I understand that perspective, and I think it's completely valid. I think, from their perspective, it was more important to get the site functioning (while working crazy long hours to do so) than to spend developer time explaining the details of what they were doing. This post, I think, does a pretty good job of explaining what they did to fix things in real terms. Also, an argument can be made that there's an opportunity here for people to continually comb through github repo and monitor activity and communicate it to the network and be rewarded for doing so. If things can be done in a decentralized way, then that's preferred. In many ways, I think we have an expectation about Steemit.com (because we enjoy it so much!) that may not fit with reality. It may just be a reference implementation for the STEEM blockchain. If that's reality, do our expectations fit it? How much effort should they put into this reference if their focus is the blockchain and SMTs?
Also, I've learned if we have doubts about the site we're free to contact them directly. They prefer email, etc. Direct communication, not public posts which can impact investors in who knows how many different ways (and bring up more questions which would require more time away from making the site work). The witnesses, I think, should take a more active role in that communication and that's what I'm trying to do as well.
If the witnesses consider how they can help SteemIt, Inc. with communication that will be a win.
I try to give them credit when it is deserved, I think it is wrong to excuse them when the behavior is ridiculous. I realize it is my opinion.
None the less, I appreciate that you came back with a solution based answer. :)