Of course I'm new around here, but it seems to me that, properly tagged, this is a reasonable question for MO. (Plus, I'd also like to know what's going on!) It's not a mathematics question per se, but it certainly will be of interest to mathematicians. What do the moderators think?

I don't follow your objections, David. This question seems to be considered acceptable; it's even one of the most popular questions on the site, and it's caught the attention of many of the most serious-minded users. Nevertheless, it seems virtually impossible to answer it in any other fashion than with gossip and speculation. Why shouldn't your objections apply there?

On the other hand, many of us are interested in getting a modern print version of SGA out, and many of us have been involved in various stages of the project. So: (a) it seems likely that there would be plenty of interest among users of this site in this question, and (b) it seems odd to claim that "almost no one reading the site has any actual knowledge."

@Mariano: Anyone still involved in the project is likely to know something about the situation, and even some folks tangentially related with the project might know as well.

May I ask you please not to answer me with grunts, David? The tone this creates seems needlessly dismissive and disrespectful; I would prefer to keep the tone less confrontational. I'm simply seeking clarification on the kinds of questions that are allowed here; if I am to continue to use this site, I'd like to know precisely what more experienced users find inadmissible about this question on the main page.

EDIT: I do want to emphasize that I interpreted this question not as a invitation to comment or speculate on Grothendieck's personality, political positions, or decisions, but rather as a request for more information on the status or future of the SGA re-edition project.

It may be that there is some misunderstanding about the project, so I should clarify. The SGA re-edition project does not consist of Yves Laszlo alone. The project began with SGA1 in the early 2000s under the editorship of Bas Edixhoven. Laszlo was also the coordinating editor for SGA2, and Philippe Gille and Patrick Polo are the coordinating editors for SGA3. SGA1 and SGA2 were published by the SMF, as will be the rest of the volumes, if the process moves forward. Every author except Grothendieck gave his/her explicit permission to reprint; publication proceeded without Grothendieck's explicit agreement because it was understood that his refusal for SGA to be re-published by Springer was "an objection against Springer and not one of principle."

It's not clear (at least, not to me) with whom Grothendieck corresponded. I don't think there's any reason to believe that only Grothendieck and Laszlo have knowledge of the situation or what the potential is for the continuation of the project.

I find the two questions similar in a variety of ways. (1) They are both questions of interest to a significant number of mathematicians. (2) Neither is a mathematics question. (3) Both involve a fair amount of rumor and speculation. (4) Engaging in either discussion effectively involves a certain amount of "insider" information (though I take your point that the MathSciNet question involves strictly less insider information). (5) Both discuss a community-based project designed to benefit a significant portion of the mathematical community and, in particular, the users of this site. (6) Both seek further knowledge of the future of that project, given certain constraints.

By the way, Harry, I think it is great that you start this discussion on meta before posting. That is something I can learn from in the future.

In defense of the monosyllable, I didn't see it as dismissive at all, merely as an expression of suprise. But maybe I have been hanging out on the Internet for too long and need to get my offense detector recalibrated. (It would have been different had the monosyllable not been followed by a reasoned argument.)

[@Harry: Erdos would say that Grothendieck himself has essentially just told us, again, that he is dead, and the action of the telling shows that he hasn't left yet.]

With due respect to all, I am inclined to agree with David (and also, implicitly, Harry) that this would not be a good MO question. It's much different to me than the alternative to MathReviews/Zentralblatt question. For the Grothendieck/SGA question, one needs specific [and potentially delicate and confidential] insider information in order to answer the question correctly as well as -- and perhaps this is even more important -- to evaluate whether an answer is correct. MO is for questions and answers that can be evaluated by a community of professionals in such a way that weight of the community usually [almost always, in my experience here] comes down on the correct answer.

It would be possible for someone to just completely fabricate an answer to the Grothendieck question ("I talked to Grothendieck, and he said..."). How am I to evaluate whether this is correct? The MathReviews/Zentralblatt question is completely different: I know what I think, in my imperfect and changeable but informed and professional opinion, about someone's answer to that.

@David: No harm done. I have trouble reading tone on the internet, and I tend to communicate more formally than many might feel necessary.

@Pete: Thanks very much; that's just the kind of explanation I was looking for. I think I understand the issue now: in order for a subjective or speculative question to be a good fit here, one needs to be able to expect with confidence that a widespread consensus will be able to distinguish true sentences from false ones. (Possibly my misunderstanding here only reflected my own biases: I know more about the SGA re-edition project than I do about the workings of MathSciNet, so I didn't suspect that such a problem might arise.)

@Harry: I for one am glad you posted here, though I guess one could argue that posting here invites the same speculation I objected to in my last comment. For whatever reason, your post here didn't have that negative effect. I guess it's because the implicit question was, "should I ask this on MO?" and that's the question people started talking about.

Tyler: Thanks for the update. This is pretty bad news for those of us interested in the republication of these works, but it's good to know what the status is.

http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/grothendiecks-letter/

Did anyone succeed in compliling SGA4? It would be really useful to me right now to have a hyperlinked copy.

I was not. Scott might have been, I don't know.