Create DrupalCon Code of Conduct (Old Draft)

I think that this is a very good idea- physical interaction leads to specific types of conduct that we should address. I think that there are some good things within each, but I think the PyCon one gets to the heart of many of the concerns that have been raised regarding DC conduct over the years (aggressive behavior, sexist remarks/images in presentations, inappropriate garb worn by booth staff, overtly agressive acts towards other members, etc).

One big suggestion that I have is to avoid calling it the "DrupalCon Code of Conduct", because I believe we should insist that those who list their events on the groups site follow the community's event CoC. So, I'd suggest just calling it a "Drupal Events Code of Conduct" or even a "Drupal Meet Space Code of Conduct".

I'd also suggest that we include some guidelines for dealing with conduct issues- we don't want people booted from the community who didn't know the rules. Some of the items that offend our community are accepted in many others, so we need to be sensitive to the fact that we will need to educate new entrants to our community on our culture and morals.

I'm very interested in helping with this, it's something that is really important to me that I speak out about a lot.

Having a more solid policy in place will also make victims of harassment more likely to step forward if they feel like it will be taken seriously and that action will be taken.

You might also look at the Steel City Ruby anti-harassment policy: http://steelcityrubyconf.org/policies#antiharassment

There was an unfortunate occasion at DrupalCamp LA 2010 when our code of conduct needed to be enforced. Having a published code of conduct made the job a little easier for the organizer (who happened to be me) to confront the attendee who was out of line.

Here's the code of conduct that DrupalCamp LA has had since that year, which I believe was based on DrupalCamp Chicago's code of conduct:

   http://2010.drupalcampla.com/information#codeofconduct

We've also adopted this code of conduct for Drupal Design Camp LA, and have made agreeing to the code of conduct a requirement for registering for the conference:

   http://ddcla.org/about/code-of-conduct

Everyone is welcome to copy these and further refine them for their own use.

I've edited the main post to now include the draft version of the DrupalCon Code of Conduct. Please offer any comments/questions/suggestions as comments in this thread between now and 9pm CDT on June 5. Thanks!

regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion or choice of CMS.

I would personally omit the guideline about swearing. This is 2012, not 1955. The other forms of bad behavior are so much more destructive, it kind of cheapens the document to mention swearing. The fact that it says 'excessive swearing' does not clarify or improve the guideline IMO.

Whilst I understand the intent of this document, I was a little dismayed to read it. Sorry, but It's long, overly formal, and will be used as a stick to beat someone with should they fall outside of what is 'acceptable' by a small minority of people.

I speak at, and attend, a lot of conferences. My experience is that similar community conferences to Drupal have a DNA – a shared understanding of what is acceptable – that changes from culture to culture. If you were to try and apply these same rules in Sydney, LA, Bahrain or Amsterdam, they simply wouldn't work because of what is considered appropriate behaviour in each culture.

The Drupal community is not a US community.

The Drupal community is an international one – with all it's wonderful quirks and amazing people. Sometimes, those people can offend others, sometimes people have fights – but if it's within the law of the country it is in, and they're not doing anything illegal, then it falls under what is deemed 'acceptable' by the community. And that differs enormously for the reasons I stated. And, in fact, that's exactly what makes travelling to these different cities so exciting. If you're wanting to lock every attendee in a hotel for a week and have the same talks about the same stuff by the same people with the same rules, then you may as well have it in the same place every year.

People are weird. The Drupal community is weird. But this weirdness is what makes it wonderful. Please don't change that.

As Morten said, let's keep it simple and use common sense.

I don't think that a response has been given to Morton's comment on the cultural contexts for swearing.

Although I would find my self in general agreement with the document, and in complete agreement with its spirit (create a safe environment), I find that including swearing is a bit odd and puritanical.

I would hope that persons constantly shouting heck, gosh, darn, will find themselves with the same consequences as those using terms that certain persons may find more offensive. Language is about communicating ideas, and expressive language is often more about communicating connotative rather than denotative ideas. To restrict persons from using the language that they are most comfortable with using for self-expression would seem to me to be rather restrictive.

The Code already protects against harassment, we do not need a language clause to ensure that language is not used to harass, so we don't need a language clause at all, other than to promote a faux professionalism that may not be inclusive of all cultures.

My initial reaction was belligerent. Here's my measured reaction.
1. Sometimes the medicine is the worse than the disease. I think this is one of those cases.
2. If we are creating a drupalcon de-sexing police, who will police the police? Or will they be Drupal's equivalent of Mexico's Federales? "Of course they are benevolent, otherwise, they wouldn't be in the position they are!"
3. Seriously, you guys are starting to scare me.

Good morning, everyone!

First things first: It's very clear from the feedback so far that the draft as currently written would be unworkable for the Drupal community, so we're going to rewrite it. Please give us a couple days to regroup; any new drafts will be shared with the community and ample time provided for feedback. That's the way this process was always intended to work, and I'm really happy to see so many folks participating in the discussion.

Some of the general points of feedback that we'll be incorporating into the new draft are:

• Change the tone so it's less formal and "legal" sounding
• Focus on good examples of positive behavior instead of on negative behavior
• Include more of an international perspective particularly when talking about potentially "offensive" behavior.
• Be less prescriptive and less restrictive
• Keep it short and simple

To be clear, I believe that the Drupal community as it exists today is one of the most open, welcoming, and egalitarian communities I've ever had the opportunity to be a part of, and nothing in the code of conduct is intended to change that. The goal of this effort has always been to keep the Drupal community the bright, vibrant, creative place it is today.

I have to catch a train and will be offline for a couple hours, but will have more to post later today. I do want to thank everyone who's participated in this thread; it's very clear to me that this is a discussion that's been overdue for some time, and I'm glad we're finally having it.

As a lover (am I allowed to use the word 'lover') of alcohol, drugs, profanity and freedom I'm afraid I'm not wanted at this MidWest grade school version of drupalcon. I truly thought PC was a joke in the 90s but was long dead.

I want the non-Americans to know that not all Americans and not all women want to sterilize this community with rules. We are adults not boy and girl scouts.

Ok, I hope this wont come back to bite my ass too hard, I'm just dumbfounded by this and it (as seen from above posts) has gotten feelings heated in one way or another.

Wall of text coming:

Bootbabes/Boothguys

Why are everyone talking about banning boothbabes? First off, so we can't have boothbabes but boothguys are ok? Isn't this creating a double-standard? You can't be hot and wear hot clothes if you're a girl but if you're a guy it's ok?

No, you do not have to like it. You don't have to work with the company if you don't like it. But it's their choice to make that decision. You can voice it but you have no say into how they want to promote their company.

And what someone might think as a sexy outfit could be normal work atire to someone, I think women in business outfits are hot and sexy, can I go and complain someone when i see women in those?

Allowed to be yourself?

So you really want to tell me how to dress and act? What is this, Orwell's 1984? If i'm hot and steamy and look good in a sleeveless t-shirt and jeans why can't I wear them? I wish I would and someone might agree that I really do but it's again my own choice.

If i'm not breaking any laws wearing jeans and a sleeveless t-shirt I should be allowed. What's next, ban tattoos because someone from Japan might associate me with Yakuza and feel bad?

I don't like someone telling me how I can dress and behave if i'm not doing anything overly stupid. We are all grownups (at least I think we are) and we all know when someone is seriously stupid or acting stupidly (food fights, overly abusive language to everyone, you know, general wisdom most people have). And then a quick word will almost always suffice.

rules, rules, rules! We need more rules!

You cannot solve problems with rules. You can emphasize good behavior like has been pointed out but rules will only make everything fall apart. Like has been pointed out, someone will in spite break the rules because they are written. I know I would, isn't this all hacker mentality partially comeup because we don't like to be told how to act, behave and dress?

You might just as well start creating rules for how people CAN dress. And even then I can imagine someone feeling offended if we all wear potato sacks.

Wrap-up

You cannot solve everything, there will ALWAYS be someone who might feel hurt, sexualised or something else. And no amount of rules will benefit that. Not even those positive rules ;)

And if people just don't take every single word personally, yes i have seen that and i think that's also stupid, we will get along just fine. If someone says something stupid you do not need to get a huge fit and form committees to think how to avoid this in the future. Like has happened now.

So relax, if someone says something stupid you can correct them, or let it slide. People say stupid things all the time. But that doesn't mean there is a problem that needs fixing.

I've read over the code of conduct that was proposed, and it seems reasonable. It's obviously a first draft, and there are a lot of areas that I think could use improvement and clarification, but generally speaking it's a vanilla statement about what kind of conduct is acceptable at public events. Lots of other conferences have similar official policies, including OSCON and other O'Reilly events.

There's a lot of blowback about it, though, and I think that most of it is coming from genuinely well-intentioned community members who are concerned about the proposed CoC, don't understand why it needs to deal with certain issues, or feel like it's another sign of Drupal getting all "corporate."

As I said above, I support the CoC team's work, and while I think the proposed CoC can definitely use some work (for example clearer explicit definitions around certain phrases like 'offensive speech'), there are interesting points that have been raised in the surrounding discussion. They deserve to be discussed, because we're a large, inclusive community.

"We don't need this, it's all common sense!"

A lot of the really serious issues that are being talked about in the Code of Conduct -- harassment, heckling speakers off stages, making racist jokes -- really feel like they should be no-brainers. As someone on Twitter said earlier today, "We're not children, we get this." For some people -- even a lot of people -- this is true. Unfortunately, humanity can suprise you, and statistics dictates that as our community has grown in size, it's also accumulated more people who don't "get it."

I have quite a few close friends in the Drupal and general FLOSS community who've been propositioned by conference attendees, physically groped by other community-members at sanctioned conference events, discouraged by offensive comments by on-stage speakers, made to feel unwelcome by public, on-stage conversations that belittled their gender or sexual orientation, and so on. While the Drupal community is (in my opinion) definitely a ray of light in the FLOSS world in terms of the number of minority community members we have, our size works against us: there are assholes in the crowd, and they will cause problems. It behooves us to figure out what our policy about these issues is before a post shows up on Hacker News talking about the farm animal porn presentation at DrupalCon 2016, or the sexual assault at a DrupalCamp, or whatever.

Most of our coding standards are common sense, too, but writing them down and documenting them helps eliminate ambiguity and helps educate to the people who don't get it yet. Even when they're subjective (spaces vs. tabs isn't a religious issue, after all) they lay down clear guidelines of what this particular community is like and how they handle things.

"It's Too Subjective!"

Perceived ambiguity about what constitutes "offensive" behavior seems to be one of the biggest undercurrents of concern -- the fuzziness is both troubling and (to some degree) necessary.

On the one hand, it's impossible to provide a detailed bullet list of every possible sexist, racist, or generally assholish thing someone could say. If we did, creative misanthropes would just take it as an invitation to work around the rules while being offensive. (Anyone who's ever been a 13 year old understands THAT dynamic.)

On the other hand, the idea of an invisible line in the sand -- one that's dependent on the subjective opinions of each conference attendee rather than a clearly articulated policy of "what is and isn't offensive" -- is scary. If I make a joke about theology and there's a pre-millenial dispensationalist in the audience, will this Code of Conduct get me ejected from Drupalcon?

There are two interrelated answers to that issue, in my opinion. We DO need good, clear guidelines around what kinds of things are considered "offensive enough to be not-ok-for-Drupalcon," and if people have questions about grey areas they need to be able to ask and talk about them without being treated like pariahs. I don't see a lot of that going on here in this particular thread, but it's a real concern that a lot of people have and it should be respected, too.

On the other hand, there's always going to be ambiguity because assholes will push boundaries. It's what they do. Heck, it's what I do. Wait a minute, does that mean I'm...? Hmmm.

Crap.

"But Drupal is international, different cultures have different mores!"

That's totally true. And we've run into this problem before, when European Drupallers refused to attend American Drupalcons because of strict US travel policies and paranoid security requirements for foreign visitors. To some extent, we're always going to have to grapple with some uncomfortable collisions as we grow and expand.

However, our community has to balance a dual responsibility: acknowledging and accepting cultural differences, and respecting each other enough to ensure that we provide a welcoming and constructive environment.

Sometimes, it's just impossible to avoid offending a particular sensitive or opinionated person. If Anil attends Drupalcon and is mortally offended by the fact that I delivered my presentation wearing a T-shirt, or that Sally isn't wearing a proper head-covering, he might just need to accept it. If he's offended because I used a hilarious meme in my presentation that had a racial slur, or he's offended because Sally flashed the room while screaming, 'VIEWS ROCKS,' well, he's got a point: if I can't make my presentation without that racist lolcat, it's probably not a presentation worth giving. And Sally has a world of ways to say that Views rocks without flashing the audience; even if only a few people were offended by it, putting a couple of guidelines around what's OK and not OK isn't going to hinder her ability to communicate, engage with others, or express herself in the context of our community.

It boils down to mutual respect. Figuring out where to draw the lines is complicated, but it's not impossible or pointless.

"I object to dress codes!"

That's awesome. The Code of Conduct doesn't mention dress codes, so I'm baffled about why it's been brought up. I had people make fun of me in public for wearing a tie at my last Drupalcon presentation, so I think we're a long way from making suits mandatory.

"I'm not sexist or racist or homophobic!"

I totally believe you and I don't think that being concerned about the Code of Conduct -- or questioning why it's necessary or whether it's a good one -- makes you a sexist or a racist or a PHP-Nuke user. If someone says that it does, tell them to talk to me and I will ask them to form an orderly line and I will make them maintainers of some of my modules. That'll teach them.

A lot of people who have been harassed, marginalized, or otherwised crapped on at tech events -- as well as their friends who see it happening -- feel that Codes of Conduct and similar policies are a huge help in curbing those problems. It can be difficult for those people (myself included, sometimes) to understand why anyone would be against a document that says, basically, "Don't be a dick." Sometimes, it's easy for folks in that position to regard opposition to the proposed solution as inherent support for the people who are being dicks.

If someone says that you're being a sexist ass for opposing a Code of Conduct policy, I personally apologize and wnat to make clear that I disagree with them. I mean, you might still be sexist. But it's not because of your position on the Code of Conduct. Formal logic is hard, @justafish is still trying to explain predicates to me. She's a girl, so she understands math a lot better than I do.

"Everything will get boring!"

Okay, edgy is fun and all, but realistically we get bored when there's not enough racist jokes and cheesecake photos in our presentations, or saying 'You can't grab that lady's ass' is a serious imposition, well. Get new hobbies.

Seriously, though, there's a lot of joking around that happens between friends and colleagues, whether it's at Drupalcon or at home or at work. The challenge is that those conversations happen amongst friends who know each other and understand where they're coming from, and can easily offer a friendly, "Hey, not cool" if something goes over the line. At a public event, or during a session, or even sometimes in the hallways between sessions, we're in a different kind of space: a public space where we're also sending messages to other people who don't know us. Recognizing that certain things are appropriate in different contexts is part of the price we pay for being awesomely huge and successful.

In conclusion

I think a Code of Conduct is useful, and needed, for our community. Massive growth has already taxed our ability to assimilate newcomers, and "standards of not being an ass" are just as much a part of that as coding standards or understanding FAPI's tangles.

I think the proposed Code of Conduct isn't perfect, and needs some work, but it is not fundamentally flawed or out of sync with the Code of Conduct policies enacted by other well-respected conferences and professional/technical communities.

I also think that a lot of the concerns being expressed are important ones to address, and shouldn't be confused with "people who want to be jerks." I think they just want to protect the Drupal community as much as everyone else, and want to make sure that we don't make a new set of problems while trying to fix others.

Finally, there are a couple of straw men that keep coming up -- things like "I refuse to have a dress code" -- that aren't about the proposed Code of Conduct at all. Either they're attempts to start arguments, or they're misunderstandings of what's beign proposed. I'd encourage everyone to read over it carefully and figure out what it actually says, and consider ways it could be clarified or improved, rather than reacting to the general concept of anti-sexism or anti-harassment policies. The devil is in the details!

Thank you all. I love you.

This thread reads like a fox news report or something, rather embarrassing to be honest.

If I ever get tempted to speak at a drupal event, remind me to read over some of these comments and wonder if it's really worth the risk.

There is one thing that I would like to see emphasized in the Code of Conduct that isn't currently in it.

How offenders can engage with the criticism and turn it into a positive experience

For me the worst part often isn't the original offense but the silencing I feel when I bring up these issues... whether that silencing is from myself, the offender, or from the angry hornets nest of apologists that descends on women who bring up these issues.

I would like to see it (or a supporting document) emphasize what positive interactions around this can look like (as bangpound touches on above).

NodeOne Card Game

For example, I think that the NodeOne response is a shining example of a positive way to engage with this criticism:

Of course this was not our intent, nor was it to show disrespect to women or offend anyone. The image was there just to contrast the geek. But, as Liz Henry wrote, "the base of the joke here is that geeks are men and that women are a commodity". The only excuse I have is that we were naïve about these issues. But, as Lampdevil stated, "Ignorance of how an action could be interpreted doesn't make the action itself harmless." I cannot agree more, and that is the reason for the apology.

This doesn't blame the people offended for being offended or try to silence them. By accepting that they were ignorant in this single instance and understanding why it is problematic, they've taken a big step towards mending the damage. They have taken the effort to remedy both the surface issue (the card game itself) and the underlying issue (the unconscious perceptions which led to using a woman to symbolize non-geek).

Symfony Live

Another example is the Symfony Live conference. The image on their website was a group of male geeks and a buxom woman holding a sign saying "I need a geek". While the organizer didn't understand the issue at first, after we had a conversation he sincerely thanked me for helping him understand the issue and it ended in a (virtual) group hug. These things can be positive interactions that bring people together more than they tear them apart.

As I said in my blog post a year ago:

I don't expect perfect behavior from anyone (or my version of perfect), I just expect to be able to openly say "that made me uncomfortable" and have the other person really think about why that's the case and try to fix it.

How do we foster this?

While these are positive interactions, I myself have experienced a whole lot of negative and even scary interactions when explaining how a remark, joke, or image affected me. How can we make sure that doesn't happen?

To me, there are three components here:

1. We need to have a code in cases where there are issues of serious impropriety, such as non-consensual groping, where civil discussion isn't the answer but removing the threat is.
2. I do think it is important to state our values clearly for new people. These values should include taking consideration for marginalized groups when interacting at face to face events and trying to be as un-ignorant as possible. ps. Yeah, I know that's not a word.
3. We need to find a way to educate potential offenders of that rule (and the defenders of those offenders).... particularly on ways to respond when they are called out so we can foster a culture that doesn't silence marginalized groups.

While some people think that we already have this culture, the fact that women (including me) are still silencing themselves or being silenced by others means that we don't. We do have a better culture than many tech communities, but we still have some ways to go.

The first point I'd like to make is that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Drupal community and its members who are extremely generous, dedicated and altruistic. The fact that this thread has received such a response is testament to the fact that there are a large number who are highly passionate about making Drupalcons inclusive and welcoming - which is how it ought to be.

As someone who builds and works with communities, and studies groups and the research on intra-group and inter-group behaviour and dynamics, I can assure you that the issues being tackled here are as old as the hills. This is a political, moral and ethical question that has puzzled thinkers from pre Classical Greece to the present day. Working out a fair and reasonable way to address the needs of everyone in a group or society has, and will continue to, challenge politicians and legislators for as long as we live and work together.

In the UK and US the right to free speech has not been a given for a number of years. Recent acts of parliament have made sure of that. And yet we hold ourselves up as beacons of democracy.

Not to take this out of context and to bring this from the high level to the specific: having organised, presented, sponsored and attended many Drupal, tech and non-tech events over the years I have to reiterate that the Drupal community is one of the finest I have come across - tech or otherwise - and I am proud to play a very small part in it from time to time.

Do DrupalCons need a code of conduct? Yes they probably do. Does it need many pages to tell people not to break the law? Probably not. Remember Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King both kept what they had to say brief. And that was about slightly broader issues.

In terms of problematic occurrences we are likely to be talking about 5-10% of instances from 5-10% of DrupalCon attendees. 

If this does go down the heavy handed route what will be next? The DrupalCon police? Dressed up as Druplicons? (But armed..!)

I think all this needs is a level of perspective and a bit of common sense. But I can assure you those are two things that most groups struggle with.

However if any community can do it - I would hope it is this one.

I keep tweeting about this (@wizonesolutions), may as well chime in my general thoughts here in the hope they contribute something.

1) I dunno if a code of conduct is the way to go to address the harassment issues reported at conferences, but it seems something should be done. Maybe attendees themselves could form support groups (sorry, can't think of a better term atm, take the concept not the wording). Or maybe the organizers could just make decisions on the spot.

2) I guess a code is wanted so people can't complain that the organizers were unfair. But on the other hand, how often are organizers really going to be unfair? Do we need to enshrine this in a code? I think organizers are pretty smart and can handle things on a case-by-case basis. Just like how you have to listen to crewmember instructions on an airplane :) Maybe it should require more than one organizer to take action like expulsion, but yeah, I can see the need for something to be done.

3) The end goal of this is a blend of people being safe (like, 80% of it) and people feeling safe, so they'll come. Maybe...security guards would do the trick? They tend to blend in pretty well, and I've never thought, "Oh, security guards? This sucks!" when going shopping at the grocery store late at night. Oh, wait, but then we need a policy for them to enforce...dang circular logic.

But summing it up...I think organizers are competent and can handle stuff already. Maybe emphasize that and make it easy to contact them privately about problems. And make it clear to attendees that look, we aren't going to micromanage everything about your behavior, but show respect and if you see you're making someone uncomfortable, stop or you'll be in trouble.

P.S. Just got turned onto http://steelcityrubyconf.org/policies#antiharassment, and I like that one. Focuses on the main thing we are trying to prevent, from the looks of it.

To outsiders (people who haven't cannot attend DrupalCons), this kinda gives the impression that DrupalCons are strictly for first-rate citizens.

I mean no disrespect (I'm sure we all value democracy), but it feels sad that the one-glorious-community-event in the Drupalsphere's existence is being tainted with suspicions of malice & imprudence.

In the duration of this public discourse, please - don't forget that:

• WE DREAM to participate in Drupal events
• PEOPLE HOPE everyone have fun mingling with other HUMAN BEINGS
• PEOPLE SHOULD INTEND NO HARM to anyone at any given time & space
• RESPECT is GAINED, not maintained

By "we", I refer to people like us who look up to people like you who are a wholesome part of this community.

I beg from all of you who commented on this thread: what you might be taking for granted could be someone else's dream in life -- I simply wish that you keep this in mind.

And no, I maybe Filipino but I'm not a terrorist :-P

Oh snap... I just baited you into asking the SXSW CoC. I'm pretty sure they don't have one, but why wouldn't we want to copy a conference that year after year brings together a diverse group of some of the worlds brightest, most creative people every year?

• Are people offended at SXSW? Check.
• Are women sexually objectified? Check.
• Are men sexually objectified? Check.
• Are inanimate objects sexually objectified? Check.
• Do presenters insult or put down other presenters and attendees? Check.
• Do people behave unprofessionally? Check.
• Do presenters criticize the government, god, SXSW organizers? Check.
• If I put something else on a list of things not to do, would someone do it just to cross it off the list? Check.

I'm really am requesting to include more of SXSW's CoC... more nothing. All of nothing, if that's possible. Isn't it possible that one of the things that make's SXSW great is that they aren't telling the presenters or attendees how to behave?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is there are already laws on the books in every city a DrupalCon has been held that would cover the egregious offenses. I'm pretty sure both sexual harassment and disrupting a conference presentation are against the law in Munich and Portland, so we're good on those for awhile.

If you don't like the use of booth babes, just tell the company that. If even a few people say something, a smart company would adjust their marketing. A dumb one won't be at next DrupalCon anyway.

I say something whenever a company doesn't offer women's tshirts, but I wouldn't support a policy banning anyone who doesn't stock both. Is it sexist to give a women a man's small? Maybe. Is noticing that women and men have different shapes because women have breast sexist? I'm sure someone thinks so, but I don't care.

I believe I'm hardcoded to notice breasts, ice cream, and good, clean design. If you use these in your marketing will it get my attention. Yes. If your company isn't what I consider a good, socially responsible business will it matter? No.

I really thought this would die from the weight of it's own ridiculousness, but that hasn't happened. If there are people that are going to keep pushing until there is something official, I'd like to see as little as possible.

As alternative draft, I'd like to propose this as the Drupal CoC...

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life -
Learn some and think some
And draw and paint and sing and dance
And play and work everyday some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world,
Watch out for traffic,
Hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder.

For anyone who doesn't know, that's from Robert Fulghum's All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. I think that's about as useful as the current draft and less controversial... of course someone will still have an issue.

Firstly George, thanks - I think you're doing a great job of mediating this.

And big thumbs up to pretty much everything Eaton and Lin Clark said - I'm really feeling those posts that acknowledge the reality of the situation, but also note that we don't want to deal with it too rashly either, and the purpose should be not just to reprimand but improve.

Here are my main feelings:

1) I support having a basic COC for DrupalCons (namely because I've experienced first hand examples of why they're needed). It helps to be clear about what will be tolerated and what won't.

2) I don't think it should be too prescriptive. Things like swearing, clothing, drinking, etc. should completely be left out as they're too general/common sense. But it should be clear and to the point on the important things. The focus should be on things that are really inappropriate and threatening to others. Harassment, [EDIT: teasing/bullying/racial or sexist or etc. jokes], unwanted sexual advances, etc. The obvious.

3) With both the obvious and non-obvious things, there are always chances of false accusations, overreacting, etc. That's why this should be a guideline to direct people to report anything (whether it's on the COC or not) that they're uncomfortable with to those who will deal with the situation. And we'll have to trust those people to deal with it appropriately and with their best judgement.

4) I don't think we need to necessarily include recommended/positive behaviour. That's really just sugar coating and making it longer.

--

Just to frame this a bit more - I don't drink, I don't like drunken loud venues, and wish there were more non-drinking events, and agree that if someone is harassing others it doesn't matter if they're drunk or not, so the drinking is really not the issue. I don't like sexually charged incidents at conferences, and have found them threatening in the past, especially in my earlier days attending cons. I've heard horrible stories from friends in the community, and had some mildly uncomfortable situations myself. That said, I've worked in male dominated industries a lot, and am a fairly confident person, so I don't usually let these sorts of things drive me away, as they're on the greater scheme of things, fairly good within the Drupal Community. Of course there is always room for improvement, and I know a lot of other people would really be scared off by the same things I might tolerate.

To give a concrete example, at one of the first cons I went to (Boston? DC?), I was indeed offended by Morten's slides. But that did not scare me away from the community or even make me feel threatened, it just made me think "WTF... who is this guy??? And who let him up on the podium?"

And of course now years later, I know him personally, know he is in no way a predator, or wanting to drive people out of the community by offending them. He's a very strong personality, and sure there are cultural differences, but he is definitely learning to adjust to make people feel less offended, so I would hope like George says, that there would be no risk of anything happening with someone like him because of the COC. Over the last couple years, I've seen myself that he's making efforts to be more aware of what he says and how it might affect others. In Denver, I even had a conversation with him before his session where he brought up the topic of sexism and sexualized content and talked about how he's purposefully trying to be more mindful about the issues.

The reason I bring up this example is that I think it's a very good case of someone who feels extremely strongly about this topic and may disagree, and yet he's listening to the feedback there's been over the years, and trying to accommodate the "cultural differences" if you want to call it that, and trying to be more respectful of people who might be offended. I think that's really what's important. Nobody gets shut out of the community when they both feel understood and like they're trying to work towards common ground, even if it's difficult.

I'm pretty comfortable bringing things up myself, but I know a lot of people find it really hard, and can be easily scared away from the community. The fact is that this COC is not being drawn up to protect all of the people above who are saying it's not necessary. That doesn't mean that your opinions don't matter, but please realize that you are speaking from a position of being someone who doesn't feel the need to be protected.

Let's get past the arguments about who's taking what too seriously and what does or doesn't actually happen at our cons, and focus on the most important parts of this rather than the brush offs and edge cases.

And I think Lin's point is really, really important that one of the most critical parts of having this COC actually be useful in the broader long term sense is gearing it towards making conversations and critiques about issues that come up more openly accepted and civil. It would do wonders just to decide as a community that we're open to listen and discuss when people feel something threatening or offensive has happened, rather than shut the discussion down. And (aside form cases where it's actually an extreme/illegal incident) this dialogue and understanding is IMO even more important than for reprimanding the offending person/people, which might make a one-time impact. We want to have a long term impact on the most important parts of this, and let the rest (alcohol, parties, clothing, swearing) be "common sense" as others have noted.

That is how we'll actually make the community more welcoming and understanding. Not by slapping people on the hands for being "bad", but by helping everyone become more aware of the issues that are most important to make progress on so they can be more sensitive to how their words and actions affect their fellow community members.

A lot of the talk seems to be about making people feel comfortable. A CoC may make people feel more comfortable, but will not make them safer. Scums bags, are scum bags.

Which brings me back to the alcohol aspect. One big thing I did come away with from Denver(my first DrupalCon), was a big disappointment with the alcohol culture. I probably would have felt different if I was there on an employers dime, but as a freelancer, it was a couple thousand dollars out of my pocket to attend. I was very excited to hear the official party was going to be quieter and have opportunities to talk. From what I have gathered about Chicago, Denver was even louder, and I found it impossible to do any real networking. That place was so dark and loud, I can see how there were easy opportunities for sleaze bags to make a move. I also think that any CoC must extend to the official party as well. Since it is a paid event, purchased through DrupalCon and part of the conference.

When Portland was announced on the closing day, my wife asked if I would attend. I told here, probably not. There was such a huge deal about alcohol while announcing it, that I was already turned off. And don't get me wrong about beer, I brew my own! I just didn't expect the alcohol to be such a culture of the event.

On several occasions I mentioned I wasn't so excited about all the boozing and my opinion was not received very warmly. I skipped out early on the Lullabot party, and was made to feel out of place while leaving because of it, or that I didn't have enough beer in me. So don't think just sexual stuff puts people in an uncomfortable situation at a Con. As a first time attender, there was HUGE pressure to go get hammered. If there is a next time, I know I will just go hang in the Coder Lounge.

We are already a diverse community. We need a CoC that allows the community to monitor itself and only escalates when that isn't working.

All I can say to that is that relying on the legal system alone (at least in the United States) is woefully inadequate when it comes to things like sexual assault or rape.

@gdemet I'm not sure what you meant by including that, but I hope you did NOT mean to imply that we need a CoC that explicitly prohibits sexual assault and rape in addition to disrupting a private event or sexually harassing an attendee because the law isn't good enough. A few people have already suggested dropping the legalese, but I think this gets to the root of the problem I have with this approach to a CoC.

@gdemet, is one goal of a CoC to give the event organizers some legal cover to kick someone out based on subjective criteria because the local laws aren't restrictive enough or take too long to enforce?

Statements like "Harassment includes but is not limited to..." are just too open and subjective to then be followed up by "expected to comply immediately" and "expulsion from the conference".

I agree w/ most of what @arianek is saying and I think part of the solution is to have...

• Simplest CoC possible that encourages respect and direct communication between the offender and the offended, but offers safe way to report ANY behavior to event staff.
• Public event organizer conflict handling guidelines that makes suggestions for when to consider addressing the situation with a conversation, when to ask someone to leave the event, and when to take legal action.
• Outline a process for influencing the type events at a con or camp (how to ensure it will be NEITHER an alcohol centric, brogrammer-fest NOR something my mom would enjoy)
• Provide a description of the Drupal community to vendors that let them know that stocking both men's and women's tshirts will be seen as positive and sexy men or women who don't understand the product will not.

Keep the CoC a simple. Most people SHOULD think that the CoC is commons sense... because anything we actually expect people to follow most of the time has to be common senses. While other groups have created a list the things you might do that might get you kicked out or what vendors cannot do, WE should focus on the fact that everyone in our community will NEVER agree on what's acceptable. The focus should be on providing a safe way for people who feel uncomfortable to express that AND the opportunity for the people causing the perceived problem to adjust.

The CoC should acknowledge that when we bring together a diverse group of people from all over the world and there will be differences in what's acceptable. What's important is to have a process in place for at least having a conversation... even if the outcome is that the offender isn't willing to change. The CoC can not be used as a tool by a conservative, overly PC group that's easily offended censor behavior.

Even if "everyone" other than the presenter agreed that extremes like cursing like a sailor or wearing a burka while presenting was NOT appropriate, I'll still defend the right to do it even if it makes the majority uncomfortable.

Booth babes shouldn't be part of a DrupalCon, but not because they are banned by a CoC. That shouldn't be part of DrupalCon because it is an effective way to market to this community. That (and every other example I've seen in this thread that isn't already illegal) is an issue that can be resolved better by educating the offender than creating a rule prohibiting it.

It seems to me that dictating what is OK and not OK in a presentation is somewhat akin to dictating what is OK and not OK in a film presentation.

Do we ban all R-rated movies because some may find them offensive? No, we simply mark them as "R-rated" so people can make up their own minds about what to attend. Why not take the same approach here?

Instead of enforcing a "lowest common denominator" set of rules intended to prevent anyone, anywhere, from possibly being offended, why not simply provide indicators that presentations may contain "R-rated" content?

Just a random thought..

This is a shorter, simpler model of a Code of Conduct http://codex.freegeekchicago.org/wiki/FreeGeekInfo/Policies/CodeOfConduct used by FreeGeek Chicago, a diverse and vibrant community recycling organization I helped start.

If people are curious, I'd be happy to talk about how our community has dealt with specific situations of harassment, abuse, or violence. We've had a few such incidents in our day, and I think we've done a good job discussing them and learning from them as a community.

This is a fascinating discussion. I agree with Robert (Castelo) that high level guidelines rather than legalese should prevail.

For those who think that we don't need a CoC I would cite Hobbes (the 17th century philosopher not the cartoon tiger after whom he is named) who stated that rational individuals guided by logic will always act in their own self interest first - and therefore contracts and laws are required to protect us from falling prey to that. This is especially true in more individualistic societies (I'll leave you to decide where yours is on that scale). In Leviathan, Hobbes drafted nineteen laws (a few of which have already been rewritten in different words in this thread):

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.

The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

(He was writing 400 years ago so you could replace "man" with "person").

The point is that high level guidelines like these have fed into jurisprudence and legislation from national constitutions to international law. So the Drupalcon CoC does not need to be a lengthy document.

The DrupalCon CoC for attendees - being much narrower in scope - really ought to be able to fit on the back of a conference ticket.

It goes back to perspective and context. You don't need to tell me specifically not to murder, rape, pillage, commit arson, treason, international espionage etc at a Drupalcon. I'm pretty sure there are professionals elsewhere who have those bases covered thank you.

Furthermore you don't need to list out every permutation of race, language, religion, height, weight, hair and eye colour etc. not to discriminate against (refer you back to Hobbes above).

Guidelines for speakers, exhibitors and sponsors etc ought to be slightly longer. After all we are representing Drupal in some way and professionalism from each of us is something that will benefit us all.

Btw, for those who are interested, a sound reference for the above is here: (No - I haven't read the whole of Leviathan either)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#section_1

I've been reading this thread for several days. So many great comments from all sides! It's almost impossible to keep up here. I just want to share my two bits on some points made here and there.

First of all....

re "american political correctness"

I would like to present, with respect, some observations:

1. This is politics, not political correctness. Politics is a process. Political correctness is a label meant to stop the process. (Tagged and bagged, done!) I find the comments specific to the points and proposed language most helpful. I find ad hominem attacks to be more revealing of the speaker's biases than supportive of the speaker's argument. Of course, as an American, I suppose I shouldn't claim the right to declare that nobody should be offended by American privilege. But is this proposed CoC about American privilege? Really?
2. There is no single "American perspective." If you don't believe me, I invite you to spend some time on YouTube watching some of what passes for political "discussion" here. In the US we're entering the political season, with regional and national elections coming up. Many, if not most, campaigns post their ads etc. on YouTube. Watch those as they get posted from now until Novemer, and then tell me that there's a single American political view. Politically we can't even agree on whether the sun rises in the east. There is no single "american pc".
3. Freedom of speech is also an American political value, by the way — just google up 'Skokie protest' if you have doubts.
4. The great irony is that, accurately or not, most Americans consider Europe to be the place of rules for everything, a collection of nanny governments. So maybe we can try to keep the provincial attitudes out of the discussion here?

Whew! Now that I got that out of the way....

Imposing new rules? Or preserving unwritten rules?

Knowing many of the participants in this thread, I feel that the code being discussed, hashed out and worked up is needed not for those of us in this discussion, but for the broader community-to-be at future events.

My first Drupal event was at OSCMS. There I met Dries, Angie, Larry, chx, Addison, so many others. I didn't know anybody, but most people seemed to know each other, at least via online. The code of conduct that was in place there was unwritten, but understood, because it was a small enough group.

Every event since then has gotten bigger, and that inherent sense of community has been increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the diversity of people — by gender, by profession, by ethnicity, by socio-economic background. DrupalCon Denver wasn't a conference, it was a convention of strangers.

In all of these DrupalCons, in my first-hand experience, I have never encountered any real problems where I felt unsafe. Yes, there have been some jokes in poor taste. Yes, I'm terribly shy and I end up meeting far fewer people than I would hope, each and every time. Yes, I tend to skip most of the evening parties because overly loud music and college-style drunkenness aren't really my cup of tea. But I've witnessed nothing like the horrorific incidents documented in the geekfeminism wiki, and never encountered the kinds of incidents reported by other women here.

And yet does that mean we will never encounter patently offensive, even frightening, behavior in the future? The events are just too big. In the context of a tech world where some pretty outrageously offensive behavior is simply a fact of life, I feel it behooves us to come up with some sort of guidelines.

DrupalCons are growing. New people are coming. Now's the time for those of us already here to somehow codify how folks are expected to behave.

For me, the ideal result is that we have guidelines that don't create a new DrupalCon ruleset, but rather clearly and simply state the unwritten rules we've been operating under for years now, so that future DrupalCons don't become something they heretofore as a rule haven't been.

Feeling safe ≠ never being offended

Here's where I may differ with some here. I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended. Sorry, it just can't happen. There's too much diversity. Too many opinions.

But this doesn't mean there's no way to help ensure that DrupalCons are places where non-straight-white-young-males feel at least safe, even welcome. There are ways beyond a CoC to welcome folks and encourage them to participate. Those ways have existed for years, and a few people have been very good at bringing out the welcome wagon at every event. And defining safe ways to resolve instances where offense is taken could bear more fruit than attempting to define all instances of offenses to be avoided.

And there is a point where offensiveness can become frightening, especially when offensive behavior is tacitly accepted or even condoned.

Censorship vs. Manners

When it comes to governments passing laws, my own feeling is that the best way to address offensive speech is with freedom of speech. Public discourse, not restriction, is the best way to disempower and discredit the offensive. Censorship is a horrible thing, imho.

However, this is a Code of Conduct under discussion here. We're not talking about governmental laws, we're talking about a code to which everyone can voluntarily agree as a basic set of ground rules.

Even barcamps have ground rules. Consider it expected etiquette.

Context counts

What's acceptable on the street may not be acceptable on the conference floor. What's acceptable on the conference floor may not be welcomed in the presenter's slide deck. What happens at ad hoc bar gatherings may not be acceptable at a company-sponsored event, which in turn may have things we may not really want to have at DA-sponsored events.

Again, we're talking about expectations of behavior, not laws.

And context is important. Is it censorship to include in the CoC a provision against, for example, full frontal nudity? No. You can have your full frontal nudity elsewhere without including it in your presentation at an event officially sanctioned, organized and financed by the community via the Drupal Association.

Just because you don't hear it....

The tree still falls.

Face it, guys, shit happens. Sorry, just because you've never been made to feel unsafe or feel you never offended anyone doesn't mean you get to judge how, when or whether someone else should get offended. Or frightened. Or feel bullied.

Gratuitous nudity happens.

Griefing happens.

Groping happens.

The tech world is no paragon of virtue in this regard.

The nitty gritty

So how to define the Code of Conduct?

Simple principles run the risk of being too vague to be useful.

Detailed regulations run the risk of Kafkaesque nightmares and gaming the system.

My own preference is for a statement of affirmations that is simple and clear. Ultimately the actual encouraging and (ugh) "policing" of inappropriate behavior comes down to the organizers and the community there in the moment. But I do feel that a CoC can help clarify expectations so that these kinds of incidents are quickly and easily resolved without perceptions of arbitrariness or having transgressed unwritten, unknown laws.

This is harder than rocket surgery. Or at least feels like it is. I don't see any easy solutions, and applaud George et al. for taking this on.

At OSCMS in 2007, my session on Community Building and Management was packed full of people, and one of the big discussion topics (I held it as an open forum, not the lecture norm of today's Drupal events) was how to deal with community misbehavior. How to define it? How to address it? How to prevent it? Is it even possible? At what point does more intervention stifle community participation? At what point does less intervention have the effect of inviting some of the best participants to leave? Discussion was very lively, with a significant plurality, if not majority, of attendees participating actively throughout.

These are not easy ideas to grapple with. They're not new ideas, either.

I'm delighted to read the discussion in this thread, which has been much more civil than the snark shots fired from outside.