This is by and large a reaction to Does the company acknowledge misusing the press, and why won't it agree on a no-comment policy?
Do we believe it's realistic to require the company to commit to a policy of not commenting on actions of the community (or whatever the currently proposed articulation is) to the press?
If not, what exactly are we trying, or should we try to get them to agree to?
Issue: Stack Exchange, Inc. made inappropriate comments to the press. Progress: We are debating this issue and have not yet reached a conclusion. Stack is so far unwilling to agree to a blanket policy of "no comment" when asked for comment on anything involving moderators; we are considering what our options are here. Stack Exchange, Inc. would like to keep open the option of commenting on general moderator actions not taken by an individual; the representatives are pushing for Stack to refrain commenting even about groups of moderators. Stack has also indicated that they think it would be unfair for the company to be bound to not comment while individual moderators are free to comment, citing my own personal statements to the press. I've reminded them that they are a billion-dollar company, while we are a group of volunteers.
The phrase a blanket policy of "no comment" when asked for comment on anything involving moderators might not be a faithful summary of what exactly has been proposed in the actual negotiations, but it sounds like something the company could not agree to. Waiving their right to be heard under any circumstances is not practical for a number of reasons, or possibly even legally acceptable (granted, my understanding of US law is certainly limited, and its practice has recently repeatedly left me flabbergasted).
What exactly do we want to achieve here, and what would constitute a mutually acceptable way to achieve that goal?