His comments are fine, but don't engage with any of the criticism or concrete points others have made. The "Go Is Not a Community Driven Project" post really dug into detail how, in a specific case, Go did not behave as a community driven project, and it was made very clear that Go was Google's language, not the communities.<p>Responding with, in essence, "but we love the community!" is great, and probably true, but...unless it's followed up by "...and that's why we feel so badly about the previous events, and have made these specific changes" (or at the minimum a rebuttal of the specific criticisms), it doesn't really....mean anything?<p>Keep in mind, the closest we've got to introspection from Cox about the modules issue was a "I'm sorry everyone else is upset, I must have not explained things well enough" non-apology. Which is fine! The Go team doesn't need to apologise for running their language development process however they see fit...but it does underscore the issue.<p>Fundamentally, a decent chunk of the Go community thinks that the modules process was <i>fundamentally broken</i>, and the Go team thinks the modules process was <i>fundamentally fine</i>. I would interpret the subtext of Cox's post as "we really wish the community would be fine with the process". No doubt.<p>Finally, there's something a bit patronising about this:<p>> I spent a while trying to work out what I want to say about the general theme of Go and open source, but in the end I realized that my talk at Gophercon 2015 is a better articulation of what open source means for Go, and what Google's role is, than any email I can write in a few hours today. You can read the blog post version, “Go, Open Source, Community,” at <a href="https://blog.golang.org/open-source" rel="nofollow">https://blog.golang.org/open-source</a>, and I am including a copy below. I reread it this morning, and I still believe everything I said then.<p>The current discussion is about events <i>after</i> 2015, by people who are well aware of that talk. If people are questioning how the Go team is interacting with the community even <i>after</i> that talk, then maybe it isn't sufficient, and you need to do more than just tell everyone to read it again?