[bragr]

>Actually... they aren't contradictory.

They are. Your intent may not have been contradictory, but the messages received by everyone else were contradictory. You should own that if you are serious about doing better. Your intent doesn't really matter in these situations.

[travisjungroth]

Yeah, really weird that after an apology announcement they’re still defending the original message at all. Not too hard to say “Yes, those messages contradict each other. The first one did not communicate our actual plan. The second message is a correction and clarification.”

[chasil]

It is important to understand that most corporations do not apologize, ever, unless there is a direct threat to cash flow.

This behavior is now demonstrated, it is the desired relationship, and it will be the baseline, all protestations aside.

The apology is meaningless. If this is not what you want, then take steps to limit the damage done to you, and do it now.

[HelloNurse]

More cynically, the intent might be blaming image maintainers: since obsolete images that appear current are a problem, responsible maintainers will delete them before losing access; then Docker will be able to tell inconvenienced end users that the maintainers autonomously and unnecessarily decided to remove their images.

[angelbar]

This...

[xboxnolifes]

That's.... why they are saying it was poor communication.

[throwwwaway69]

They did in the OP link. To say now in comments "It's not contradictory" is not owning up to it being bad communication

[burnished]

What? That does not follow at all.