Please apologise properly to Monica

Question

Teresa Dietrich asked moderators who have resigned or suspended activity to post on Meta if issues remained unaddressed.

I haven't resigned or suspended activity but I am a moderator and as indicated by my current username, my relationship with the company remains substantially fractured as long as what happened to Monica is not properly acknowledged. The flaws in the "agreement" are clearly documented in many answers to that post.

Of course the immediate reaction will be "we can't say any more for legal reasons". But I'm sure that you could, by mutual consent, vary the agreement you have with her to allow you to post a real apology, even though it's likely too late to bring her back to the network.

One of the many mistakes appears to have been to work on the basis of a strict legal position without proper balancing of the other consequences of that position. By not properly remedying that situation to the extent still possible, that mistake is continuing.

This isn't just a question of treating an individual appropriately, but also of building trust that something like this won't happen again.

Answer 1

Totally agree with this suggestion.

There seems to be an agreement in the dialogue around The company’s commitment to rebuilding the relationship with you, our community that actions speak louder than words - and one of the easiest and most straightforward actions that can be taken would still be to fully and wholesomely apologise for the specific wrong turns that were taken in the course of the 'Monica' events, and make them right.

One reason for this, IMHO, is that the Monica events showed that a small group of people within SE were allowed to push their own agenda against the wishes of SE's communities. If this is still the case, then it means that those communities are still under threat from that same small group of people. If it isn't still the case, then it's hard to see what the barrier is to finding a way to make things right.

Answer 2

In his public apology, the CTO, David Fullerton, said that he "was personally involved at each step along the way" with the actions taken against Monica.

The CTO doesn't deal with community issues, day to day, so that means someone, who was involved in managing the community, and who was high enough on the org chart to march into the CTO's office to ask for his approval, is primarily responsible for how all of this went down.

Any apology to Monica will feel hollow without this person:

• Owning up to their role in this

• Explaining why they did what they did

• Explaining why they refused to engage with Monica as she repeatedly
  asked for dialogue, before the lawsuit.

• Convincing us they regret their actions, and what lessons they've taken away from all this

Edit I've noticed a couple of answers here suggest the legal settlement would prevent an apology of this nature. But there's absolutely no reason to believe it would be difficult for SE to come to an agreement with Monica about issuing a sincere public apology like this.

Edit 2 In the comments below, @user56reinstatemonica8 points us to the blog post of Jon Ericson, former Community Manager for Stack Overflow. He recounts how his efforts to mediate the situation were undermined and ignored, and how Monica's removal happened on his day off. It seems to reinforce what I wrote above. See the "Job" section of this blog post

Answer 3

Update 03/03/2020: Another bounty!

TL;DR

If it wasn't clear by now: More than one apology has been issued by the company, they could issue another dozen and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Monica Cellio, Josh Heyer (aka Shog9), Robert Cartaino and Jon Ericson have been permanently demodded, abruptly fired, or fled the burning building, respectively. No amount of apologising will bring any of them back. The company should ask them to come back, but it will not happen.

---

The OP admits the likelihood of Cellio returning to Stack Exchange if the company issued a more heartfelt apology is remote.

Of course the immediate reaction will be "we can't say any more for legal reasons". But I'm sure that you could, by mutual consent, vary the agreement you have with her to allow you to post a real apology, even though it's likely too late to bring her back to the network.

But the truth is, the company has already apologized, several times. Emphasis in bold, mine.

I will make it up to you, I promise to

An apology by the recently appointed, Chief Product Officer, Teresa Dietrich

I want to personally apologize for our actions or inactions, as the case may be, in the past that had a negative impact on our relationship.
@Teresa Dietrich February 19, 2020

By @Shog9, former Community Manager and Stack Overflow employee

Believe me, I know how stressful this is to watch, especially when so little is being said. There's a lot I want to say right now, but it would be careless of me to do so; and again, we've already been a bit too careless with what we've said in some situations, and hurt folks by doing so.

@Shog9October 15, 2019

The following apology was by David Fullerton♦, CTO of Stack Overflow, Inc., and VP of Engineering since 2012

In the last few weeks, we made a series of mistakes, both in our actions and in the ways that we communicated those actions. […] and I’m deeply sorry for the hurt that we’ve caused.

First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community […] I am responsible for that, and I am deeply sorry.

…we also acted at a time which coincided with a Jewish holiday which she and many other members of our community observe, and we should have taken that more into account in the process.

I’m responsible for that, and I’m sorry.

Third, we hurt the moderators and members of our communities. […] I’m responsible for that as well, and I’m sorry for the hurt that we’ve caused.

@David Fullerton♦ October 6, 2019

However, the first official apology to the community was posted just three days earlier; entitled

An Update to our Community and an Apology

It was then deleted by its author, @Sara Chipps♦, on December 23, 2019.

_{Posting a link or citing excerpts of deleted content carries the penalty of suspension. And after having served a one month suspension for this very offense, I could be suspended for a year. However, I believe, citing just the title of any deleted post is not punishable}

Words without actions

Another apology at this stage, sincere or not, would be insulting unless it was accompanied by an offer to reinstate Monica Cellio, without trial, as a moderator.

A possible compromise could be limiting the reinstatement on those sites where Cellio was democratically elected. This would, consequently, deny her moderator privileges where she was appointed for example, on MSE.

But in my opinion, that golden opportunity to really amend and include restitution for the hurt and wrongs inflicted collapsed when an agreement was settled between the two parties. Furthermore, if we cast our mind back to the official announcement, dated December 23, 2019, the term "regret" was used twice:

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

A regret is also a synonym for contrition and remorse. It implies the speaker or organisation expresses shame for something they have done or failed to do. Fundamentally, "we regret" is a formal way of saying "we are sorry".

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

regret

2: to be very sorry for
- regrets his mistakes

Whether these "regrets" and repeated "apologies" are sincere acts of contrition is an entirely different matter. One thing is sure though, there are no victors in this mess.

Answer 4

As sad as it is, but this extremely unrealistic, for two reasons:

• There was a legal agreement between the two sides. We have zero insight what it was about. But it is likely that an essential part was: "no more public talk about this".
• For good or bad, SE Inc. and this network ... still up. Maybe not the greatest times, but so far, survival.

Now you are basically asking that SE Inc. risks re-opening a huge unpredictable legal can of worms. Why? It didn't kill the company during the last months, so chances are: they will survive without doing that.

Maybe a single human being could, would act differently. But you are talking about a corporation here. Their primary obligation, in the end, is towards their investors and employees. Not to uphold standards of morale and ethics that we consider necessary.

"We" are probably reaching cross-roads here. SE Inc. is moving forward with open announcements, timetables, such things. Something is happening. If that is "good enough" ... I can't say right now.

What I mean is: it is unrealistic to expect SE Inc. to change course regarding Monica. To a certain degree, she has accepted that, and spends her time and energy to build a different place now.

Now ask yourself: if you really can't accept SE Inc's position, why are you spending your time in this place?

If that "real" apology and re-instantiation is a "must have" for you, then it might be time to accept: that it won't happen. If so, not getting your "must have" means that nothing else here means enough to you to stay here.

Or the other way round: if you see enough value in this place even without that "real apology", then stay, and work with what they give us to get to a better future.

But you can't have it both ways.

Please: don't get me wrong. I am not telling people to move away. Rather: to be honest about their own situation. If you think staying means "giving up on Monica", and you don't want to give up Monica, then for your own sake: live up to your conscious. Otherwise, consider to let bygones be bygones.

Asking SE Inc. for the zillionth time to spare you that decision will not work. They made it clear how they will proceed from here on.

The only thing left for you and me is: gain clarity on our priorities, and act accordingly.