Here's the paragraph immediately following the part I quoted above[1]:

But [Larry Pogemiller's] office was talking tough earlier on Friday, saying it would tell Coursera-affiliated schools that they were out of compliance with state law -- and possibly even take up the matter with the schools' accreditation bodies and the federal government.

Are you suggesting his office is out of control, that it's "gone rogue", and thus Larry Pogemiller is (somehow) not responsible? Who do you think is responsible?

[1] http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21813203/minnesota-e...

It's very simple. Coursera appears to be required to register, according to the law as written. The department within the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that handles registration and licensing informed them of this.

When people inquired, the manager of that department, George Roedler, responded, restating what the law says and the rationale behind the law.

Later, the person at the top of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, Larry Pogemiller, decided that this was a case where the law should not be applied as written, due to changing circumstances, and so stopped enforcement and said he would work to get the law modified.

No one has "gone rogue" or is out of control. They all appear to have done their jobs correctly. Roedler applied the law, as written and as interpreted by the OHE, as is his job. Pogemiller changed OHE policy, as is his job.

Roedler is responsible for his talk (and following the law just a tad too closely for this crowd's taste). Pogemiller is responsible for setting things straight (and risks taking the heat by Coursera's for-pay competitors).

The situation right now is that they interpret law in a way that isn't exactly typical to the US legal system, with the intent to fix up any shortcomings of the law in 3 months (+ whatever the lawmakers need to get to a conclusion). I wouldn't expect some subordinate in any office to take such a (rather bold) step on their own.

As long as they revise their internal policies, so matters relating to new developments are escalated to Pogemiller earlier, the handling seems fine to me.

It's not like they sent people to the death row, the worst that happened is two days of media drama.

This is a good example where downvoting, provided this is the rationale, is a poor decision. Why not just comment? Even if it is a simple note. Honest question. Not trying to weigh in on this partcular subject per-se, but this comment makes it seem like its normal course practice on HN. (disclosure: & I just upovoted TZS, for raising his hand on this).

I too find most down votes distasteful. In fact, I use a custom style sheet to color down voted comments red so I can see them, and unless I can find no redeeming value whatsoever in the comment I give it an up vote to counter the down votes.

In this particular case, however, I think the down votes were fine, because the comment:

1. grossly misstated facts, by attributing George Roedler's statements to Larry Pogemiller,

2. is essentially just a rant calling for Pogemiller's head.