Flamewars and uncooperative disputants, and how to deal with them

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

I think it might be a good idea to think somewhat about the more
general case of how we should deal with disputes that have some kind
of technical core to them but where we're not able to come to a solid
conclusion because one or both sides aren't able or willing to
coherently state their case.

Obviously the first thing we should do is try to encourage and help
the disputant(s) who are having difficulty, in whatever ways seem
best, and it is fair enough to criticise inappropriate behaviour or
ask for more information.

But, what will we do if this does not yield constructive engagement
sufficient for us to confidently come to a conclusion ?

Note that these situations might occur because one side is
unresponsive (perhaps because they are too busy) or because they're
insufficiently clear or knowledgeable, as well as because of
(for example) inappropriate behaviour.  So the losing side does not
necessarily deserve a formal reprimand (although we should consider
stating our disapproval if that seems appropriate).

Obviously our primary concern should be to do the right thing in the
specific case, but it we should also consider what effects our
approach has on the way people will try to resolve disputes in the
future, and on the general atmosphere in the project, and so forth.

So, if we're not able to come to confidence about the correct
technical answer then I think we should try to be fair.  I think that
this means:

 * If the maintainer we might be overruling is cooperative,
   comprehensible and helpful but the complainant is not, we should:
    - dismiss the complaint
    - close any related bugs
    - if the problem was the nature of the communications from
      the complainant, rather than just lack of them,
      state that the complainant should not raise the same issue
      again, at least against the same maintainer
    - invite the complainant to find someone else who agrees with
      their position to take up the argument on their behalf

 * If the complainant is helpful but the maintainer is not, we should
   invite the complainant to find a volunteer to maintain the package
   instead (perhaps the complainant themselves).  The volunteer need
   not agree with the substance of the complaint but should engage in
   the discussion.  If the existing maintainer continues to fail to
   discharge their responsibility so that we cannot come to a clear
   decision ourselves, we should transfer maintainership to the new
   volunteer.

 * If the decision does not involve overruling a maintainer, we should
    - decide in favour of the party which is helpful and constructive
    - deal with any bug reports along those lines
    - if the problem was the nature of the communications from
      the complainant, rather than just lack of them,
      state that the less-helpful party should not raise the same
      issue again, at least against the same cooperative party
    - invite the less-helpful side to find someone else who agrees
      with their position to take up the argument on their behalf

 * If neither side is helpful:
    - we should dismiss the complaint
    - bug report(s) should be reassigned back to the package in
      question; those not submitted by the complainant may be closed;
      those submitted by the complainant should be 
    - if the problem was the nature of the communications from
      the complainant, rather than just lack of them,
      state that neither the complainant nor the maintainer should
      bother others about the issue again by discussing it in public
      fora.  This includes public Debian mailing lists (other than the
      maintainance list for the package if there is one), general IRC
      channels, etc.

We don't really need to pass a resolution about this.  However, it
would definitely be helpful for us all to be on roughly the same page.
So - comments/agreement/disagreement ?

Ian.