"During December we had an incredibly productive summit with the CSM. Thankfully, we have not had too many dramas during 2012 and so our time has been spent on constructive evolution of the CCP / CSM relationship rather than damage control. I feel that we are really getting to grips with what the CSM as a stakeholder really means and that through the lessons of 2012 the CSM really is adding a huge amount of value to what we are doing at CCP."I mean, I don't want to put words into Mr. Lander's mouth, but comments like "not had too many dramas" and "so our time has been spent on constructive evolution" looks like it refers to the one CSM drama of 2012 of which I am aware. That is the infamous Mittani Fanfest incident. That being the only incident I know about, the entire paragraph seems to contrast the before-that-incident environment with the after-that-incident environment. As there was only one change to the CSM as a result, is it not logical to conclude the environment improved because of that one change?
The Dev blog goes on to say that they are "getting to grips with what the CSM as a stakeholder really means." This seems to imply previous CSMs didn't understand what they were supposed to be doing. As pointed out before, if the only change between then and now is the leaership, one might conclude a leadership problem was the cause of the CSM not "getting to grips" in the first place. If that's the implication, it's ugly stuff for sure.
CCP Unifex ends this paragraph with, "through the lessons of 2012 the CSM really is adding a huge amount of value." Does he mean to imply the CSM before these lessons did not? There are a lot of the same CSM members on the team still. Why didn't they figure this out before and, if they were in the process of figuring it out, why is it noteworthy now?
It's possible this one paragraph says a lot more than the 82 words printed. It certainly raises more questions with me than it provides reassurances. The Executive producer of EVE Online seems to have more to say than political correctness allows. I could also be completely out to lunch. Does anyone else see this message between the lines?