It's been stated repeatedly that Monica will be able to apply for reinstatement once the new process is in place.

However, it's also firmly agreed that no process was applied during her removal, and Monica's statements are that she has not yet received an explanation of why she was removed, or of what actions allegedly violated the CoC.

As it happens, the new Conduct Review Process provides for an urgent, emergency removal, which (it appears) is what occurred in this case. It allows for a quick removal, and then a less-urgent consideration and examination of the decision.

SE should complete this new process for Conduct Review and removal, rather than expecting Monica to apply for reinstatement.

• This would uphold the emergency removal without re-litigation. Emergency removal is an emergency.
• This would respect Monica and the community, by SE re-examining its previous rushed actions in order to observe reasonable process.
• This would prevent the deeply problematic and asymmetric situation, where the removal is done disregarding process but any attempt at reinstatement is within it (as Monica has written).
• This would demonstrate SE's commitment to the new processes, and help restore community trust in SE.
  It's quite possible the decision to remove will be upheld (and a hypothetical application to reinstate is rejected). But knowing the decisions are taken with care and under minimal process would go a long way towards convincing the community that this removal, and future actions, are not wholly rash or arbitrary. (Or, if SE is not capable of following its own process, best that we all find this out now, and not wait for the next firestorm.)

The new processes provide a decent framework for handling removals precisely like this one. If we're to have any trust in the framework in general or in this removal in particular, let's actually use the process -- especially when the current situation maps so very cleanly onto our pretty new flowchart.