[personal profile] mjg59
Trust is important in any kind of interpersonal relationship. It's inevitable that there will be cases where something you do will irritate or upset others, even if only to a small degree. Handling small cases well helps build trust that you will do the right thing in more significant cases, whereas ignoring things that seem fairly insignificant (or saying that you'll do something about them and then failing to do so) suggests that you'll also fail when there's a major problem. Getting the small details right is a major part of creating the impression that you'll deal with significant challenges in a responsible and considerate way.

This isn't limited to individual relationships. Something that distinguishes good customer service from bad customer service is getting the details right. There are many industries where significant failures happen infrequently, but minor ones happen a lot. Would you prefer to give your business to a company that handles those small details well (even if they're not overly annoying) or one that just tells you to deal with them?

And the same is true of software communities. A strong and considerate response to minor bug reports makes it more likely that users will be patient with you when dealing with significant ones. Handling small patch contributions quickly makes it more likely that a submitter will be willing to do the work of making more significant contributions. These things are well understood, and most successful projects have actively worked to reduce barriers to entry and to be responsive to user requests in order to encourage participation and foster a feeling that they care.

But what's often ignored is that this applies to other aspects of communities as well. Failing to use inclusive language may not seem like a big thing in itself, but it leaves people with the feeling that you're less likely to do anything about more egregious exclusionary behaviour. Allowing a baseline level of sexist humour gives the impression that you won't act if there are blatant displays of misogyny. The more examples of these "insignificant" issues people see, the more likely they are to choose to spend their time somewhere else, somewhere they can have faith that major issues will be handled appropriately.

There's a more insidious aspect to this. Sometimes we can believe that we are handling minor issues appropriately, that we're acting in a way that handles people's concerns, while actually failing to do so. If someone raises a concern about an aspect of the community, it's important to discuss solutions with them. Putting effort into "solving" a problem without ensuring that the solution has the desired outcome is not only a waste of time, it alienates those affected even more - they're now not only left with the feeling that they can't trust you to respond appropriately, but that you will actively ignore their feelings in the process.

It's not always possible to satisfy everybody's concerns. Sometimes you'll be left in situations where you have conflicting requests. In that case the best thing you can do is to explain the conflict and why you've made the choice you have, and demonstrate that you took this issue seriously rather than ignoring it. Depending on the issue, you may still alienate some number of participants, but it'll be fewer than if you just pretend that it's not actually a problem.

One warning, though: while building trust in this way enhances people's willingness to join your community, it also builds expectations. If a significant issue does arise, and if you fail to handle it well, you'll burn a lot of that trust in the process. The fact that you've built that trust in the first place may be what saves your community from disintegrating completely, but people will feel even more betrayed if you don't actively work to rebuild it. And if there's a pattern of mishandling major problems, no amount of getting the details right will matter.

Communities that ignore these issues are, long term, likely to end up weaker than communities that pay attention to them. Making sure you get this right in the first place, and setting expectations that you will pay attention to your contributors, is a vital part of building a meaningful relationship between your community and its members.

libreboot

Date: 2016-10-03 08:48 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
With that in mind, how would you rate the FSF and GNU response to Libreboot leaving, as well as their response to Leah's allegations of discrimination? Are they going to end up weaker or stronger for how they've handled these situations?

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-04 05:56 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Holy cow!

I have clearly not been keeping up with FLOSS news - this Libreboot situation is horrifying.
The FSF needs to apologise, fire the guilty, and apologise a lot more.

I trust @mjg59 will raise this with the rest of the FSF directorship.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-04 10:38 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I suggest reading up a bit more, there's a lot of sides. Leah seems to use her position as project leader as a personal soapbox which other libreboot devs don't agree with. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12553367 for example.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-04 10:42 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
What's horrifying about it?

"Richard Stallman commented Friday, "The dismissal of the staff person was not because of her gender. Her gender now is the same as it was when we hired her. It was not an issue then, and it is not an issue now."

Following RMS' comments, the Free Software Foundation issued an official statement on late Friday night. It regards in part by John Sullivan, the executive director, "while we understand that it is difficult whenever an employment relationship ends, the suggestion that the separation was a result of discriminatory animus is unfounded.""

It sounds like this is a situation whose public understanding is founded on hearsay. If there are no guilty at the FSF, and is nothing to apologise for, will you be satisfied with no firings and no apologies? :)

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-06 12:30 am (UTC)
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
From: [personal profile] tim
Why are you assuming that the FSF officials are telling the truth and Leah Rowe is lying?

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-06 03:46 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Because what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-06 07:52 am (UTC)
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
From: [personal profile] tim
What evidence do you have for Stallman's and Sullivan's claims?

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-06 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
More to the point, what evidence do you have for Leah's claims? She certainly hasn't presented any.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-08 03:55 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The burden of proof is on the accuser, which is fortunate otherwise we would regularly be throwing people in jail on falacious grounds.

In this case the accusation is very serious and damageable for the reputation of the people involved, so evidence or STFU. Leah had no problen giving names to the public ; why didn't she also produce evidence?

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-08 03:59 am (UTC)
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
From: [personal profile] tim
Sorry, what? All I can hear is fart noises.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-08 08:20 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Quite adequate since you are making an ass of yourself.

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-12 06:11 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Hi. I'm the Anon to which you were directing the question.

I'm not assuming that the FSF officials are telling the truth and Rowe is lying.

I'm asserting that we who were not party to the events in question _do not know_ who is telling the truth and who is lying. Our understanding of the events is based on hearsay. Or -to put it more succinctly-:

"It sounds like this is a situation whose public understanding is founded on hearsay."

Re: libreboot

Date: 2016-10-22 02:35 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
It's one of those "listen & believe for thee, not for me!" cases.

Profile

Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags