Adopt a Drupal Code of Conduct (#DCOC)

moshe weitzman's picture

As our community grows, it is imperative that we preserve the what got us here. Namely, we keep Drupal a fun, welcoming, challenging, and fair place to play. IMO, we need to proactively state our shared ideals with respect to conduct. Think of this as coding standards for people :)

Our friends at Ubuntu have blazed a brilliant trail in this area. They use our CMS, and I propose that we use their Code of Conduct.

  1. Adopt the Ubuntu Code of Conduct.
    • Make very light edits to the UCOC just to swap the word Ubuntu with Drupal and and remove reference to conflict resolution process. See my proposal below. I propose to avoid bikeshedding and avoid further edits for now.
    • Write a handbook page where we adopt the DCOC. Add prominent links to this document from,, etc.
    • Add a user profile checkbox where users can optionally affirm their support for the Drupal Code of Conduct. There are no repercussions to checking or not checking this box. Its just a grassroots way to show that many members of believe on our own Code.
    • Post the news on front page
  2. Build upon the DCOC with a conflict resolution policy. Again, Ubuntu has a really strong model. Have a look at it. Such a policy will really help and IRC administrators as they deal with the inevitable trolls in our world.

If this sounds too formal for Drupal, I sort of agree with you. But in the end, we want Drupal to be big and successful and a force for positive change in the world. Without a code of conduct, we impair this goal. We need to shout from the rooftops about who we are and how we operate. We need to recruit like-minded people. And we need to clearly deal with trolls who throw roadblocks toward our goals.

This is bridge building, in classic Drupal tradition. The DCOC finally documents the unwritten guidelines that have been so instrumental in the healthy/happy development and growth of Drupal to-date. It's a numerical fact that we're growing beyond the scale at which we can rely on informal standards and individual personalities to guard the spirit of the community.

Lets discuss the many details here. I hope to synthesize all feedback and make a recommendation after a couple of weeks. Lets christen this the webchick model of community decision making. We are following her brilliant lead in pushing the community to modernize its version control platform. Feel free to blog and microblog (use #DCOC keyword) about this in order to get the best minds talking here.

CAPS indicate changes from the Ubuntu Code of Conduct

Be considerate.

Our work will be used by other people, and
we in turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision we take
will affect users and colleagues, and we should take those
consequences into account when making decisions. DRUPAL has
millions of users and thousands of contributors. Even if it's not
obvious at the time, our contributions to DRUPAL will impact the
work of others. For example, changes to code, infrastructure,
policy, documentation, and translations during a release may
negatively impact others' work.

Be respectful.

The DRUPAL community and its members treat
one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable
contribution to DRUPAL. We may not always agree, but disagreement
is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all
experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that
frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to
remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or
threatened is not a productive one. We expect members of the
DRUPAL community to be respectful when dealing with other
contributors as well as with people outside the DRUPAL project and
with users of DRUPAL.

Be collaborative.

Collaboration is central to DRUPAL and to
the larger free software community. This collaboration involves
individuals working with others in teams within DRUPAL, teams
working with each other within DRUPAL, and individuals and teams
within DRUPAL working with other projects outside. This
collaboration reduces redundancy, and improves the quality of our
work. Internally and externally, we should always be open to
collaboration. Wherever possible, we should work closely with
upstream projects and others in the free software community to
coordinate our technical, advocacy, documentation, and other work.
Our work should be done transparently and we should involve as
many interested parties as early as possible. If we decide to
take a different approach than others, we will let them know early,
document our work and inform others regularly of our progress.

When we disagree, we consult others.


When we are unsure, we ask for help.

Nobody knows everything, and nobody is expected to be perfect in the DRUPAL
community. Asking questions avoids many problems down the road,
and so questions are encouraged. Those who are asked questions should
be responsive and helpful. However, when asking a question, care must
be taken to do so in an appropriate forum.

Step down considerately.

Members of every project come and
go and DRUPAL is no different. When somebody leaves or disengages
from the project, in whole or in part, we ask that they do so in a
way that minimises disruption to the project. This means they
should tell people they are leaving and take the proper steps to
ensure that others can pick up where they left off.


Great start

tom_o_t's picture

This is something that many in the NYC group have felt would be helpful, alongside a conflict resolution process, in dealing quickly with the inevitable issues that arise in such a large and diverse community.

In the thread that Moshe linked to there's a link to a code of conduct started by FatherShawn: but the Ubuntu Code of Conduct does seem an easier starting point.

More about Conflict Resolution

FatherShawn's picture

Thanks for the plug tom_o_t. My post was intended to be more about conflict resolution and expectations of leaders.

I like this COC - perhaps what I've written can form a start for the conflict resolution section.

Drupaling in NYC since 2009!

Like +1

bangpound's picture

I think forking the Ubuntu code is a great proposal.

+1 to this. Thanks for

nikkiana's picture

+1 to this. Thanks for getting this started, Moshe.

This is excellent. Looking

orbgasm's picture

This is excellent. Looking forward to seeing where this can take us.

I hope this doesn't mean

forestmars's picture

I hope this doesn't mean that now we have to switch to Bazaar…

~ Forest Mars


WebNewCastle's picture

I think the approach in language itself is a great example too. Although this may seem like a small thing, I think use of the "we" and "our" pronouns itself supports and fosters the collaborative, organic, and "golden rule" nature of the entire collective Drupal endeavor.

+1, but I'd leave at least a

pwolanin's picture

+1, but I'd leave at least a stub of the "When we disagree" section with its 1st two sentences:

'''When we disagree, we consult others.''' Disagreements, both
social and technical, happen all the time and the Ubuntu
community is no exception. It is important that we resolve
disagreements and differing views constructively and with the help
of the community and community processes.

-1 to having a CoC at all

HedgeMage's picture

Drupal has already done a great job at building community. Fostering an open source community is important, a Code of Conduct document takes attention away from that.

A Code of Conduct hasn't done anything magical for Ubuntu. The people who were disruptive drama magnets pre-CoC still are after having signed it. The people who are constructive community members post-CoC were already great community members pre-CoC. The people who need to be told how to behave are the same people who won't read and internalize a CoC.

Everyone interested in a CoC: ask yourselves when the last time is that you invested a couple of hours helping a new contributor learn the ropes, smacked down someone being an ass in the IRC channel, led by example, or took the time to nudge someone who's trying but just doesn't "get it" in the right direction. All of these activities are exponentially more valuable uses of time than working on, promoting, contemplating, or signing a Code of Conduct.

Drupal should keep being about doing. Having a Code of Conduct takes some not-insignificant attention from doing, and focuses it on being or belonging. Don't mess with a good thing.

Agreed. I don't see why

Garrett Albright's picture

Agreed. I don't see why stodgy formalization like this is necessary. It will help the community grow? Really? Have we been limited in growth these past few years when we didn't have any CoC?

The whole thing is tl;dr, rife with flowery back-patting instead of actual rules. Let's pare it down to the bare essentials. Okay, you wanted feedback on this; there it is. Additionally, I worringly foresee many debates in the near future where the technical aspects of the argument give way to bickering about who is violating the CoC and how and who did it first and so on. More code and less touchy-feely, please.

But if we really need some sort of rules or constitution or whatever, then those in charge should just write them up and say "Those are the rules. Follow them or be b&." Putting things like this up for debate is just going to cause drama. For example…

Lets discuss the many details here. I hope to synthesize all feedback and make a recommendation after a couple of weeks. Lets christen this the webchick model of community decision making. We are following her brilliant lead in pushing the community to modernize its version control platform. Feel free to blog and microblog (use #DCOC keyword) about this in order to get the best minds talking here.

I feel that the example of "community decision-making" you're using here is very poor. The Git switch discussion all pretty much had the attitude of "Well, we're switching to Git, but we'll let people with other ideas share them, even though that won't affect the decision." I don't have a problem at all with the benevolent dictator method of decision making in OSS, as committee decision-making can be time-consuming and unproductive compared to decisions made by a single person who knows what they're doing, but we shouldn't pretend that it's something it isn't. If the whole thing were presented as "We're switching to Git; just thought you'd like to know," the whole affair would have been less messy.

Having participated in the

pwolanin's picture

Having participated in the git thread here and in IRC, I was very clear that it was by no means a foregone conclusion, and at the start I thought it more likely that we would go with bzr (and even favored that option some). The fact that git was decided (and the decision made sooner than initially suggested) was based pretty clearly on the will of the community and willingness to contribute and teach more relating to git than bzr.

hopefully it makes this more obvious

greggles's picture

Hi HedgeMage,

I do strongly respect your opinion here since my understanding is that you know a lot about Ubuntu community so you know how well this CoC works. But...

ask yourselves when the last time is that you invested a couple of hours helping a...

Maybe you don't realize that many of the +1s on this thread are from people who do that every day. It's somewhat insulting.

I don't think this is a replacement for that work. I think it's something to reduce that work by helping people know our values from the start.

Even with our focus on "doing" we have a ton of policies/guidelines and have had them since more ore less the beginning of the project (the principles are from 2005).

We have a lot of things in the community that are about "being or belonging" and I think the doing of "upholding the CoC" should be another one of those.

I am +1 on this and have been talking with Josh and Moshe and others about the concept for months because we struggle with people who don't follow it all the time here on g.d.o. We are looking for something to bring more civility to this site and the other means of communication that Drupal uses.

I'm sorry if I was

HedgeMage's picture

I'm sorry if I was unclear...

I said, "Ask yourselves when the last time is that you invested a couple of hours helping..." precisely because I think people here DO do those things, and see the difference that it makes. Those people should, in my opinion, be the most likely to recognize that a CoC is a distraction from our core values, not a reinforcement of them.

I don't think having a CoC will bring more civility to g.d.o. I think it will just add rules lawyering to any problems that may already exist.

This is great. I was speaking

heather's picture

This is great. I was speaking recently with a prominent member of the Joomla community, who spoke with envy about the cohesion within the Drupal community. We have a lot of good things in the community already.

Yet, without this kind of structure (a code of conduct), how can the Drupal community grow? We need a trellis to rise up on. This would be a way to make what is now tacit into the explicit. I think this is a step forward to improving diversity in the community and making it a more welcoming place.

Thanks, Moshe!

if we must, this looks good

arianek's picture

In ideal terms, I wish we didn't have to delve into having a code of conduct at all, and like HedgeMage said, focus on the doing.

That said, as someone who is involved in areas where I do interact with a lot of community members new and old (admin a couple g.d.o groups, spend a good amount of time on IRC, and am an op, and help manage the documentation team), the value in and need for such a code has been becoming evident the more the community grows.

It'd save those of us who do help cultivate the community's standards a lot of time having something like this to point to when there is bad behaviour going on. Rather than having to contend with a "who made you boss" attitude, I can then just point at our standard for behaviour to back up what we see as acceptable and positive ways of interacting.

Again, I wish this wasn't necessary, but I've seen first hand enough destructive behaviour to realize that it will help maintain the very respectable standards we've built as a community.

Speaking only for myself, I

laura s's picture

Speaking only for myself, I like this. One quibbling change I might suggest is to change the headers to active verbs:

  • Consider Others
  • Respect Others
  • Collaborate with Others

Maybe my English major background is overactive here.

As for whether this is needed, I feel that every online community needs a code of conduct, whether explicit or implied. And the clearer the better. One community site I saw some years ago had only a joke code: "Don't be a dick." That site had a ton of problems because there were no clear rules, so when action was taken, it came off as arbitrary.

Clarity of expectations is only fair.

Laura Scott
PINGV | Strategy • Design • Drupal Development


bonobo's picture

In addition, Laura's recommendation of active verbs in the headers is spot-on.

And, so is Peter's recommendation for a stub section about conflict resolution, if only as a placeholder for a more specific process.

+1, draw business into this ecosystem

Boris Mann's picture

I have been meeting with shops that are new to Drupal. Many are not contributing. They "don't have time" or haven't figured out the process or a myriad of other excuses that boil down to education and awareness.

I would love to use this as an education tool to explain and hilight how businesses can succeed use an open source and "community ROI" approach.

I can understand how this can be seen as a blunt instrument. This document can link directly to "how to contribute" and other great doing examples. I think explaining / integrating some permissive language that encourages people to "go for it" might help.

Good thinking. We could add a

moshe weitzman's picture

Good thinking. We could add a section called Be Bold that draws language from Be Bold is a wikipedia slogan that encourages folks to edit pages and make them better. I think its a great match for our community as well. Lets borrow from the best.

Keeping an eye on

Huge +1

dixon_'s picture

Huge +1

To our community this document would be what GPL is for our code, kind of. It would be a document that tells what values our community stands for and how to ensure that when new people want to take part of the community. I think this is a good thing.

// Dick Olsson

From ###

yoroy's picture


### We value:

- Flexibility, simplicity, and utility in our product;
- Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community;
- Modularity, extensibility and maintainability in our code.

And that's about all I could fine on a quick browse: Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community. If you browse a bit starting from, you'll find much on the software, but very little about community goals and values indeed.

I would agree that it's good thing to try and write down the unwritten rules that guide us both daily and in the long run. I'd like to see those goals and values (Why?) in place first before we start formulating long-winded boring sentences on the How. Tone of voice matters and I don't think this sounds inspiring or convincing, nor really drives home the 'community ROI' argument, which

So, needs work: 1. give it context, 2. a more positive and human tone of voice, 3. explain the open source community win-win, 4. less words :)

Side note: I don't really dig the 'don't edit please – bikeshed disclaimer' on a wiki page that of all things wants to capture our collaborative spirit.

I think this is BAD BAD BAD!

nenne's picture

Most would be common sense and i dont think people not getting that will read it anyway.

I have to object strongly

Wolfflow's picture

with much respect but,

Most would be common sense and i dont think people not getting that will read it anyway.

Nothing is common sense for newbies, and I guarantee you that when you publish and state a community COC, it will be read.

Kind Regards

jp.stacey's picture

A belated +1. On the very subject of it being read: is it worth putting it somewhere that it will be read? Newbies aren't likely to hunt out a COC on a daily basis, and it would be nice not to have to have the livelier debates punctuated with "RTFCOC". For a start, it looks obscene. And I've only looked for it now because of Moshe's post on the d.o homepage: otherwise I might have probably just assumed that Drupal didn't have one.

In the same way that wiki pages have the "Be Bold" text on them to encourage people to interact (qv Moshe's mention earlier), would it be worth putting this text somewhere near the comment-submit button for d.o and g.d.o users, until they hit a certain number of comments? Would that be better than asking people on their user profile, or at registration, after which it could be forgotten about?

People might find that intrusive, so there's a balance to be struck, but it might be worth a trial. I'd sometimes like to be able to sit back and read this before hitting submit, as I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of sometimes responding in ways which don't exactly follow the COC as currently stated. I'm not suggesting it should be like GMail Beer Goggles, where you have to tick five COC checkboxes before you can submit your comment, but I think if something like this is going to work it needs to be continuously examined lest it get buried under both familiarity by longstanding community members and ignorance by newbies.


Itangalo's picture

I find this CoC inspiring. It probably won't change anything I do in the community, but just reading it makes me feel there are thousands of other people doing small contributions along with me.

Will it be useful when dealing with ass hats? Maybe. I find it unlikely that any bully would read it and come to senses, but could myself read it every once in a while and get some ideas of how to approach problems. As could probably others.

Now: off to answer newbie questions in the Swedish forum!

//Johan Falk, NodeOne, Sweden

Why not think about alternatives?

Ewel's picture

I am not actually part of the Drupal community, but someone pointed me to this thread because he knows I take an interest in thinking about codes of conduct for open source communities. I am here to make a suggestion which I hope will be helpful, so I will not make an autobiography but if feel free to ask if who I am matters for you to judge my suggestion.

A code of conduct in my view is always useful for an open source community as long as it corresponds with the culture of the community and if the text is actually good at what it is supposed to do.

Wikipedia has a nice definition (, which speaks about principles, values, standards and rules - but in my view rules are more specific and detailed instruments for forums and things like that. So, what I think a CoC should do is to give some behavioral guidance in a way that is general enough to capture whatever may happen, yet it should be capable of being applied to a specific situation.

The Ubuntu code is the most widely known example of a code of conduct in the open source software world, and it seems to have proven itself to be useful. But my feeling is that it hangs in the middle between a code of principles and values and a set of forum rules. It is neither general nor detailed enough to be very good as a code of conduct or a set of rules. Furthermore, it is more a random collection of useful pointers than a complete set of guiding principles. Moreover it is too long to remember. In reality few people will ever look up a CoC until it is too late, so remembering it is important.

Criticising is always easy from the side line, and therefore I have attempted to prove my point by making an alternative a code of conduct myself. I wanted it to consist of principles, to be less random if not complete, and to be short enough to remember or copy & paste in almost any context (including forum signatures, website footers, etc.). Also, I wanted my attempt at a code of conduct to give a sense of purpose. To my mind, guiding interaction is a bit pointless if what the interaction is all about is not made clear.

As to the principles, I tried to choose some that are important for what goes on in a collaborative open source software community. To make non-random choices and be complete, I tried to make each principle connect the previous and next one. Regarding purpose, I believe that everything in a collaborative open source community revolves around doing things together and every now and then lending a hand.

What I came up with is this mini code of conduct:
"I will collaborate and exchange help by being constructive, open, understanding, respectful and fair"

My suggestion is that you have a look at what I made, and that you give some thought to what you want by comparing this mini code of conduct with the Ubuntu code, and perhaps some others you can find. I have licensed this mini code under the Creative Commons Share Alike licence, so anyone is free to use it under those terms. If you think that the mini code suits Drupal, then fee free to use it, but you can also try to mix and match and make your own code.

Good luck!

"I will collaborate and

Garrett Albright's picture

"I will collaborate and exchange help by being constructive, open, understanding, respectful and fair"

If we are going to have a CoC, one that can be comfortably said on one breath like this strikes me as much more sensible. I guess Ewel had the time to write a shorter CoC.

appealing but maybe not enough

greggles's picture

That does really appeal to me as well, but like the "Don't be a dick" that was thrown out before or "Use common sense" I think it's too simplistic. We already have simplified rules and people should always use common sense. Unfortunately people aren't doing that so I think we need something more prescriptive.

I think the more prescriptive

catch's picture

I think the more prescriptive you have, the more people will point to it and find loopholes.

For an example, this issue appeared on irc, and at least two people asked if we have an explicit written rule somewhere banning spyware, I told them both that I don't think an explicit rule is needed for spyware, and I think that applies to many other issues too.

With any codification of things like this, there is a real risk of it becoming "a list of things we think are good" or "a list of things we think are bad" - lists are always incomplete, or interminably long, and prone to interpretation. Even the one sentence code of conduct runs this risk.

There are two issues here I think - either decisions which are made too quickly / wrongly / unilaterally, or decisions which are not made, so abusive behaviour is allowed to continue.

  • Webmaster goes bad:

Decisions get made by those with the time and energy to make them + the required permissions. Everything from deciding who is and isn't a spammer, who should and shouldn't have a cvs account, who needs to be kickbanned from irc channels, what's on planet, what's on the front page etc.. This is pretty much what do-ocracy boils down to, and it's pretty much fine until someone with lots of time and energy turns up who happens to be an arsehole / goes off the rails / has a disagreement which isn't possible to resolve / didn't get any sleep last night - and then starts making decisions which the majority of people disagree with unilaterally. I don't spend as much time on the webmasters queue as I used to, and while I remember a couple of examples of this happening, not too many, and I think this is largely due to the permissions setup on - generally roles get granted when people are unable to get their job done unless they get an elevated role, by which time they're usually fairly well known and trusted anyway. But there is always a risk that what is a largely informal organisation develops informal hierarchies/factions/cliques or whatever. In this case I think a code of conduct / structure for webmasters might help, but I'm not sure that one for the community does - in fact a code of conduct is the sort of thing that a 'webmaster gone bad' might take advantage of.

  • user without additional permissions goes bad:

Someone is doing something unsavoury, and yet they're able to continue to do this because action isn't taken. This could be because there's no one around to make the decision, there's someone around with authority but they don't think the really have the authority to do that, there's not enough people to make a quorum for the decision, or there's enough people but they disagree (possibly including reversing decisions etc.).

In both cases, I think this is less an issue about having a code of conduct for the community, and more an issue about the boundaries of responsibility for webmasters. i.e. we don't need to determine what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in the community, we need to determine what the steps are for dealing with unacceptable behaviour (open a webmasters issue first, have at least a couple of people +1 it, or if it's an emergency, do it anyway but leave the issue open for discussion, stuff like this).

Re: catch's comments on CoC

tom_o_t's picture

Catch - I think your point about the need for

boundaries of responsibility for webmasters

is recognized by most here - in the original post here Moshe mentioned the need for a conflict resolution policy to be developed in tandem with this code of conduct.

Many of the more troubling issues in Drupal communities have been exacerbated by a lack of clear and consistent direction in how to deal with the problems that arose.

Shall we try to start a conflict resolution policy now? I use the term loosely. A conflict could be everything from offensive comments in IRC to some tracking code hidden in a module.

Anyone else have an opinion

moshe weitzman's picture

Anyone else have an opinion on the 1 sentence alternative? In what ways is it lacking compared to Ubuntu's?

I think the 1 sentence

bangpound's picture

I think the 1 sentence alternative doesn't lend itself to further development and refinement. I'm seeing the headings as being the shorthand for the ideas expressed in the paragraph they head.

I think the meaning of the 1 sentence is fine, but I'm not down with the constraint.


chx's picture

I found this definition "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice". I have a strong bias towards contributors vs not contributors. That's how it should be.

Step forward

ronald_istos's picture

I think the CoC is great. I know it would have helped me a couple of years ago.

One should not underestimate how daunting it is to take the step to participate as a newbie in a community when you have noone to walk you through those first steps and being able to see that the community, at least in theory, tries to be a positive one is useful.

As for the one sentence thing - I actually think both can co-exist. Something along the lines of our coded of conduct boils down to - get more here.

Thanks Moshe for bringing this up.

In many ways a CoC is for

Shiny's picture

In many ways a CoC is for those who are not currently contributing, but would be if there was a strong message of what conduct is acceptable, and the code is enforced. Many project have people who have left, silently, due to agressive and antisocial behaviours of the status quo contributors.

Like the full version

Damien Tournoud's picture

So +1 from me for a code of conduct, and the next steps that Moshe outlined in his post (handbook page, checkbox on the profile, front page post).

I do prefer the verbose version over the one sentence one.

Damien Tournoud

I like the full version as well

ksenzee's picture

What Damien said. I think it's useful to have something a bit more concrete than one sentence to point people at (although I like the sentence in itself).

+1 from me

rfay's picture

I say +1 both for the actual proposed COC and for the forward thinking behind it. We really must shape what we are to become, and this is a one great way to do it.



arianek's picture

Well, if this was an issue, I'd say that's enough support to mark it RTBC.

Moshe - if you are going to make the changes yourself cool - otherwise, do we need someone to post an issue in the webmasters queue?


silverwing's picture

Cross posting from the webmaster issue to throw this in:

Just came across the Arch Linux Forum Etiquette page - quite lengthy but covers a lot (too much)


txwikinger's picture

Being a very active contributor and participant in the Ubuntu community, I can only agree with this proposal. The CoC is tremendously helpful for us not only when we deal with trolls, but also to set out and communicate the expectations. New participants do not know the history of a group, but a CoC can immediately set the tone of the atmosphere. Having been also involved in other online communities, I believe the CoC is a fundamental part of the success of Ubuntu.

I was awaiting this for a long time, glad to approve!

Wolfflow's picture


Check your agenda's at the door

btopro's picture

It's been mentioned that common sense is too simplistic. How about this as another small descriptor area "Check your agendas at the door". I've seen a lot of discussions getting side tracked recently about sexism as a hot button issue, religion as an issue I saw in the past, questions of motivations of corporate vendors / involvement, and I'm sure as more and more political websites use Drupal that evil could come creeping in. Maybe some kind of statement that the agenda of the community is to promote Drupal as the dominant web platform: period. Any contributions need to be towards forwarding that goal, making Drupal more dominant. Not towards making module x more dominant or making it easier for people of group y to make social issue z more / less visible.

Drupal has, for the most part, transcended these issues but a clear statement that social preference is not a concern of participation in the community couldn't hurt.

is the agenda public or private?

escoles's picture

btopro, i think the issue w/ agendas is more whether they're open or not. if they're open, people get the choice of whether or not to sign up; if they're hidden or even just disguised (like the Joker's, to reference your quote), people don't have a fair chance to know what they're signing up for.

You could argue (not sure I would) that agendas are covered under "be considerate" (i.e., give people a chance to know what they're signing up for).

true. Again we're getting

btopro's picture

true. Again we're getting into assumptions though as to what is and is not covered under different areas. One of the main draws I personally have to the Drupal community is that it is (for the most part) lacking in politics or flame wars on specific issues. I agree that can fall under the "be considerate" clause, never hurts to offer up clarification for debate though :p

Do people seriously think the DCOC is tl;dr?

escoles's picture

It looks downright concise to me.


KhaledBlah's picture

I think it's important to have a common basis to work and to put that basis into written down words.

This is why having a Code of Conduct is helpful

Dave Reid's picture

When we have situations like this:

Senior Drupal Developer for Lullabot | | @davereid

Suggested minor edits

LeeHunter's picture

There is a stylistic problem in the way these headings are written. It starts out using a fairly bossy tone (be this, be that) and then shifts for the last few into a gentler, tone that I think is actually more in keeping with the intent of this code and with the tone of the Drupal project in general (when we are unsure we ask for help).

The two styles are really, seriously incompatible and shouldn't be used together in one document. Either it should use an authoritative voice or it should not.

Since the new Drupalcon code of conduct is being based on this document I'd like to propose that some minor changes in wording are made here, so that this stylistic problem doesn't get perpetuated. I've made a similar comment on the Drupalcon page (

My suggested changes are:

Be considerate > We are considerate
Be respectful > We are respectful
Be collaborative > We are collaborative

kattekrab's picture

Following these discussions:
* [#1822314]
* [#1493430]
* [#1815958]

I propose we add these words under the paragraph under "Be respectful."

We will not tolerate bullying or harassment of any member of the Drupal community.

If you feel threatened or violated as a result of intimidating, bullying, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning conduct, please speak up and ask it to stop. If you are fearful of speaking up, contact the Community Working Group immediately with evidence of the incident. Incidents of bullying and harrassment can be reported privately and will be treated seriously and discretely.

Please speak up if you notice someone else being subjected to such behaviour. Refer people to our code of conduct and point out such behaviour is unwelcome.

Donna Benjamin
Board Member Drupal Association

As someone who's been bullied

christefano's picture

As someone who's been bullied a few times recently by someone both here on and by phone, I'm in favor of adding something to the code of conduct to address situations like mine.

I'm curious about two things in the proposed wording:

  1. What's the process for contacting the Community Working Group? Please provide a link if you have one.
  2. The word "fearful" doesn't work for me. I haven't reported the bullying not because I'm fearful but because there hasn't been an appropriate forum for that discussion. I'd like to see that wording replaced with "If you do not feel that you can speak up, contact the Community Working Group immediately with evidence of the incident."

Thank you christefano. Yes a

kattekrab's picture

Thank you christefano.

Yes a link to the CWG is required, and agree removing fearful is sensible.

Donna Benjamin
Board Member Drupal Association

We're moving forward at the

christefano's picture

We're moving forward at the local level with a governance policy of our own. It incorporates the Drupal Code of Conduct, and we've added this part, as well:

We do not tolerate harassment of group members in any form. If you feel threatened or violated as a result of bullying, intimidating, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning conduct, please notify a group organizer immediately. Likewise, please notify a group organizer immediately if you notice that someone else is being subjected to such behavior.

It's in the "code of coduct" part of our document:

I'd love to hear what people think about this idea in the context of this larger discussion.

Suggestion: Provide closure

gisle's picture

I also +1 this initiative.

I also propose we add a paragraph "Provide closure." (or that the following text is added to the paragraph "When we are unsure, we ask for help.")

When you ask a question in an appropriate forum, or file a support request in an issue queue, make sure that you provide closure to those who have tried to help you when the question is answered or the issue is resolved. Providing closure is important for the motivation of those who help others in forums and issue queues.

Rationale: Often on, I see people providing long and well researched answers in forums and in issue queues, but with absolutely no feedback from the OP. Those who've tried to help out are left dangling, not knowing whether the problem is actually resolved or not. No more gripes from the OP probably means that the question has been answered or that the issue resolved. But a brief closure message in the form of: "Thanks, got it!", or even: "Found this solution, which I think is better: http://..." would be useful.

A "Thanks" is of course an encouragement to those who take the time to help out, and a link to an alternate solution found by search or other means may be educational helpful to all.

The Code of Conduct has now

kattekrab's picture

The Code of Conduct has now been updated as per issue...

Donna Benjamin
Board Member Drupal Association


Group organizers

Group categories

Group notifications

This group offers an RSS feed. Or subscribe to these personalized, sitewide feeds: