First of all, thanks for your interest in the blog. I'm always happy that anybody is reading and am genuinely amazed that somebody has expressed an interest in how the blog comes together.
I'll try to respond to your post the best that I can, but you'll appreciate that my hands are a little tied at the moment. As I said earlier, this is not because I have no wish to say more.
First of all the question of "timelines". I'm not sure I totally understand the point here.
For a start, there's really nothing to add to my earlier post. Perhaps I could add that it was around 4:30pm on the Monday afternoon (20th) that I suspended the post, but I'm not sure that aids understanding that much.
OK, I Know that there's much more that I *could* say, but I'm not really at liberty to do so at the moment, as you know. That may change at some point in the future and if it does and if you're still interested I'll say more then.
Secondly, with regard to ECF/FIDE legals the issue was about whether a particular ECF Official (or perhaps officials) was/were accountable to the board/council and whether the ECF as a whole was accountable to its membership.
The members (now by compulsion) must pay a subscription and be part of the ECF otherwise it is not possible to play a serious game of chess anywhere in the world. With that background, and given the discrepancy that had been observed, I think it's entirely reasonable that an account of the circumstances that led to the lawsuit was asked for and that it was also entirely reasonable that it was provided.
Writers, on the other hand, are accountable to nobody but themselves and nor should they be. Well, the law of the land - like any other citizen - but that's it. This applies however humble the level of their output.
The S&B blog requires a subscription from nobody, takes money from nobody and represents nobody. You may read it or not read it as is your want. Whatever your choice it has absolutely no impact on the rest of your life whatsoever.
Feel free to criticise the blog and what it does if you so choose, or praise if you so choose or be massively indifferent if you so choose. It's up to you. We choose to publish and therefore you have the right to an opinion on what we publish.
With respect to the issues raised above, though, the blog is the exact opposite to the ECF and therefore the issue of accountability simply doesn't arise.
Bottom line: if you don't like the blog and how its writers behave you (by which I mean 'a person' not you specifically) can just decide not to have anything to do with it. The same can't be said for the ECF. That's the fundamental difference.
Moving on, I've no idea how such an event would he handled in the future. I hope we won't be in this position again, but then you never can tell because it's not just about us, is it?
We've been going for six years, give or take, and have published 1748 posts (as of yesterday). I'm really not sure it's worth making detailed plans for such a rare event - especially if they could be thrown completely awry by something as mundane as somebody going on holiday.
That said, I completely agree with you that what we have ended up with in this case is far from ideal. I don't want to say much more at this stage because what appears on the blog at present is what was requested by the person that I spoke to. OK, not the testcard clip - that was my contribution - but the text.
I think I can say, however, that I haven't had any further contact with the person that I spoke with on Monday 20th and nor do I expect to.
I hope that this has helped in some way.