Allow Monica to have a structured conversation (à la mediation) with SE leadership

Based on how SE has reponded to this situation, I don't think they will do that.

From An Update to our Community and an Apology (emphasis mine)

We removed a moderator for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change their behavior. We recognize it has caused concern in the community as a whole. We made a hard decision, and we stand by that decision.

A comment on one of the answers:

We aren't going to re-litigate the past. We can't share more details as they involve real people, both moderators and people that work here. What we can say now is that we will do better in the future. - Sara Chipps

This is an official response from the Director of Public Q&A. It is not one the frivolous and impromptu replies. This came after a week of internal meetings and 20+ mod resignations later. They are neither taking Monica's calls nor replying to any of the emails. I don't think a meta post is going to change their mind.

UPDATE:

David Fullerton (Stack Overflow’s CTO) has posted An apology to our community, and next steps

We hurt a longstanding member of the community and an important volunteer moderator. She deserved the benefit of a private, comprehensive process. In the absence of a clear process for handling this kind of situation, we should have taken inspiration from our existing Moderator Action Review Process. We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing so skipped several critical parts of the process. In acting quickly, we also acted at a time which coincided with a Jewish holiday which she and many other members of our community observe, and we should have taken that more into account in the process.

I’m responsible for that, and I’m sorry. 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.

Quite honestly, without commmunication and transparency, a mediated discussion is going to get us nowhere. SE doesn't seem to be showing any signs of budging on the community's concerns at the moment (and if any SE higher-ups are reading this, take the hint: the community's still very upset).

Until the records of what exactly caused the firing are revealed, I find myself hesitant to post an opinion on this subject, since all I've got is hearsay from internet strangers I've never met. But on the other hand, the fact that all I've got is hearsay is certainly troubling. I think the first step towards getting this issue resolved is for Stack Exchange to declassify some record of the events leading up to the incident. I understand that privacy is a concern, but at the present moment Stack Exchange hasn't even revealed the exact cause of the termination.

If I were more critical of the company, I might even argue that SE's keeping quiet because everything they could reveal makes them look bad. I want to give SE the benefit of the doubt here, but I find it difficult to do so because everyone's in the dark. I know that SE cares about its community, and I believe we've got one of the best communities out there when it comes to the sense of unity we usually establish. I do truly hope that the company is simply extremely slow to react to this powder keg of an event, but as hours turn into days, I start to lose hope that SE can redeem itself.

I think, therefore, that if any mediated conversation were to be held between our ex-moderator and the current SE leadership, that two things must be done:

• A real explanation should be provided of the causes and events leading up to the termination
• The transcription of the mediated conversation should be posted to allow the community to evaluate the situation for themselves

So far, the outrage within the community has been centered on the fact that all the relevant information is being held behind closed doors. To move forward, someone must put a stop to the covert operations going on within the company, or else the company may lose the trust of its community.

What rights and leverage does a volunteer have?

This answer is a slight challenge to the frame of your question/suggestion. It appears that you are making an assumption that does not quite fit the conditions.

Let's give dialogue a chance. Allow Monica to have a structured conversation (a la mediation) with SE leadership. An experienced mediator can help make sure both sides feel heard.

SE has made sure it was heard. Sara Chipps' post was a clear message sent.

The (recent-as-of-14-january-2020) termination of shog9's time with SE/SO - a paid employee who has helped to build various communities in the SE/SO virtual world - sends that message again, with a double underline: community building and loyal people committed to building communities in the SE-verse are not as important as (-fill in the blank here-).

There aren't even two sides to have a mediation as there would be with a contract or a real life collective bargaining agreement. The SE/SO powers that be (PTB) have told a dedicated volunteer that "we no longer require your services" in a one-way conversation. Monica has shared with us (the larger user community) just how one way that is. (Other mods were witness to the one-way nature of the communication). That collection of "Us" has limited points of leverage.

What are the relationships here?

We the SE network users - and the small subset of users who are volunteer, unpaid moderators - all offer up time, talent and a knack for problem solving for no cost to support this enterprise because ... well, why do we do it? In my real life job I cost a bit over $75 per hour. Since none of us, users or mods, does this for pay, why do we contribute to this successful enterprise?

1. We feel like it.

2. It makes us feel good to help other people with similar problems and challenges.

3. We feel like a part of something bigger than ourselves.

4. We feel something in common with the various people we encounter in this venue.

5. If you take it back to the SO roots of all of this, problem solving (and sharing in how we do it) is a satisfying thing for people who are in a variety of lines of endeavor.

I've been involved with just over a dozen volunteer-heavy organizations in the past few decades. I have watched volunteers come and go. I have recently stepped aside from three such groups for a reason that goes something like this: if you aren't paying me to put with this stuff, I am for sure not putting up with this from you under (these terms, whatever they are).

Volunteers come and go. My brother works with a non-profit in Chicago, and he has to be very careful with how he treats the volunteers ... or the non-profit loses them. SE, in contrast, seems to have a glut of volunteers (at this point in time). As @hayd points out in a comment, one would presume that there is a duty of care on the part of the organization regarding the treatment of volunteers and my brother's organization takes it seriously).

With the above considered, let's take a look at how SE/SO views the current discontent among volunteers. Of about 600-ish moderators, a few dozen are expressing what I did to the groups I recently left: my offer of time and talent are not worth being repaid in the coin {treatment/rules/drama/demands} that you offer. The PTB do the math, and they look at the size of the volunteer base that potentially offers them replacements.

And they like their odds.

The PTB have no incentive to do as you suggest. The volunteer in this system has little to no leverage other than to get the word out to any future, prospective volunteer that this enterprise is less benign than is advertised.
The other leverage is to withhold their time and talent.

I'll repeat that by saying it differently: the only true leverage a volunteer has in a case like this is to walk, and I am not just talking about moderators. I am talking about all of the SE participants who volunteer their time, their talent, and their expertise in____(a thing that one of the 150-ish SE sites is about).

• Note: The above two paragraphs were posted before this official post was made; the above estimate may in time be shown to have missed the mark - one hopes so.

While I empathize with your appeal for a reconciliation, and I wish it were otherwise given the precious gifts that Monica has given to us all - her time, talent, heart, and wit - what you propose isn't a realistic expectation because the power relationship is one way (down hill).

As @adiga puts this:

They are neither taking Monica's calls nor replying to any of the emails. I don't think a meta post is going to change their mind.

Coda

On a selfish note, I wish the situation were one where a peacemaking / reconciliation were in the mix. I have found Monica's voice on Meta SE to be a reasonable one, and a helpful one.

Edit, October 12: When I originally wrote this post, I misunderstood something about the JAMS option described Stack Overflow's Public Network Terms of Service. Now that I've understood better where we stand, I am revising my answer accordingly.

There is a formal arbitration option, open to any SE user who feels they are in conflict with Stack Exchange

My original intent with this question was some kind of informal dialogue, with the help of an experienced mediator. I wasn't thinking in legal terms. It was more along the lines of My neighbors have their dog in their back yard, barking whenever a car goes by, while they're having dinner every evening; but that's the time when my kindergartner goes to bed. We need some help talking this through.

I still think that could be worthwhile, but I also found a more formal option at the company website, in the Public Network Terms of Service. I've done some excerpting (without ellipses) and reformatting for easier reading. To read the original just click on the link.

You agree that:

With respect to all disputes between you and Stack Overflow or its affiliates or its officers, directors, or employees with regard to your relationship with us, including disputes relating to

• these public network terms

• your use of the network or services

• rights of privacy

• rights of publicity

you and Stack Overflow shall first consult with each other to attempt to resolve such dispute in a manner satisfactory to both parties.

And that if a resolution is not reached within ninety (90) days, then the dispute shall be referred to and resolved by binding arbitration under JAMS, INC.’s rules for arbitration of consumer-related disputes.

And you and we hereby expressly waive trial by jury.

As an alternative, you may bring your claim in your local “small claims” court, if permitted by that small claims court’s rules.

You may bring claims only on your own behalf.

This dispute resolution provision will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and not by any state law concerning arbitration. In the event JAMS, INC. is unwilling or unable to set a hearing date within one hundred and sixty (160) days of filing the case, then either we or you can elect to have the arbitration administered instead by the American Arbitration Association.

Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having competent jurisdiction.

You agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising out of, related to or connected with the use of the public Network or these Public Network Terms must be filed within one (1) year after such claim of action arose or be forever banned.

You agree that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing, any arbitration proceeding between you and us will be conducted in New York, NY, USA, that the language of the arbitration shall be in English, and that all arbitration proceedings shall be considered confidential in nature.

The contact address is provided as

Stack Overflow, Attn: Legal Department, 110 William Street, Floor 28, New York, NY 10038 or by email notification at team (at) stackoverflow.com

JAMS, INC. has published at their website a Demand for Arbitration Form for US complainants as a pdf, and another pdf form for international complainants. Wikipedia describes JAMS like this:

JAMS, formerly known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.1 is a United States-based for-profit organization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services, including mediation and arbitration.

Note: in my experience advocating for my son, who has Tourette Syndrome, ADHD and OCD, I've sometimes been able to get things unstuck --not resolved completely, but definitely unstuck-- by contacting directly the organization's attorney.

Looking at the leadership team page, I would guess that the person who could put you in touch with Stack Overflow's attorney (if you wish to give that a try) might be Jerry Raphael, Finance and Operations ("responsible for the financial health and culture of the company; he oversees the accounting, finance, revenue operations, corporate legal, people, and employee experience teams"). Or, Jerry might bring a common sense approach to the problem himself and get things unstuck. I haven't found specific contact information for him. But he looks like a nice guy:

Notes about the arbitration form

For complainants in the US:

• For a consumer complaint in the US, there is an administrative filing fee of $250 except for complainants who live in California or Washington, DC.

• The company is responsible for the remainder of the filing fee.

• One may request Expedited Procedures. The company may agree to this but is not required to.

• There is an optional checkbox which states, "If mediation in advance of the arbitration is desired, please check here and a JAMS Case Manager will assist the parties in coordinating a mediation session."

• The instructions say to "serve" the completed form in person to the company. This means that the complainant sends the completed form to the company by mail, FedEx, etc., using some method that will result in written proof of delivery. Then, the complainant would fill out an affidavit of service. I think a notarized signature would be needed but I forgot to ask about that. Here's an example of an affidavit of service:

• The form must be submitted in two copies, by mail, FedEx, or the like (not by email). It must be accompanied by the payment, the affidavit of service, and the proof of delivery.

• The primary question posed in the form is

  NATURE OF DISPUTE / CLAIMS & RELIEF SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

For complainants outside the US:

• The form may be submitted via email.

• I haven't studied the international form yet, so I can't outline additional differences at this time.

The list of JAMS offices is here. I was told that one should submit the form by mail to the closest office. Also, I read some fine print (Consumer Arbitration Minimum Standards) and saw that "The consumer must have a right to an in-person hearing in his or her hometown area."

Questions?

In my initial call to JAMS several days ago, the intake person was not very helpful, but then referred me to a specific person higher up, whom I was able to speak with after a couple of days of phone tag, on October 10, and again on October 11 with follow-up questions. I found out that an individual who has questions about the process may use one of the phone numbers listed here, or may fill out only the required fields (marked with a red asterisk) in an online general form, and hit "submit." The appropriate staff person will then reach out to the individual directly, to provide clarity about the process.