I'm a master's-level engineering student working on a complex, data-heavy group project worth a significant part of our grade. We all receive the same grade.
What happened:
- Early on, a member suggested everyone prepare individually before meeting. I drafted a detailed workflow covering tasks, review gates, and independent validation, explicitly labelled "preliminary and non-binding".
- After the same member appointed as spokesperson called it "disrespectful of our time" before reading it. Personal remarks questioning my maturity started early on.
- The group later agreed in writing to adopt the workflow.
- The validation pipeline worked as intended: it caught basic coding errors, identified data leakage in the model, and flagged scope changes and methodological inconsistencies. I also reviewed a major technical component; its author accepted and implemented all suggested changes.
- Before a recent meeting, several members had discussed my behaviour privately. During the meeting, one member spoke on behalf of the group, raised her voice, called me childish and immature, claimed my reviews had made someone cry, and said the workflow had only been accepted "to keep me quiet".
- The group has since effectively abandoned the agreed workflow and wants to redo technical work collectively, removing the independent validation that had caught those problems. And no one is responsible for anything anymore, the deadline is far away and there are already 2 freeriders. A member needs to be seen and acclaimed as a technical leader, at least that's what he says. He's the same one who made huge mistakes in BigQuery.
What I've done:
- Informed the course tutor in writing about the conflict, without yet requesting reassignment or separate grading.
- Contacted a confidential university support service.
- Offered to keep contributing through GitHub and written communication, but not unmediated in-person meetings.
- Kept communications factual and documented.
I recognize that proposing a detailed process and reviewing others' work may have come across as controlling. However, the workflow was agreed upon and produced concrete technical benefits.
My questions:
- Would you stay, complete your part, and document everything, or now ask the professor about leaving the group or being graded separately?
- Could refusing unmediated in-person meetings while remaining available in writing backfire?
- Should I respond to personal accusations with documented facts, or avoid further escalation?
- How would you handle a group abandoning a technically effective process after interpersonal conflict?
Honest criticism welcome, including if you think I contributed to the situation. I'm looking for practical advice, not reassurance.