.
I understand that the question was received negatively with votes and most of the addresses to it in the comments and the answers further added to that negative outlook. I also know that some individuals took the criticism as the opportunity to channel their disdain towards certain gender groups (I flagged one on my answer a few hours ago) which probably might have overburdened and also put in a very difficult situation the moderators of this meta. But difficulty in moderation doesn't justify the deletion of the source. Locking down the post for a certain period could have been adequate for "reasons of Moderation".
It can be argued that the deletion would put to rest some of the controversy by restricting access to controversial information so that new or unsuspecting users can focus on what matters to the company (but not necessarily to the community), but given that those who are most vocal on both sides of the spectrum already has consumed the information or has accees to it (10k privilege), how is deletion beneficial to both the community and the company?
Preventing new or unsuspecting users from knowing the mistakes / blunders hardly justifies deletion. On the contrary, this action could be deemed as a policy to handle a negatively received policy -- damage control to be precise.
So, what good (and for whom) would come out of the aforesaid taken action?
Note: I am not trying to incite anyone to go on a rage towards anyone, including the company. I am aghast by the severity of the action and its possible consequences and trying to seek sense out of it.