This is like claiming that one of the North Korean nuclear scientists is credible on atomic bombs after theirs immediately fell into the ocean. Presiding over a disaster doesn't give you some magical insight on why you completely failed.
I dunno, he was one of two people in charge of one of its biggest technical disgraces (capacity management). That's pretty bad. But what's worse is that he thinks that actual product changes from 3.5 to 4 were good ideas, and that's enough to make me categorically question his judgment.
