Things got complicated for a while, thus the original planned Q&A for May got (in order) cancelled, restructured, and rescheduled. http://webpromo.expert/google-qa-duplicate-content/
The attention that the third Q&A session got (well over 20,000 views, and many citations and references) mean that these also drew more attention within Google itself. The 'ask anything' format is, from Google's perspective, the hardest to approve and prepare for. With foreknowledge of what will be asked, they can ask around internally, and work out exactly how much they can say, and agree a 'company line'. I think that also at the higher levels of the company, they start to apply the same rationalisation to these appearances as to any other use of staff time: i.e. what benefit will it bring, by how much, and to how many. That all means that 'Google' as a company really wanted the next Q&A to be more practically useful to more webmasters.
Most of you have known me long enough to know I rather shake my head at that. To me, it is far more honest and genuine to be able to ask a question and be told "I'm sorry but we can't really give any detail on that" than to limit what is even asked. I'm fine with being given an honest and genuine 'no comment' answer. I'm not fine at all with ending up with something that masquerades as an open question session but railroads the questions that can be asked and doesn't disclose that railroading. Thus the cancellation, restructuring, and general delays in negotiating a solution that can be acceptable to all parties.
We are focusing on a single particular area which is practical and helpful to many (suiting Google's needs), yet is also one that SEOs themselves still struggle with, and which myths remain about (e.g. The duplicate content penalty). Naturally, the topic will have to touch on the practicalities of such things as redirects, canonicals, and whether redirects done for, say, HTTPS might still suffer a damping factor. We'll of course be looking at both technical duplicate content (where multiple URL variants reach a single piece of content, such as when tracking URLs are used) and at near-duplicate content, such as where one article is republished to several sites, or 'boiler plate' content is used on many pages.
Hopefully, this format, while narrower in scope, will prove more useful for all parties. Focus is not the same thing as blinkers. If it starts to feel in any way that this is less about focus, and more about narrowing the playing field, this might be the last one I do.