Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

17
  • 28
    In the worst-case scenario, this apology could be an attempt to cause a cover-up of that earlier, more controversial post. I'd like to assume that's not the reasoning. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 21:33
  • 30
    That "risk that required fast action" almost certainly isn't something they can say in public. They haven't even told the mods, and there's plenty us mods can't tell the rest of the community. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 21:35
  • 30
    @wizzwizz4 Still, something about this apology doesn't sit right with me - it took them well over a reasonable amount of time to post this. You can't sit here and tell me that's not even the least bit suspicious. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 21:39
  • 9
    @connectyourcharger I've been drafting something similar to just parts of this letter, and I haven't managed to get it finished. Just writing the damn thing would've taken hours and hours, and a corporate bureaucracy known to be terrible at making decisions on top of that? Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 21:45
  • 6
    Just to clarify - I'm not looking for the specifics for this case. I'm looking for causes that'd force a break in flow and procedures. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 22:12
  • 35
    Because this one required a professional consultant to write it and is not cheap. They didn't know how bad things were until after the first update flopped. Once the C-suite is involved and needs to make a statement, you pay money to make sure you don't screw up. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 2:08
  • 6
    @StrongBad Good observation. Every bit of the post smells of pro work. Even the timing and the lovely family picture is suspect. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:17
  • 1
    @berendi "suspect"? I'm pretty sure that has been David's avatar for awhile now. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:42
  • 8
    @StrongBad well if it is pro work, George should get a cut Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 4:08
  • 8
    @connectyourcharger Never ascribe to malice what you can ascribe to mere negligence and ineptitude. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 7:25
  • @StrongBad Do you have any basis for thinking this was written by a paid outsider beyond thinking it'd be the sensible thing for them to have done and/or how the text of the post itself feels to you? Given that you're a mod, it's hard to tell whether you're going on inside information the rest of us can't see or are judging from the same surface appearances visible to the rest of us. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:06
  • 3
    @MarkAmery no mod info. I also didn't mean my comment to be an insult or take away from the apology. It still takes work from SE to come up with the themes and solutions. The pro only guides and process and polishes the text. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:10
  • 3
    @StrongBad Roger. My take, for what it's worth, is that this is unlikely to be an outsider's work. There are skilled writers on the CM team, and no reason to bring in someone else to do their job. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:39
  • 25
    Most writers (who have any substantial body of work) have certain "tells". They're hard to describe explicitly (usually you don't notice them consciously), but I see a couple SE folks' hands in this message. I don't think they farmed it out. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 14:05
  • 4
    @berendi That's a rather cynical accusation. See web.archive.org/web/20190331035403/https://… - that photo is months old. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 19:58