If you have to supply your own less-apologetic paraphrase ("sorry you feel offended"), rather than quote any such constructions in the actual text, is that real

If you have to supply your own less-apologetic paraphrase ("sorry you feel offended"), rather than quote any such constructions in the actual text, is that really a fair reading? Other than the apparently-magic word 'sorry', your suggested wording doesn't address most of the specific asks of ~btilly's complaint above. (Don't worry, his proposed rewording didn't, either!) Perhaps, because it's exactly tuned to what you saw as worst about his treatment, it'd adequate for you. But not necessarily for any others demanding more groveling. It's also not consistent with the NumFOCUS committee's substantive position, which is not that they had prematurely concluded anything, but rather that they had erroneously communicated that they'd concluded something. That's a salient difference, even though the two errors look the same from Howard's perspective! (The two distinct failures would require different internal correctives, too.) You wouldn't want a public apology to lie about the actual internal errors identified just to be extra-palatable to third parties, would you? So, don't quit your day job to specialize in public apology writing just yet! And to entertain that idea of professionally-improved apologies a bit a more, realize that in certain situations, no matter how good the apology, or how well it hits certain notes, some on the warpath will always want X% more, & be able to find specific faults. Short & emphatic, as per your (& ~btilly's) rewrites? "Wasn't specific enough, too patronizing." Detailed with even a whiff of actual analysis as to the real org/psych reasons for an error? "Not empathetic enough, making excuses, rationalizing the behavior". Long enough to include all of the emotional cloying, and the exhaustive victim's-viewpoint confession of sins, and promises for changes? "Tone-deaf, insincere because if they really believed this they couldn't have made the error in the 1st place, seems over-wordsmithed." (But also: risks setting unrealistic expectations for the future.)