Which wasn't a great idea. Ronald D. Moore is the guy who created the new retcon vision of Battlestar Galactica. It was a great result and almost everyone loved it (apart from the very ending maybe). Problem was that there's one thing trying to retcon older Battlestar Galactica and another trying to retcon older Trek. Ronald D. Moore said (https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-08-24/former-star-trek-writer-says-bryan-fuller-will-strangle-all-of-the-possibility-out-of-discovery-in-a-good-way) that new Star Trek would have been great but what people forget is that he was already responsible for working on TNG and he explicitly said "I don’t have any regrets about the [TNG] show. Some of the storytelling we did in Battlestar Galactica, to graft that on to Star Trek it would have required changing the entire format of the show, and really a different taste of the show.". Battlestar Galactica from the 70s was not the slow paced and visionary and hopeful show that Star Trek was so it was fitting to return it to a more mundane at ethics vision of the future (which is basically current year society + new technology). This complete failure to see what Ronald D. Moore saw when he clearly implied "I would not do the retcon of Battlestar Galactica on Star Trek because I did not do it for TNG when I had the chance" (maybe he should have worked on Star Trek again?) shows the lack of intelligence expressed by the new show runners which might explain why it's also not a great Battlestar Galactica-esque show with so much of writing being rushed and only paying lip service to Roddenberry's vision and filled "THE POWER OF MATH PEOPLE!" pat in the writer's backs which makes your skin crawl.