What do people think the best case, realistic case, and worst case are? Don't have to answer all three lol.
Personally:
Best case: Grovelling apology, "We hear you", and total reconsideration of approach to OGL 1.1, probably saying OGL 1.0a will remain in use, we'll come back with a licence for 1D&D material, but this was a big mistake and we're very sorry.
I think that's incredibly unlikely, but that's the best case I can see actually happening. Companies have done this sort of thing. Very rarely though.
(Also if it really is perceived internally as a massive screw-up, I would be unsurprised if Dan Rawson ends up mysteriously in another job in a year or so. Not Williams or Cocks though, they'd be too senior even though the buck arguably stops with them.)
Realistic case: Faux-apology, "We hear you" (except they obviously don't), some vague half-lies about how this was an "unfortunate leak" (yeah unfortunate for you!) and just a plain ol' Big Misunderstanding, even though we know from 3PPs that it wasn't. OGL 1.1 goes ahead except they make it clear it's just poison pill opt-in, they're not actually attempting to deauthorize 1.0a or ther other SRDs (even though their language strongly indicated they were lol).
That's pretty likely I think, and it'll be enough to pacify people who are normally WotC fans, but temporarily upset by this "beyond the pale" behaviour. People will pretend that "misunderstanding" explanation isn't absolute horse-poop, and we'll probably have incipient brush-fire flame wars (calmed by Umbran's merciless gaze) for years to come.
Worst case: Still a faux-apology, but this time one of those super-fake ones where they just apologise for "how you feel" and maybe for their failure to keep it secret, or that they "trusted the wrong people". No changes to the OGL 1.1, rather some "clarifications" which are actually 100% spin, and probably the dreaded claim that they "had to do this" to "fight the bigots" (without actually naming any or giving any examples at all, of something that hasn't actually been a major issue under the OGL), though even worst-case I don't think they'll lean TOO hard on that because it's a point of vulnerability. I think they still might clarify that it's opt-in, if only to prevent legal action, but won't clarify the status of other SRDs and may go ahead and remove them from the internet and so on (possibly even attempting to quietly DMCA people who keep them up).
I don't think it's likely to be that bad, but I think it's a lot more likely than the best case.
Re: signing it, hard to say if someone will, because that can play either way. But if they make Crawford or Perkins sign it (mere underlings of these more illustrious figures), I'll be pretty angry, because that's just not taking responsibility, and not having the buck stop with you.