[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Some tips for conflict resolution
From:       Talin <Talin () ACM ! org>
Date:       2000-06-18 17:23:55
[Download RAW message or body]

This whole Debian <--> KDE situation saddens me. I particular, the
_vast_ amounts of misunderstanding which are attached to the issue are
just daunting.

For example, the latest Slashdot article (a reference to Mr. Carter's
freshmeat editorial) contains hundreds of comments, and at least 95% of
those comments exhibit some error or misunderstanding of the situation.
Many of the comments are simply frivolous (what do you expect from ./)
or express a purely utilitarian/amoral point of view: "give me
everything I want, I don't care how you get it."

One of the things that I have noticed is that the discussion has
trancended the "logic of the situation" - that is, many of the various
participants in the conflict are exhibiting signs of anger, frustration,
and hostility. In some cases, this has motivated indivduals to emotional
outbursts, and non-rational action, i.e. action which is not in their
own best interest. Of course, being highly intelligent people, we're
perfectly capable of cloaking our non-rational action with a convenient
rationalization.

In particular, some of the advocates for particular points of view are
engaging in spectacularly bad strategies for negotiation. Much of the
behavior I've seen in the last few months is of a character which would
tend to exacerbate the conflict rather than resolve it. This is not to
say that these individuals are "bad" or malicious, but rather that their
conflict resolution skill are, shall we say, less well-developed than
their programming skills :-)

Calling someone a "criminal" or a "fanatic", for example, is not likely
to motivate them to positive action; It will more likely produce a
stubborn refusal to comply with any "demands".

In general, when you demand something from someone it makes them less
likely to want to give it to you. Especially in a situation like this
where both sides are effectively volunteers, and are not _required_ to
do anything. Any use of coercive language (such as "sue") is more likely
to convince the volunteer to stop volunteering than it is to get them to
submit to your will.

Similarly, it's almost always a bad strategy to accuse someone based on
what's in their head. Statements such as "they don't care" or "he hates
my project" or "she doesn't respect me" or "he's not interested in
promoting the
cause of freedom" may be true, but since it's impossible to prove either
way, it makes conflict resolution difficult. It's best to stick to
objective facts, or at least to talk about what's in your own head - in
other words, be responsible for your own feelings, and not the feelings
of others. For example, "He is acting in a manner which I find
threatening" is a much more productive statement. It in itself is not
judgemental and is less likely to provoke a backlash.

Another tip: Avoid sarcasm when tensions are high, or any other form of
humor based on inverting the meanings of your words.

Also, avoid using guilt as a motivator. "I did all this work and look at
the thanks I get" is not going to accomplish anything positive in a
discussion like this.

There's a bunch of material on conflict resolution at the Center for
Non-Violent Communication (http://www.cvnc.org). Some of the
presentation is rather "cutesy", but the actual methodology is solid and
works effectively.

David Brin has described another method for resolving disputes: Each
side must present a statement of the other side's position before the
actual debate can begin. In other words, each of the two teams in the
debate must create a document which paraphrases the other side's
argument A team is allowed to put as many parenthetical remarks (such as
"the previous sentence is bullshit") as they wish, but they must
continue to revise the document, over and over, until the other side
says "yes, other than your snide comments, that is an adequate statement
of my position." Only when both sides agree that the opposite side has
adequately presented their position can the real debate begin. This
technique works well when the two sides are in disagreement about facts
or methods; However, it is ineffective if the two sides have a
disagreement in basic values. I don't believe that is the case here -
both sides are working towards contributing to the world of open-source
software, and almost all of the differences in this particular conflict
in opinion are "what" and "how" differences.

Despite all that has occured, I believe that the issue is resolvable.
Call me an optimist, but I have a basic faith that any two groups who
have spent so much of their time giving free software to the world can
come to a meeting of minds. It's unfortunate that conflicts tend to be
most intense with those who are most similar to ourselves.

Both KDE and Debian have a very similar "problem" in that neither effort
has what you might call strong, authoritarian leadership. (In real life
we know that this is a feature, not a problem). However, it also means
that it's impossible to "force" individual contributors into any action
that is desired by the "official" core group. That is, the core group
can only lead by example, nothing more.

Because of this, we have to recognize and accept that _nothing_ in this
issue will be accomplished quickly. Much patience will be required. (In
particular, I'm very disappointed that the $3000 reward was retracted
after only one week, and in such a petulant manner.)

Specific recommendations:

1. I think that Debian should accept kdelibs and the other non-GPL parts
of KDE into their distro. Even if they are useless in themselves (which
I don't believe is true), it would be an important step. At this point,
an act of good faith on Debian's part, one that does not violate their
principles but shows their willingness to work with KDE would be very
useful.

2. I think that KDE should at least come up with an "official" document
stating their position. The fact that KDE as an official body has been
silent on this issue for so long has led many to come to the (perhaps
wrong) conclusion that "KDE doesn't care about licensing". Of course, if
they thought about it, they would realize that the more likely scenario
is that it's extremely difficult for a rag-tag band of intrepid
adventurers to come up with a unified policy statement about _anything_.

3. I personally would like to see an comprehensive inventory of exactly
which code in KDE is in dispute. Note that I did _not_ say "which code
has licensing problems" because a substantial body of people believe
that no problems exist. I accept that - I believe that parties can agree
to disagree and still cooperate. However, a survey can be made of which
code is "in dispute" without admitting that there is a problem. Once
this is done, then constructive action can be taken - for example,
individual contributers might choose to re-write sections that they feel
are problematic - purely for functional, technical reasons of course :-)
Or individual contributors of particular applications might choose to
modify their licenses. This is completely independent of whether the KDE
core group decides to take any action or not.

-- 
Talin (Talin@ACM.org)       "I am life's flame. Respect my name.
www.sylvantech.com/~talin    My fire is red, my heart is gold.
www.hackertourist.com/talin  Thy dreams can be...believe in me,
                             If you will let my wings unfold..."
                               -- Heather Alexander

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]