Add code of conduct

[JimMadge]

Problem

The project currently doesn't have a code of conduct.

Solution

I would propose using the Contributor Coventant. A contact email address would need to be specified.

I think it would be better if the contact was a group rather than a single person. Would the REG EDI team be appropriate?

Alternatives

• Turing Way CoC

---

Updates

[LouiseABowler]

That's definitely something the REG EDI team could do 🙂 We don't have a shared inbox, and there would be an advantage in listing some/all of us separately in case whoever reports an issue has a preference on who (not) to report to.

In the Turing Way's code of conduct, we had several people with types of involvement in the project on the code of conduct committee: the project PI, one person on the project but external to Turing, and another person from the Turing but not on the project. Given that our handbook is an open project, we should think about having someone not from REG on that list as well.

[JimMadge]

Thanks @LouiseABowler. I agree that listing people individually is a good idea. I like the Turing Way's primary contact, alternative contact system. This isn't part of the Contributor Covenant text but we could always adapt it if that is the direction we choose to go.

Is there a canonical list of REG EDI team members we can use as a reference?

Someone external to REG is also a really good idea. I suspect that (at least in the near future) we won't have involvement from anyone outside REG or the Turing. Do you, or anyone else on the EDI team, know of anyone who might be interested?

Feel free to assign this issue to yourself and open a PR if you would like (but no pressure to do so).

[LouiseABowler]

We've got this issue on our list for discussion at the next EDI meeting so we can get a list of potential contacts sorted then.

I'll ask Amy Gallimore about a non-REG person for the code of conduct - this is something we should have a process for in other projects as well as this one, so bringing it up at a Turing-wide EDI level makes sense. We could either ask for a volunteer, or use the Turing's Report & Support system instead.

[JimMadge]

That's great 🎉 .

Agreed about having this for other projects. That is one of those things I was thinking about before it fell to the bottom of my to do list. It would be great if we had a standard CoC for any project without its own. If we can get that it should definitely be linked or referenced in the handbook :+1:.

[JimMadge]

Hi @LouiseABowler, just checking-in. Has the EDI meeting happened?

[martintoreilly]

We re-used the Turing Way CoC for the Safe Haven project CoC. It's based on the Carpentries CoC and the Turing Data Study Groups CoC, both of which themselves adapted other work with multiple previous iterations (see acknowledgements section at end of Turing Way CoC).

[martintoreilly]

@JimMadge I really like the idea of adopting a CoC that we can then make standard for REG projects and recommend as the standard CoC for Turing projects in general. I'm sure the Turing Way and TPS folk will have a view on what the Turing standard should be.

@malvikasharan @KirstieJane I see that the Turing Way itself highlights the Contributor Covenant that @JimMadge is suggesting we adopt as an emerging standard CoC. What are your thoughts on what the Turing should use as its standard CoC?

[martintoreilly]

Thinking about the "What goes where" discussion, I think recommending a CoC belongs in the Turing Way, with the REG handbook noting we've adopted the CoC recommended by the Turing Way. If we're adopting a standard CoC for projects REG collaborates on that don't already have one, that feels like a note in our handbook, while recommending a CoC for the Institute feels broader than REG so should be in some more general guidance.

[martintoreilly]

I note that the Contributor Covenant is one of two template CoCs that can be easily selected when adding a CODE_OF_CONDUCT file to a repo on GitHub (along with the Citizen Code of Conduct).

[LouiseABowler]

@JimMadge, Amy recommended that Julie Alland acts as our non-REG point of contact for the Code of Conduct - I'll cc you into the email thread.

We had a chat in the REG EDI meeting and the team is happy to support too, @crangelsmith is the main person to contact there. There was some feeling that Julie might be better placed to handle most issues as she will have more experience than REG's EDI team, but I'll leave the numbers of contacts and ordering up to you to discuss 🙂

[AmyGallimore]

Hello! Jim sent through the CoC options, so a couple of thoughts from me:

1. I have no issue with the standards set out in both. Worth noting that the groups referenced go beyond those referenced in the Equality Act, but I don’t see that as a barrier to us upholding them (you just couldn’t necessarily currently bring a formal discrimination lawsuit for body size for example unless you could also demonstrate you were disabled – although the law is always being tested and changing in these areas)

2. I do think we might have to think a bit about the enforcement section. Can you clarify who the community leaders will be? Will that be Julie or will that be members of REG? Julie can probably provide more knowledge but I think we should think about how we would handle it if the individual who has not met the required standards is a Turing employee/student or Fellow or has another formal affiliation to ensure that any enforcement action is in line with the Turing’s disciplinary process and policy. I would say we need to make it clear that as well as consequences on the community platform if you are Turing affiliated there may/will be parallel disciplinary processes and consider whether that will be handled separately or in conjunction.

3. The Contributor covenant mentions this in terms of social media: “Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event”. While there’s nothing wrong with this it’s worth also pointing out people will be required to comply with the Turing’s Social Media Policy, not sure if you want to flag that there.

4. One further consideration in both codes is incorporating reference to the Turing’s new Safeguarding policy which will be essential in certain cases.