The Heated Thread (ASF Interactive Scenario)

Browser lacks capabilities required to play.

Upgrade or switch to another browser.

Loading…

/* Initialise ASF-aligned learning metrics */ <<set $transparency = 0>> /* Clear, public, and respectful communication */ <<set $collaboration = 0>> /* PPMC-led conflict resolution and teamwork */ <<set $shortcuts = 0>> /* Avoiding avoidance, silence, or private fixes */ <<set $escalation = 0>> /* Premature or unnecessary escalation */ <<set $steps = 0>> You are a mentor working with an incubating Apache project. A long thread begins on `dev@` about switching the project’s build system from Maven to Gradle. At first, it’s a healthy technical discussion — but soon, the tone shifts. > "Your approach ignores half the project’s needs." > "Maybe if you actually read the code, you’d understand!" The exchange escalates. Other participants go silent, unsure whether to intervene. What do you do? <<link "Step in publicly to cool things down">><<goto "A">><</link>> <<link "Wait to see if it resolves itself">><<goto "B">><</link>> <<link "Email both parties privately to de-escalate">><<goto "C">><</link>> <<link "Escalate to general@incubator.apache.org for guidance">><<goto "D">><</link>> <<link "Invite a neutral summary of technical points">><<goto "E">><</link>> /* --- PATH A: Public intervention --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $transparency += 2>> /* Visible guidance strengthens trust */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Mentoring through calm example */ You step in publicly: > "Let’s pause for a moment. Please focus on the technical issue, not each other. We all want the best outcome for the project." One contributor thanks you, the other replies curtly: > "Don’t lecture me — I’m defending my work." <<link "Reassure and redirect">><<goto "A1Good">><</link>> <<link "Reinforce community norms firmly">><<goto "A1Neutral">><</link>> <<link "Call out the behaviour sharply">><<goto "A1Bad">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Shows empathy and resets tone */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Keeps communication open */ You reply calmly: > "No worries — it’s easy for tone to get lost in text. Let’s list pros and cons of both build options before deciding." People re-engage productively, and the silent contributors start replying again. <<link "Encourage documentation of the process">><<goto "A2Doc">><</link>> <<link "Let the discussion conclude naturally">><<goto "A2Fade">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Captures learning */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Reinforces PPMC ownership */ You suggest: > "Let’s summarise this in our dev@ archive so future contributors know how we handled disagreement." The summary later appears in the next podling report. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Fails to capture learning */ The thread ends peacefully, but no one documents what was learned. When another disagreement happens later, people repeat the same mistakes. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Affirms ASF norms */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Slight defensiveness reduces rapport */ You write: > "Please remember that ASF discussions should stay respectful. Let’s focus on ideas, not people." It stops the argument, but the tone feels chilly. The discussion moves on mechanically, without much reflection. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Harsh response harms openness */ <<set $collaboration -= 2>> /* Scolding damages trust */ You post: > "This behaviour is unacceptable. You both need to apologise immediately." The thread ends abruptly. One contributor unsubscribes. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>> /* --- PATH B: Do nothing (wait) --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Avoiding early intervention allows harm */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Lost mentoring opportunity */ You wait to see if others step in. After several days, the thread dies down on its own. But one of the main contributors goes quiet and hasn’t committed in weeks. <<link "Reach out privately afterward">><<goto "B1Good">><</link>> <<link "Assume they’ll come back">><<goto "B1Bad">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Restores human connection */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Restores visibility later */ You message the inactive contributor privately: > "Just checking in — are you OK? The thread got tense, and I wanted to make sure you still feel welcome." They appreciate it and return gradually. <<link "Encourage them to post publicly">><<goto "B2Public">><</link>> <<link "Keep the check-in private">><<goto "B2Private">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Restores openness */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Encourages participation */ You suggest they reply to the list to restart discussion. They do, thanking everyone for helping de-escalate. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Learning hidden from group */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Unseen progress */ They return to contributing silently, avoiding discussion threads. Future conflicts may resurface. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 2>> /* Avoidance compounds harm */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Mentor absence felt */ You decide not to follow up. Weeks later, the contributor resigns quietly. The podling loses momentum. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>> /* --- PATH C: Private outreach to both parties --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Direct contact can calm tempers */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Private conversation not visible */ You message both privately, acknowledging the conflict and encouraging perspective. They apologise to you but not to the list. <<link "Encourage public closure">><<goto "C1Good">><</link>> <<link "Let it stay private">><goto "C1Bad">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 2>> /* Visibility rebuilds trust */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Community sees resolution */ You suggest: > "Could you post a short note to close the thread, just so everyone knows the issue’s settled?" They do, thanking each other for resolving things. The list’s mood improves. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Private fix limits transparency */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Hidden repair */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Unclear leadership */ You consider it solved privately. Others on the list still sense tension and avoid new topics. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>> /* --- PATH D: Escalate to IPMC --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $escalation += 2>> /* Premature escalation */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Weakens PPMC independence */ You escalate the thread to `general@incubator.apache.org`. Some IPMC members reply, but several ask why the mentors didn’t first handle it locally. <<link "Acknowledge the feedback and redirect locally">><<goto "D1Good">><</link>> <<link "Defend the escalation">><<goto "D1Bad">><</link>>

<<set $transparency += 1>> /* Brings back local ownership */ <<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Helps the PPMC recover leadership */ You post back to `dev@`: > "Thanks everyone — we’ll handle this locally and summarise learnings here." The PPMC restarts discussion respectfully. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $escalation += 1>> /* Extra tension */ <<set $collaboration -= 2>> /* External debate undermines PPMC */ The debate spills across lists, with outsiders criticising tone and mentors arguing among themselves. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>> /* --- PATH E: Invite neutral summary --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> <<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Refocuses on technical facts */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Keeps discussion public */ You write: > "Let’s reset — can someone summarise both technical options objectively so we can compare side-by-side?" A neutral contributor volunteers. <<link "Acknowledge and build on the summary">><<goto "E1Good">><</link>> <<link "Thank them and move on without reflection">><<goto "E1Neutral">><</link>> <<link "Ignore the effort and end the thread">><<goto "E1Bad">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 2>> /* Re-engages others in solution mode */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Shared understanding */ The project thanks the summariser and agrees to prototype both options before deciding. Healthy debate returns. <<link "Invite a closing reflection">><<goto "E2Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration += 1>> /* Reinforces learning */ <<set $transparency += 1>> /* Visible closure */ You encourage: > "Let’s note what helped here — clear summaries made a difference." They agree to include this insight in their next podling report. <<link "Go to resolution">><<goto "Resolution">><</link>>

<<set $shortcuts += 1>> /* Fails to embed lesson */ <<set $collaboration -= 1>> /* Learning missed */ The technical issue is solved, but no one reflects on the conflict. A missed mentoring opportunity. <<link "Go to partial resolution">><<goto "Partial">><</link>>

<<set $collaboration -= 2>> /* Dismisses constructive input */ <<set $transparency -= 1>> /* Shuts down visibility */ The summary is ignored, and frustration returns. The volunteer disengages from the project. <<link "Go to damage control">><<goto "Damage">><</link>> /* --- OUTCOME PASSAGES --- */

<<set $steps += 1>> ✅ The project handled the tension constructively and restored a healthy tone. * Respect replaced hostility. * The PPMC led its own resolution. * The discussion remained visible and educational. Mentors note that de-escalation, empathy, and transparency helped rebuild trust. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The conflict cooled, but the project missed a chance to learn collectively. Future disagreements might resurface without guidance. <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>>

<<set $steps += 1>> The conflict left lasting damage. A contributor withdrew, and activity declined. The next podling report notes "reduced participation after tense discussions." <<link "Reflect on your choices">><<goto "Reflect">><</link>> /* --- REFLECTION SECTION --- */

<<set $total = $transparency + $collaboration - $shortcuts - $escalation>> You’ve reached the end of the scenario. <<if $total >= 8>> ✅ You modelled ASF-aligned practice: respectful communication, transparency, and mentoring that empowers the PPMC. <</if>> <<if $total >= 4 and $total < 8>> ⚖️ You de-escalated effectively but missed opportunities for broader learning or documentation. <</if>> <<if $total >= 0 and $total < 4>> ⚠️ The conflict was contained, but without enough openness to rebuild trust fully. <</if>> <<if $total < 0>> ❌ Your choices reduced visibility and trust. The community will need time to recover and may repeat the mistake. <</if>> ''Reflection Questions'' - When should a mentor step in versus letting the PPMC lead? - Which responses preserved trust and which reduced it? - How can podlings document and share lessons from conflict? - How does this scenario demonstrate ''community over code'' in practice? <<link "Restart Scenario">><<goto "Start">><</link>>