When you're reading through the vast outpouring of concern from our community - whether that be this letter, the comments/answers on your apology announcement(s), the 40+ meta questions as a result of this recent incident, or the vast backlog of requests over the past few years - I ask you to consider the human impact.

It would be very easy to chalk down this entire incident to just another controversy. Just another meta post. Just another loss of a few long-time users. Just another blip in our turnover statistics. Just another weekend of overtime for the community managers. Just another 'apology' post to please the masses for a few more weeks. I can understand why you'd look at it this way - that's what corporations do.

But please, don't ignore the real-world, lasting impact this is going to have on your users.

If there's one paragraph of the open letter that you should read, it's this:

Among the most serious mistakes made was that a staff member spoke to the press about a member of the community who participates here under her own name. That same community member is now described in the press with language that can be taken to imply she is an extremist and a bigot. This news article is now the top search report for her name, which may cause her serious issues in real life, with her friends, her family, and her career. In doing this, Stack Exchange has rewarded years of service by putting one of its volunteers in danger – and there’s now a very real feeling that we may no longer be safe on this platform.

One of our most valued moderators is going to find their name permanently tarnished. If you were considering hiring a person, and noticed that the top search result for their name painted them as a transphobe, would you proceed any further? Would you try and find out the whole story? Or would you simply cross their name off the 'potential candidates' list and move on? Because that's what'll happen. Their life, affected in a real and lasting way, as a result of your decision. And I don't think that's fair.

But it's not only the moderator in question that will be impacted by this. Consider all the other moderators who spend hours every day moderating this site, for weeks and years on end, only to find their valuable time unappreciated. The vast collection of active users who feel lost in the community in which they once felt at home. And the LGBTQ+ users who have been insulted, belittled, and dehumanised by recent events, to a point where they feel unsafe participating on these sites.

Think of that. Think of the human impact. It's all that I ask.

This is a second drafted letter (also drafted before the meta post) addressing more specifically the issues the LGBT+ community feels it is necessary to address. You can read this letter in full and sign it on the same website as the primary letter. Signatures are welcome from both members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community. Thank you.

Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.,

We, the undersigned moderators and users of the Stack Exchange network, feel that it is necessary to elaborate on a few points that were omitted in our general letter, in order to keep that letter focused.

We are members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community, and we are hurt.

We are hurt that in the time since the announcement of change in the Code of Conduct was made, we felt unfairly targeted by transphobic attitudes that were dismissed as "friendly discussion", not only by the community at large but also by other moderators.

We are hurt that over the years, there have been multiple users and moderators who have stepped away from using the site because they felt unwelcome due to anti-LGBTQ+ behavior by the community (and sometimes even moderators). The affected users and moderators have given multiple testimonies to that effect, yet have received no response from Stack Exchange, Inc.

We are hurt at how long it has taken for us to be heard, and hurt by how now that we are being heard at all, it has been tainted by mishandling by Stack Exchange, Inc, causing the community to be doubtful of our goals.

We are hurt that resignations from LGBTQ+ moderators have only started to receive notice due to the uproar over a correlated issue.

We are human, we are hurt, we are tired, and we ask that Stack Exchange, and the community as a whole, listens to our concerns.

We ask that several things be done:

1. We ask that Stack Exchange, Inc does more to pay attention to the complaints and requests of the LGBTQ+ community and does more to ensure that rules are properly applied such that LGBTQ+ people are treated with the same respect everyone should be treated with.
2. We ask that the consequences for not respecting members of the community be more explicit, and be consistently carried out. Too many times have transphobic or homophobic comments gone by with no response from the Community Team, leaving LGBTQ+ individuals to explain their own validity again and again and again.
3. Moderating is hard, and the LGBTQ+ community has been underrepresented in media for long enough that many moderators do not know how to handle some specific situations. Some moderators have requested sensitivity training. This would help those who work so hard on behalf of the Stack Exchange community to receive the support and guidance they need to carry out their duties.

It is time for something to be done about a situation that has become, frankly, untenable. Please listen to us - each of us, individually. The ways we have been hurt vary, and the things we feel could improve the situation vary. Too many of us have already left because nothing has been done. Thank you.

[Editor’s note: LGBT+, LGBTQ+, and similar are used interchangeably. We refer to the entire group of gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, or the ‘Lavender’ community.]

[Second editor’s note: This was written before the most recent meta post by the Stack Exchange team, and we thank them for their acknowledgement of the situation, in particular of the harm they have caused to the LGBTQ+ community on Stack Exchange. However, the issues addressed in this letter go beyond just the incident of the past week, and so we are still releasing this letter, both for transparency, and the broader commentary it contains.]

Please: Sign on the actual letter here

(As of this edit, there are over 175 signatures.)

I'm one of the moderators that helped draft, and then signed this letter. I'd like to offer my personal take on things.

I joined Stack Overflow in 2008, in one of the first Beta waves when you needed to be invited. I was involved in Area 51 in the definition of some of the earliest sites in the Stack Exchange network, primarily Software Engineering (where I'm user ID 4 and was elected as a community moderator in 2012).

When I became a moderator, the role of moderator was described in two different ways. Moderators were called "janitors" or "garbage collectors" or "human exception handlers". A large part of our role was to resolve issues in our community that the others could not. We had binding votes to handle the worst posts quickly and the ability to suspend users who could not follow the rules and norms of the community. However, there was also another part to our role - liaisons to the company. We had easy access to the community team and were expected to help them understand the nuances and details of the communities that we serve.

Over the years, especially in the almost 8 years that I've been a moderator, I've seen a lot of change. The network grew from 1 site to 3 sites to over 170 sites covering so many topics. However, in that same time period, the environment also changed. The company, naturally, grew up as well. There were a lot of growing pains. The engagement between staff and moderators was very high when I joined the moderation team, but decreased over time. Feature requests and bug reports and even discussions weren't as well addressed by staff as they used to be. And, as moderators, our role as liaisons decreased, I feel because of the lack of engagement between staff and moderators.

The past year or so, in my opinion, has seen the most disengagement between staff and moderators (and the broader community), with most interaction happening in proclamations of changes or in emergency situations.

I believe that this disengagement is the very root of many of the problems that the network has seen over the past months and years.

Unfortunately, at this moment in time, there are pressing concerns from various individuals and groups that need to be addressed. However, as they are addressed, I hope that we can return to a spirit of collaboration between the company and the users, with the moderators that have been appointed from or elected by each community returning to their roles as liaisons and community builders in addition to custodians of their sites.

Based on the announcement that Stack Exchange staff have made, the next week or two will be pivotal in demonstrating the first steps in a restoration of this fundamental collaborative relationship that has made Stack Overflow, and the rest of the Stack Exchange network, so successful. I truly hope that we can repair these issues.

Personally, I will be watching the words and actions of Stack Exchange very closely over the next weeks and months. I hope that their most recent apology marks the beginning of a new chapter and a return to what brought so many of us to Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange network.

Thank you for writing to us about this. This isn’t our final response here, but in the interest of being transparent and keeping lines of communication open, we wanted to respond with something as soon as possible. While this isn’t the answer you’ve been looking for, we wanted to update you on some of what we have been doing and what we have been working towards as an answer to these letters.

Since you posted,

• We have created a clear policy for communicating with the press regarding moderator actions. This has been coded as “No Comment”.
• We have shared our censure/removal and reinstatement processes for moderators with them for feedback last week. You can read more on this answer. These should be ready for moderators to use, and publicly available on October 22nd.
• We are currently working on updating the FAQ (archived version) we posted to accompany the recent CoC changes, taking in mind and heavily basing it on the community suggested one. We will share the revised version with the moderators by tomorrow - and hope to have the feedback incorporated and made public by October 22nd.

As part of reviewing this, we are also taking our time to improve our internal communication processes so that we, the CMs, can more effectively communicate between our coworkers and moderators and the community at large. As part of our response to these letters, we want to have more details on this; as it entails structural change, it may take a little while.

Here are the points that we heard loud and clear from the letter and plan to address. Moderators and the community feel:

• Distanced from us and unincluded in changes that affect your sites and roles.
• Frustrated with long-standing problems seeming like you need to erupt on Twitter before you get our attention.
• That the CoC changes give less autonomy and flexibility on how to moderate a diverse group of sites that are used by people from many different backgrounds.
• That we do not actively support our Moderators anymore, and thus placed you on shaky ground. Including serious concerns regarding our statements made to the press.
• That it is not safe or acceptable anymore, even dangerous, to disagree with Stack Exchange on matters of major policy.
• That you want to see a roadmap and plan for how we can work together to repair this relationship, communicating more effectively.
• That we do not pay enough attention to feedback and complaints from the Lavender members of our sites and do not take action when necessary as quickly as necessary.
• That we have failed to make the rules apply to everyone equitably and consistently, leaving attacks without real consequences.

A final key thing we are working on (and planning to start implementing gradually) are avenues for improved feedback on projects while they are in progress and before they ship. Depending on each project this could mean focus groups, 1:1 interviews, research, or open calls for feedback. We are committed to working alongside the community and you should be hearing more about it soon.

The Community Management Team.

I think the final paragraph summarizes this whole letter:

We recognise that Stack Exchange is in no way obliged to take our input. We know that we are guests in the home of a private company. We don’t own the platform, and while we want to help to steer the ship, we don’t have the right to determine how it is governed.

This sentiment has been echoed more and more as the community has been ignored and while it's true, it has to be understood that folk have invested a lot of time and effort into building up the communities that currently exist. While that might not mean much to the investors it should at the very least mean something to the CMs. A lot of this is done behind closed doors so we really don't know if many of our concerns have been raised by CMs to the higher-ups, though, I'd like to think they were and that they were shot down by management and not that they were never passed on to management.

What built this network is a sense of community and common purpose, and a big part of that has always been the close relationship and communication between Stack Exchange and stakeholders, such as moderators and users.

Yes, this is what has always fascinated me personally regarding these sites. The fact that the community plays such a big role. When you look around at other websites where there are huge breaks of trust between mods and highers-ups and no one is ever held accountable the SE sites always stood out. People bash meta (especially MSO) a lot but they really are a blessing in disguise.

and the line which immediately followed it:

It’s a shame that we’ve lost something so fundamental.

Comparing the lavender letter with the front-page letter, I am struck by two dramatically different accounts of the Stack's history, and two conflicting visions of action for the future of the site.¹

The lavender letter describes systemic problems dating back to the beginning of the site, which have been reported and ignored for as long as they've existed. It asks for specific new things, for changes to the status quo which will make the Stack a place to be celebrated rather than a place to be endured.

The front-page letter waxes eloquent about a golden age of cooperation and goodwill, when the Stack listened to concerns and worked with users to correct problems. It asks vaguely for old things, for a return to status quo which will make the Stack be like it used to be.

These are irreconcilable, and the front-page letter's version is the less supportable vision of the site's history.² If the Stack has such a great history of supporting its mods, why is mod burnout so common that it's practically memetic, and always has been? Why is the system of mod support reliant on "I'll get back to you" mechanics with single points of failure? Why aren't mods given formal training for dealing with common stressful situations that are part of their job description?

Going back to the way things were just means going to back to the Stack chewing mods up and spitting them out, when vulnerable communities were ignored so thoroughly that other people could avoid noticing the harm at all. Moving forward to a more compassionate, supportive Stack philosophy will improve conditions for everybody. And not just for moderators: a true sea change would mean a shift in the Stack's treatment of its ordinary users as fungible content machines, too.

Let's not settle for a return to what some could endure, please. Let's aim for something better than before.

¹ I'm also struck by the invisibility of the lavender letter: from the front page of the site I would never have known alternate letters existed.

² I hesitate to use the word prelapsarian but... I counted nearly twenty references to a better time in the past, or the idea that something was working and is now broken, rather than that this is how things have always been. upset with you right now - There was a time when - as the company has expanded - outlook on the network has become - that has happened over the years - no longer seems to want - the company’s direction over the past year or more - have been increasingly disengaged from the team - It used to be common to see - Moderators were also seen - staff used to be - Now many of them ... feel like strangers - no longer a place - there used to be space - the human touch has been lost - heal this rift - a return to the collaborative model - to see trust ... restored - rebuild