It's not Scalzi's fault that his Presidential Statement on the SFWA Bulletin fails to make clear something that's been missed by the people who are pleased by Jean Rabe's resignation—insiders often forget how little outsiders know. Medievalist stresses an essential point about Rabe's limited power as editor in The Latest SFWA Controversy:
If you look closely, you'll see she did not have editorial control; hence the content was passed on to the Publisher i.e. the President of SFWA, i.e John Scalzi who did not read the articles.The Bulletin has never made writers conform to a speech code. Instead, it's encouraged dialogue. Rabe was clearly continuing that tradition when she ran Jim C. Hines's piece about women and cover art. When Scalzi announced a task force, he should have stressed that it was in response to the uproar and not in response to Rabe's handling of her duties.
I note however that the Bylaws don't really indicate much about the Bulletin other than it's a membership benefit and it should list new members.
Which is why I've said that they need to stop treating the Bulletin like a fanzine that no one reads. It needs to be taken seriously. The Editor needs to have the ability to accept or reject, and there needs to be some sort of approval mechanism so that the Board can support the editor and be aware of issues before they become public..
A modicum of oversight would have prevented the idiocies of the last three bulletins from ever appearing in print.
Given the circumstances Rabe was working under, she fully deserves the praise Scalzi gave her when announcing her resignation. And probably deserves more.
Recommended: Sheila's LiveJournal - THE SFWA BULLETIN KERFUFFLE.
ETA: From a comment I made at I09, where someone asked whether a publisher would be closely involved in what was published: