The SF3 Board's An Apology

[james_davis_nicoll]

The SF3 Board extends heartfelt apologies to those who have been harassed at WisCon, to those who feel unsafe at WisCon, to the ConCom, and to our wider community, for letting you down. We regret allowing Rose Lemberg’s report to languish.

Comments

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

What's the count up to now?

Something about "quality over quantity" comes to mind.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a shitty apology, too - more mournful about the "valued" concom members who have chosen to resign than any specific incident, churlish about being prompted to apologize, only specifically apologizing to a single person, and then only for "bureaucratic lapses" and "allowing [a] report to languish". It's about as sincere and heartfelt as a click-through EULA despite using the words "heartfelt" and "genuinely sorry". At least it's lacking the signature trait of a terrible apology (the use of the word "If").

According to them, the whole mess was the result, not of a toxic culture or active malice or specific bad actors, but a failure of bureaucratic procedure, which reminds me of Ronald Reagan's declaration that the root cause of the Iran Contra scandal was a failure to keep proper records of meetings and decisions and that everything was OK now because he told the American people that "Well, rest assured, there's plenty of record-keeping now going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

Yup, they're still trying to spin this as pure incompetence.

While it's technically possible for that to be true, the appearances suggest otherwise strongly enough to at least demand a convincing explanation (no, not a subcommittee that will issue a statement in a year or two) of why this quacking and waddling thing isn't actually a duck.

Bungled? Bad. Actively sabotaged? Worse. Continuing efforts to cover-up the apparent sabotage and protect the bad actors? Petrol on a fire.

[(Anonymous)]

Tee hee, gosh there are so many details that go into hosting a con, and we're just a ragtag band of unpaid volunteers that are spread across the entire country and you have no idea just how hard everything is and we're rilly rilly sorry but sometimes things slip through the cracks and really it's amazing that things run as smoothly as they do, y'know?

Yeah, not buying it. Multiple people sent emails to multiple con staff asking for follow up and updates and got handwaved away EVERY SINGLE TIME over the course of more than a year. That's excuse-making on behalf of a deliberate policy of burying the reports and making the complaints Go Away, not a harried bureaucracy losing track of things.

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

I have really had it with apologies to the ConCom being given equal prominence with (to?) apologizes to the actual victims.

Also, I seem to have missed the flat-out "We screwed up"; no doubt it got buried among the earnest critiques of process.

[eub.livejournal.com]

The part about "We are writing this statement as prompted by [people]" is quite odd. And "While this statement is being written per their request, the SF3 board would like to emphasize that it is genuinely sorry [...]"

Some things I find poor in an apology but I can understand the human failing (like focus on apologizer more than on apologizee, use of agency-obscuring wording). But this advisory about SF3's apology-making process, I don't really get what it's even doing here. Maybe it falls under general emphasis on telling me what's up with the apologizer.

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

Seen their new big plan?

http://file770.com/?p=19028

It's to provide greater accountability from the board.

By establishing a byzantine, drawn-out and pseudo-judicial system of reprimands for misbehaving board members.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss...

[eub.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I hadn't seen it; that may be what they meant by the weirdly vague "We will focus on our accountability". The accountability petition doesn't say it'll be pseudo-judicial. I guess I'll wait and see.

Whatever kind of thing they decide to try for accountability, I hope that they will run it on the recent events (I do not want to hear any "but ex post facto laws are unconstitutional", okay), rather than just say the process is ready to go for next time. Because there shouldn't be a next time if some accountability could prevent it.

Can they keep community members from holding con roles that they've done damage with? I have doubts it will happen; it's a hard thing to do. But if they can, good.

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

Can they keep community members from holding con roles that they've done damage with?

Do we have evidence that they desire to do so? The repeated apologies to themselves the Concon staff suggest otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

Pointing out that you're only apologizing because of a specific request that you do so kind of cuts away at the whole "heartfelt" component of it, doesn't it?

That line reminded me of the sort of apologies that parents or teachers would compel out of kids - stare at the ground, mumble inaudibly, draw it out, and then yell "Fine! I'm sorry! Is that what you wanted to hear? Can I go now?"