Working Group Meeting: week of 19 Jan 2026

[quintessence]

Lightweight prep:

• Think of one example of a governance crisis that you have experience with to discuss ways that communication helped and hindered resolution process.
• Are there any conflict resolution frameworks that you are 1 ) familiar with and/or 2 ) have used that you would like to bring to the discussion?

Agenda:

• Brief recap of last session
• Discussion about Conflict Communication.
  • What tips a "conflict" into a "crisis"?
  • Transparency: who needs to hear what, to what degree, and when?

If time:

• Adoption strategies: some ways we can motivate and ensure guidance adoption

[wetneb]

Here's my contribution in writing since I will sadly miss the call. I can't say I participated to a governance crisis in FOSS that got resolved, so I'm cautious about drawing lessons from those. That being said, I experimented with the following.

Whether a discussion is happening on a public forum or in private, whether it's in writing, on a call or even in person seems to have massive implications on its outcome. Generally, my experience is that difficult conversations tend to be more constructive in private and in person or on a call. But this goes against the dominant culture in FOSS, where all discussions are expected to happen in public and in async text form.

In rare situations I have attempted initiating a mediation process, facilitated by a mediator external to the conflict, but never reached the state where both parties would agree to such a process. Mediation doesn't seem to be part of our cultural norms, I wouldn't even be able to name a conflict in FOSS where it would have been used (even unsuccessfully). I imagine participants would also be reluctant to engage in a process where the mediator has specific knowledge of FOSS (even though they might be able to help even without that knowledge).

In terms of frameworks, I have discovered non-violent communication (NVC) some years ago, which offers useful concepts and tools. Our reliance on async text-based communication makes its use rather challenging in my opinion, just like the low expectations we have around personal connections between co-workers in a FOSS project.

[potiuk]

I will be able to join but here is mine in writing. Not a resolved conflict, but it would be great to see how not to make it into a crisis eventually, as this seems to be a "creping crisis" that is not full blown - but more of a consistently low-burning one that makes organizatio weaker rather than stronger.

This is mostly about some individuals being important and even foundational to the organisation that see their role as "value keepers" even if what they really are "we've always been doing it this way" keepers. Some of them have loud voices and they have a lot of time time because of their seniority and posititons/tenure in the industry. They have had big impact in the past, they want to keep it and they think they are "the only ones who are right" - and not accepting any changes in the way how things are communicated, how organization works - even if they are still keeping to the original values, and merely adapting to changing reality. They often patronize people with less of a tenure even if (or actually usually because) those people bring new fresh perspectives, and work tirelessly to work on making things happen. They see them as "inferior" and "not understanding how we work here" - even if they are only applauded by a few people who are very loyal to them - and generally disregarded by a lot others (who are often even older in tenure, but understand that their role is more mentoring than crticising and complaining) .

This critique happens (which is good in general) in the private-open (i.e. internal communication open to all members) and is often based on imaginary intention of people who bring new idea, wrong assumptions. They amplify mistakes people make (stating how badly intended they were - even if those are innocent mistakes, and they do not recognize/applaud good things and ideas that happen. They generally create an atmosphere of quite violent communication where conflict is the norm rather than (valid when needed) occasionally happening thing. They do it to the extend that it completely drives away people who are conflict-averse, who are becoming afraid to speak because they know they will be "grilled" by said people, also many people just ignores the mails from important discussion lists treating it as a "laud bar" where people shout over each other and and are there just to state their - possibly biased - opinions, rather than place of constructive discussion.

Of course those people claim they are doing that "to keep the values" and that everyone "including them" should have a voice, but their voice is so loud and so "violent" that they suppress people around - especially new people who are not aware of those people behaviours. When attempts to respond and contain those people are made, they retaliate and attack people who try to do it back - often personally and often using made up and illogical arguments or assumptions - and usually claiming those "others" have good intentions. Also their words and critique is often not constructive - and they do not implement any real ideas, often quoting that changes are not needed, because they worked in the past. Effectively that often undermines a lot of initiatives, mostly because those who have ideas have a choice of being involved in endless, non-constructive discussion, doing something and be continuously criticised for it , or getting silent and disengage (which is what many of them do).

No formal approach or resolution frameworks are in, there is no formally adopted code of conduct (discussions on-going) - the only code of conduct there is (even if published, and widely adopted amongh members) - when used is dismissed as "never formally adopted by the organization on the board/members level". My persoal actions are based on lack of fear, being transpartent and assertive, and pointing out bad behaviours in a way that mostly follows NVC (but I discovered is only recently), and being present, active, and just "do stuff" - in order to be seen as someone with merit not only "talking the talk" but also "walking the walk". But that requires often a lot of personal assertiveness, having a lot of preparation for every possible critique path that might happen, and takes a lot of mental capacity and energy, just to fend-off all the critique - often alone (but not always).

What I am really seeking here is to work out some mechanism, tooling and ways of communication that:

• will engage others despite the atmosphere created by those "perpetrators"
• motivate people who are already active to keep it doing
• overall decrease the impact of such people on others - especially new members who come with a lot of energy and ideas
• while of course - keeping the values and "spirit" of the organisation. Big problem here is those people presnet themselves as "the only just ones" who know and follow the values - and everyone else who has ideas is wrong by definition - and it's easy to fall into the trap by looking at past of the people.

I think, those kind of people who are not capable of "stepping down considerately" are a big danger to turn organisations into obsolescence - because they mostly kill new ideas and engagement - including those that are "good", while they think they are preserving "The Values". They might even sincerely believe in it, I do not think they are doing it in order to destroy anything, yet that behaviour is mostly "destructive" - especially when we are faced with changing environment.