Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry".
They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language.
They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps.
That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible!
If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
The difference is that the first indicates that "we" want you to feel better, while the second indicates empathy. When I'm on the receiving end, my gut reaction is almost exactly opposite.
Second, their claim is that this is a miscommunication appears to be a CYA lie. The recipient has shared sufficient details of what actually happened that either he is lying, or they are. An apology that asks the recipient to swallow a lie is not much of an apology.
You think that this is a good apology. I think that it is a terrible one. Here is what an apology that I call good would look like:
We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, issue a public apology to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did poorly on multiple levels. Therefore we have requested our board of directors to take over the investigation of those reports, and to separately investigate our mishandling of the situation.
We deeply regret the pain and anguish that we caused, and we are sorry for it.
Incidentally doing this would have been free to them. Everyone knows that they screwed up. At this point the board would be remiss to NOT investigate, so asking the board to do what it has to do anyways costs them nothing. And they wouldn't have said something that sounds like a lie.
Your compact "good apology" wording is fine, too!
But if they'd used that, exactly, plenty of people would still be hair-splitting & demanding more – maybe even you, since even your wording doesn't do most of the things your first post above wanted!
It also fails to 'acknowledge' the specific "list of things" you wanted to see. It also offers nothing more "in amends" than they already offered. It also suggests no "consequences" for those who erred. Your added cheap-but-emotionally-performative intensifier words – "we deeply regret the pain and anguish" – are also viewed as "meaningless hollow BS" by many.
See how easy it is to nitpick tone?
The social function of apologies also requires gracious acceptance of actual admissions of error.
The problem is that when you list your acknowledgements and chosen actions, you're implicitly refusing to acknowledge anything else and are indicating that no further actions will be taken.
When the apology is open-ended, and includes further specific actions such as an independent investigation, then you've done none of that.
The social function of apologies also requires gracious acceptance of actual admissions of error.
When the apology performs the social functions of apologies, it only works when the recipient graciously accepts.
But when the apology fails to perform the social functions of an apology, there is no obligation on the recipient to pretend acceptance.
A: You kicked in my front door, walked in unannounced, and stole my TV!
B: I apologize unreservedly. I should have announced myself.
* "our handling" * "causing this stress" * "a crucial miscommunication" * "not communicating... clearly" that "the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined" * "overly-charged language" * "saying a violation occurred" * failing to say "multiple complaints have been made" * failing to say "the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved"
Given that all of the problem interactions were communications that misled & distressed Howard, what did they miss? The 1st two words, "our handling", were already expansive enough to cover all their actions, and all the admissions of miscommunication acknowledge that he'd previously been told the wrong things about the actual progress.
(You could ungenerously call those prior & now-admitted misstatements "lies". But when you're trying to return to a friendly mutual resolution, with redress for wrongs, it's helpful to let people characterize earlier errors as mistakes rather than intentionally-hurtful deceptions. And, as bad as the bad communications were, they're more likely overzealous young inquisitors who thought they were doing right, and needed more coaching/practice, than consciously mean & deceptive people. So let them apologize!)
> We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, would like to publicly apologise to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did not give Jeremy a chance to defend himself before concluding that he had violated our CoC, and for that, and the stress it has caused, we are sorry.
I'm available to hire for public apology writing. :-)
Still, to be fair I don't think I've actually ever seen a public apology that was actually a full genuine public apology. This is probably the best anyone could hope for.
Other than the apparently-magic word 'sorry', your suggested wording doesn't address most of the specific asks of ~btilly's complaint above. (Don't worry, his proposed rewording didn't, either!) Perhaps, because it's exactly tuned to what you saw as worst about his treatment, it'd adequate for you. But not necessarily for any others demanding more groveling.
It's also not consistent with the NumFOCUS committee's substantive position, which is not that they had prematurely concluded anything, but rather that they had erroneously communicated that they'd concluded something. That's a salient difference, even though the two errors look the same from Howard's perspective! (The two distinct failures would require different internal correctives, too.) You wouldn't want a public apology to lie about the actual internal errors identified just to be extra-palatable to third parties, would you?
So, don't quit your day job to specialize in public apology writing just yet!
And to entertain that idea of professionally-improved apologies a bit a more, realize that in certain situations, no matter how good the apology, or how well it hits certain notes, some on the warpath will always want X% more, & be able to find specific faults.
Short & emphatic, as per your (& ~btilly's) rewrites? "Wasn't specific enough, too patronizing."
Detailed with even a whiff of actual analysis as to the real org/psych reasons for an error? "Not empathetic enough, making excuses, rationalizing the behavior".
Long enough to include all of the emotional cloying, and the exhaustive victim's-viewpoint confession of sins, and promises for changes? "Tone-deaf, insincere because if they really believed this they couldn't have made the error in the 1st place, seems over-wordsmithed." (But also: risks setting unrealistic expectations for the future.)
