3 ms·

I don't know, seems pretty apology-y. I'm not familiar with what happened, but here he repeatedly stated "I am responsible for that".

by ahuth 7y ago

PavlovsCat 7y ago
It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? > We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So unless they agree to it, she can't publish what they talk about in private, no matter the words spoken or the outcome. That's such a weird commitment to privacy in this context, it's not like this has anything to do with private stuff as far as the moderator is concerned, unless I'm completely mistaken. So it's basically offering a conversation with the option on their part to pretend there never was a conversation, should it fail to achieve the goal they no doubt already outlined in meetings.
- phnofive 7y ago
  Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. She’s been discussing this openly, so it reads like a threat to keep all future grievances private unless SO allows otherwise if there’s any hope of being reinstated.
- Lazare 7y ago
  > It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? I'm not convinced that removing Monica as a moderator was a mistake. She made it clear in a comment quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. And in the leaked transcripts (if you trust them) it seems she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused. Obviously SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication (which is what they apologised for), but ultimately it seems that she's just not not a good fit for SO. There's no suggestion that SO is not going to enforce a rule requiring moderators to use people's preferred pronouns, when known and when appropriate, and Monica was very clear that in at least some cases she would not do so. So...one way or another, she was clearly going to be removed, right? Arguably she could be re-instated today and then re-removed later in the week when the CoC changes come into force, but to what end? That doesn't help her, SO, or the community. (And that assumes she didn't violate the existing CoC, which is still disputed.)
  - SnarkAsh 7y ago
    > She made it clear talking to a journalist from The Register I'm not sure what you're referring to: Monica didn't talk to anyone at The Register..? Only Stack Overflow knew that article was coming. If there was a formal policy in place, Monica would not violate it. If the differences were unresolvable, she would have resigned, but only after looking for a compromise. Under no circumstances would she have broken with policy and needed to be forcibly removed. We have eight years of character evidence from her, including several posts from Stack Exchange employees over the years commending her reasonableness and contributions. Sara Chipps' actions ignore all of that and assumed the worst.
    - Lazare 7y ago
      I fixed my wording relating to the Register article; it's getting a little confusing to try and track all the different comment threads, edits, and updates. As for the rest of your comment, that seems to contradict claims made by others, including other moderators, but alright. Even granting it to be 100% true, that suggests as most that she should have resigned (or been removed) this week instead of a week and a half ago, right?
      - SnarkAsh 7y ago
        Potentially. The policy still hasn't been finalized, so I'm not ready to assume that it's something she wouldn't have been able to comply with.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > She made it clear in a post quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. So just fire her pre-emptively without warning because she might violate a policy that's not yet in place? > she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused I don't know what transcript that refers to, but her account reads very different: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... > I raised some issues with the formation of the policy and asked some questions, the vast majority of which were never answered. [..] > On Monday I received email from a different CM explaining why they were making the change and mis-stating some issues I had raised. Concerned that I had not made myself clear in my haste to respond quickly on Friday, I replied with some questions. This was an amicable exchange; I thought we were having a productive conversation. I was promised a reply by this past Friday. > Instead, I saw my diamond disappear before my eyes and briefly saw an announcement from a CM in TL that contained false allegations against me. When I tried to respond I was booted from the room. Around this time I received email firing me. This email did not cite anything I have done wrong; this was a pre-emptive move that runs counter to how SE tells moderators to treat users when considering suspensions. (Moderators suspend in response to behavior, not speculatively.) I agree that it wasn't a mistake though: a mistake is pressing the wrong button. This is just a shoddy way to treat people, and a shoddy way to not-apologize for it. > SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication Namely a.) not fire for precrime, b.) not ever c.) respond to questions as promised, rather than answering with a ban for no valid reason.
- mthoms 7y ago
  That sentence starts with "We", meaning Stack Overflow won't publish anything unless both sides agree to it. She's free to share whatever she wants, whenever she wants. Granted, the sentence in question is awkwardly written I agree.
  - raynr 7y ago
    > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. I don't know... it's really awkward if so. There are three "we"s here. First we = SO. Second we = ambiguous, following on from the first we it could be read as meaning SO like you say. But then, clearly, the third we = SO + Monica (and incidentally she is not named). The part about her being free to share whatever she wants is not stated. It's a small point to be sure. But consider: these statements are almost always run through multiple layers of approval before they go out. PR, legal, and relevant C-level execs, typically. And if it is an issue that has blown up, everyone is doubly and triply cautious about phrasing. At best, the phrasing is innocently awkward. At worst, it's... revealing, I guess?

I don't know, seems pretty apology-y. I'm not familiar with what happened, but here he repeatedly stated "I am responsible for that".

by ahuth 7y ago

I don't know, seems pretty apology-y. I'm not familiar with what happened, but here he repeatedly stated "I am responsible for that".

PavlovsCat 7y ago

It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? > We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So unless they agree to it, she can't publish what they talk about in private, no matter the words spoken or the outcome. That's such a weird commitment to privacy in this context, it's not like this has anything to do with private stuff as far as the moderator is concerned, unless I'm completely mistaken. So it's basically offering a conversation with the option on their part to pretend there never was a conversation, should it fail to achieve the goal they no doubt already outlined in meetings.

phnofive 7y ago
Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. She’s been discussing this openly, so it reads like a threat to keep all future grievances private unless SO allows otherwise if there’s any hope of being reinstated.
Lazare 7y ago
> It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? I'm not convinced that removing Monica as a moderator was a mistake. She made it clear in a comment quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. And in the leaked transcripts (if you trust them) it seems she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused. Obviously SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication (which is what they apologised for), but ultimately it seems that she's just not not a good fit for SO. There's no suggestion that SO is not going to enforce a rule requiring moderators to use people's preferred pronouns, when known and when appropriate, and Monica was very clear that in at least some cases she would not do so. So...one way or another, she was clearly going to be removed, right? Arguably she could be re-instated today and then re-removed later in the week when the CoC changes come into force, but to what end? That doesn't help her, SO, or the community. (And that assumes she didn't violate the existing CoC, which is still disputed.)
- SnarkAsh 7y ago
  > She made it clear talking to a journalist from The Register I'm not sure what you're referring to: Monica didn't talk to anyone at The Register..? Only Stack Overflow knew that article was coming. If there was a formal policy in place, Monica would not violate it. If the differences were unresolvable, she would have resigned, but only after looking for a compromise. Under no circumstances would she have broken with policy and needed to be forcibly removed. We have eight years of character evidence from her, including several posts from Stack Exchange employees over the years commending her reasonableness and contributions. Sara Chipps' actions ignore all of that and assumed the worst.
  - Lazare 7y ago
    I fixed my wording relating to the Register article; it's getting a little confusing to try and track all the different comment threads, edits, and updates. As for the rest of your comment, that seems to contradict claims made by others, including other moderators, but alright. Even granting it to be 100% true, that suggests as most that she should have resigned (or been removed) this week instead of a week and a half ago, right?
    - SnarkAsh 7y ago
      Potentially. The policy still hasn't been finalized, so I'm not ready to assume that it's something she wouldn't have been able to comply with.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > She made it clear in a post quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. So just fire her pre-emptively without warning because she might violate a policy that's not yet in place? > she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused I don't know what transcript that refers to, but her account reads very different: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... > I raised some issues with the formation of the policy and asked some questions, the vast majority of which were never answered. [..] > On Monday I received email from a different CM explaining why they were making the change and mis-stating some issues I had raised. Concerned that I had not made myself clear in my haste to respond quickly on Friday, I replied with some questions. This was an amicable exchange; I thought we were having a productive conversation. I was promised a reply by this past Friday. > Instead, I saw my diamond disappear before my eyes and briefly saw an announcement from a CM in TL that contained false allegations against me. When I tried to respond I was booted from the room. Around this time I received email firing me. This email did not cite anything I have done wrong; this was a pre-emptive move that runs counter to how SE tells moderators to treat users when considering suspensions. (Moderators suspend in response to behavior, not speculatively.) I agree that it wasn't a mistake though: a mistake is pressing the wrong button. This is just a shoddy way to treat people, and a shoddy way to not-apologize for it. > SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication Namely a.) not fire for precrime, b.) not ever c.) respond to questions as promised, rather than answering with a ban for no valid reason.
mthoms 7y ago
That sentence starts with "We", meaning Stack Overflow won't publish anything unless both sides agree to it. She's free to share whatever she wants, whenever she wants. Granted, the sentence in question is awkwardly written I agree.
- raynr 7y ago
  > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. I don't know... it's really awkward if so. There are three "we"s here. First we = SO. Second we = ambiguous, following on from the first we it could be read as meaning SO like you say. But then, clearly, the third we = SO + Monica (and incidentally she is not named). The part about her being free to share whatever she wants is not stated. It's a small point to be sure. But consider: these statements are almost always run through multiple layers of approval before they go out. PR, legal, and relevant C-level execs, typically. And if it is an issue that has blown up, everyone is doubly and triply cautious about phrasing. At best, the phrasing is innocently awkward. At worst, it's... revealing, I guess?