The Underdogs We Protect, the Underdogs We Create

During the last maybe 10 years of my open-source involvement, I have
seen a lot of conflicts. Some of them involving myself, some of them
I only witnessed, and some of them I helped to settle.  It was often
hard for me to look the other way. Trying to understand why, I star-
ted thinking about underdogs.  This is just me brooding, without any
conclusive thought.

What do I call an underdog? To me it’s just somebody who may feel or is left alone in an argument against all other involved people. Having been too often in such a situation myself, I know it can take a huge emotional toll.

I guess in the simplest case when somebody argues alone against others, there’s a visible, objective truth and they are technically wrong. Even in such a case, I believe it’s a good idea to show compassion. There must be a misunderstanding, so it’s best to figure out what was misunderstood exactly. It’s rarely that simple, though. Not all arguments are purely technical, and when not it’s hard to stay objective. That’s when I appear to side with the underdog. This feeling of compassion is sometimes paired with an urge to protect an open-source project, as, unfortunately often, the underdog is in a maintainer position.

But what can we do to defend somebody? We can take their side in an argument of course. And for many smaller disputes this can turn out well. It can, however, also escalate things further. The most naive thing I once did was to attack somebody with words only to show somebody else that they are not alone. I guess my silly thought was that better I would take the heat than they, because the opponents had to work in the same area, but I didn’t. Definitely no way to go, and I still regret the words I used when I read the thread today.

I believe one of the important things is to try to understand the situation, of all people involved. Most often it’s misunderstandings that keep people arguing. Taking somebody’s position may help with an underdog situation. But reading the same arguments from someone else probably won’t convince somebody on the other side. Something I learned far too late is the importance of approaching people in private, even if an argument is taking place in public. In my own experience, conflicts are often caused by something outside the project’s scope that people would rather not discuss in public. Could be something dull like a deadline, or maybe some technical, downstream requirement that actually shouldn’t be ignored. Resolving a misunderstanding, finding any way to settle a dispute, can also help everybody simply by getting them out of the situation.

As projects grow, they usually develop structures to help to settle disputes; arbitration councils, for instance. I believe approaching somebody impartial can help a lot. I do have reservations about this, though, in smaller projects where everybody still knows everybody. I have seen this turn out well, but also very badly. My conclusion: If people don’t know each other, being impartial should be easy. Then I would trust arbitrators by default. Otherwise, they should have earned one’s trust, for instance by visibly acting professionally. Without such direct trust, it’s still possible to build one’s own web of trust, approach somebody trusted, ask them for help, then take the next step together. Usually, after two or three steps somebody who can help is found.

Taking pressure off somebody is an admirable goal. But as important as it is to break a wave for somebody, as important it also is to not turn the tide against somebody else. If someone is pointed out as an aggressor in a conflict, they can easily become a casualty of public opinion. When there are official sanctions against them as well, we might create the next underdog. This is why I tend not to report on people. IMO, it should always be enough to feel defeated and lose the support of others. At this point, it’s probably best to leave people be.

There was a case in the news lately about a project I’m not involved with, but it made me ponder again: Arbitrators demanded a public apology from somebody, but they refused to. Being somebody myself who often doesn’t mince matters, I usually feel some remorse after any conflict, no matter the outcome. With that in mind and faith in the good in people, I wondered what could generally stop somebody from apologizing? The most likely explanation to me is that they feel they’re being treated unfairly, maybe misunderstood. Did they become the underdog? There is a risk that after some authority came to a conclusion, a matter seems settle, communication ceases. Which never helps to discover misunderstandings. Again, I believe it is most important to approach people, try to figure out what is driving them. So here is my appeal to everybody involved in community disputes: Try not to judge people, talk less about them, talk to them!