I have no preference regarding showing the reputation or not. I am a bit surprised, though, that this decision has been taken in secrecy by a small group of users and does not follow from some large consultation of the MO userbase. While it may turn out to be a good choice, it is definitely a loss for democracy and transparency. (My bet: the change will have no consequence on the behaviour of users, things at large will stay almost the same.) — Alex M. Jan 11 at 8:39

@AsafKaragila: Agreed. I'm neither complaining, nor planning to make a fuss about this minor issue - we are grown-ups. I would only like the next such significant change to be discussed with the community in advance, though. Change can be good or bad and can rarely gather a consensus, but it is ethical to be discussed in the open before committing to it. — Alex M. Jan 11 at 12:50

I agree with Alex M. Some changes are major and others are minor. Minor changes don't need a lot of public discussion. This change strikes me as a major change; evidently the moderators did not think so. That's fine; moderators have to make judgment calls. However, if users give feedback saying that they regarded a certain change as major, then I don't think the moderators should just brush off that feedback by saying, "This is a change, I get it. People don't like change." The point is that good leaders try to stay in tune with public opinion. Too much divergence is a recipe for trouble. — Timothy Chow yesterday

In particular, the question isn't whether the change is good or bad, but whether it's the sort of change that users think should be publicly discussed ahead of time. So I think the appropriate response should be something like, "We didn't think that this was a major or controversial change. We hear that some of you think it should have been discussed publicly ahead of time. We'll take that feedback into account the next time we contemplate making a change." — Timothy Chow yesterday