Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes: > I'd like to see more overt, public intervention when conflicts, "flame > wars", happen, and even before things flare up. This has been a persistent meme for a long time (I'm pretty sure it's one of the big reasons I failed to be re-elected DPL 15 or so years ago), and for some classes of conflict where a bit of "public shaming" might help shift the project's overall mood or behavioral patterns in a positive direction it might be a good idea... but be careful what you wish for! In my personal experience, most conflicts are best resolved through quiet interactions, out of public view. If they can be resolved that way and one or more of the key "antagonists" are allowed to make the public pronouncement about the resolution, that seems to lead to a more congenial atmosphere in the project generally, which I think is desirable. The hard decision, often, is how and when to decide that approach isn't working and a more overt, public approach is required. This matters a lot because letting conflicts fester is so detrimental to all involved. So, Chris, given Lars' assertion and my kind-of-a-rebuttal, I suspect we'd both (all?) be interested in hearing you say more about how you think about conflict resolutions generally and what if anything you think you might do differently in your second term? Regards, Bdale
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature