This is a good response as far as the actual process goes, but it doesn't really do anything to address the claims that "There were two totally different Codes of Conduct with different requirements linked in different places" and "I was held to a different, undocumented and uncommunicated standard"
I read the apology without knowing the backstory. It just feels so weasel-worded: they apologise for their process but certainly don’t make any suggestion that was innocent so actually increasing the smear. A proper apology also needs personal, private apologies from the committee members. I can only hope that Jeremy receives a better apology than this for the shit he has been made to chew by them.
They don't believe he was innocent, at best they believe the question is still up for debate and at worst they believe he is guilty but are putting off a public claim until things calm down.
There is one person on both, and the apology clearly states he won't be involved:
Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors, minus those involved, to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
