The 'agreement' does not involve agreeing to reinstate her, and while claiming to apologize for <i>"making mistakes"</i>, counterfactually goes on to say <i>"we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement [says nothing about as a moderator] on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.</i> <i>Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied."</i><p>People who have remained inexplicably silent throughout: new SO CEO Prasanth Chandrasekar, and Joel Spolsky.
Hiding is not leadership.<p>The SO user reaction was near-unanimous rejection: in one day alone the post got -533 votes; that might be the record for a one-day downvote: <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/340906/update-an-agreement-with-monica-cellio" rel="nofollow">https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/340906/update-an-ag...</a><p>54 moderators have resigned over the matter:
<a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper" rel="nofollow">https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...</a> . And there's still the issue of forced relicensing, including asserting the right to do that retrospectively before the CoC change.<p>Monica was a valued and respected contributor and it is sad to see yet more missteps as SO pursues monetization and profitability. A large number of SO users still say she should be reinstated. Management could yet fix their mistake if they really wanted to.