Lesson 01: Understanding and Living the Code of Conduct

Research is a collaborative endeavour. You share offices, code, data, and ideas with people who have different backgrounds, expectations, and levels of power within the group. A code of conduct is the written agreement that makes those interactions workable for everyone, not just for those who already feel comfortable.

This lesson explains what the Nestling Code of Conduct requires, why each part exists, and what to do if something goes wrong.

Why codes of conduct exist

Research environments have historically struggled with harassment, exclusion, and the abuse of power differentials. Research has consistently shown that hostile group climates drive talented people, disproportionately those from underrepresented groups, out of science. The harm is not only personal: it degrades the quality and breadth of research itself.

A code of conduct does three things:

  1. Sets expectations before problems arise. It removes ambiguity about what is acceptable. "I didn't know that wasn't okay" is harder to claim when standards are written down and shared with everyone who joins.

  2. Gives people a path to act. Without a documented process, reporting feels risky and arbitrary. A code of conduct tells you exactly what to do and what will happen next.

  3. Signals who the community is for. Publishing a code of conduct is a statement that the community is actively committed to being safe and equitable, not just in principle, but in practice.

Codes of conduct are not about policing speech

The goal is not to create a list of forbidden words. It is to protect people's ability to participate fully in the community, to ask questions, share work, and disagree productively without being harassed or excluded.

Our pledge

The Nestling Code of Conduct opens with a pledge:

We pledge to make our community welcoming, safe, and equitable for all.

The word equitable is deliberate. Equal treatment means applying the same rules to everyone. Equitable treatment means recognising that people start from different positions and that identical treatment can produce unequal outcomes. A new PhD student and a senior researcher do not have the same power in an interaction. The pledge acknowledges that and asks everyone to factor it into how they behave.

The pledge covers a broad list of characteristics: race, ethnicity, caste, age, neurodiversity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, religion, national origin, socio-economic background, and education level. This list is not exhaustive. The phrase "or other status" is intentional. If a characteristic shapes how someone is treated in the community, it falls within the scope of the pledge.

Encouraged behaviours

The CoC lists six encouraged behaviours:

Behaviour Why it matters
Engaging kindly and honestly Kindness without honesty produces empty validation. Honesty without kindness produces needless harm. Both together make feedback useful.
Respecting different viewpoints Research improves when ideas compete on evidence, not on the seniority of who holds them.
Taking responsibility for our actions Defensiveness after a mistake compounds the harm. Owning what you did is the first step toward repair.
Giving and accepting constructive feedback Feedback is how research improves. Learning to give it well, and receive it without defensiveness, is a skill worth building deliberately.
Committing to repairing harm when it occurs Harm happens even in well-functioning communities. What distinguishes healthy communities is the willingness to address it.
Promoting the well-being of our community The community is a shared resource. Protecting it is everyone's responsibility, not just those in formal leadership roles.

These are not aspirational extras. They describe the baseline standard of conduct expected from every member.

Restricted behaviours

The CoC identifies categories of behaviour that are never acceptable. Understanding what falls into each category matters, as incidents are sometimes ambiguous, and the categories help clarify whether something crosses the line.

Harassment

Harassment means violating explicitly expressed boundaries or continuing unwanted personal attention after a clear request to stop.

The clearest example: someone says "please don't contact me outside of group meetings" and you continue to message them privately. But harassment does not require an explicit prior refusal. Repeated, unwanted attention, particularly attention that is personal rather than professional, is harassment even on a first occurrence if it is egregious enough.

Character attacks

Insulting, demeaning, or pejorative comments directed at a person. This includes sarcasm designed to humiliate, dismissing someone's work with contempt rather than substance, and public ridicule.

The distinction from legitimate criticism: criticism addresses the work ("this methodology has a flaw because..."); a character attack addresses the person ("only someone incompetent would write code like this").

Stereotyping or discrimination

Characterising someone's personality or behaviour on the basis of their identity or traits, race, gender, nationality, disability, and so on.

In research settings this often appears as low expectations ("surprising that you got this far"), dismissiveness ("this isn't really a field for people like you"), or assumptions about competence based on background rather than demonstrated ability.

Sexualisation

Behaviour that would generally be considered inappropriately intimate given the professional context of the community. This includes comments about physical appearance, sharing explicit content, or unsolicited expressions of romantic interest in a professional setting.

Violating confidentiality

Sharing or acting on personal or private information without permission. In a research group this includes disclosing a colleague's health situation, immigration status, family circumstances, or salary without their consent.

Endangerment

Causing, encouraging, or threatening physical harm or violence toward any person or group.

Other restrictions

The CoC also restricts:

  • Misleading identity: impersonating someone else, or pretending to be someone else to evade enforcement.
  • Failing to credit sources: not properly attributing the ideas, code, or writing of others. In research, this overlaps directly with academic integrity.
  • Promotional materials: unsolicited commercial content shared in community spaces.
  • Irresponsible communication: sharing content that describes, links to, or promotes any of the restricted behaviours above.

Instances, threats, and promotion are all violations

You do not have to personally commit an act to violate the CoC. Threatening a restricted behaviour, or encouraging or promoting it, is itself a violation.

Scope

The CoC applies within all community spaces: the repository, issue tracker, pull requests, group meetings, and any communication channel used by the group.

It also applies when a member is officially representing the community externally, at a conference, in a public forum, or as a named contributor on a publication.

Behaviour in personal spaces is generally outside the scope, unless it creates a situation that affects someone's ability to participate safely in the community.

CoCs apply far beyond software repositories

Codes of conduct are standard practice in many settings: academic conferences, workshops, summer schools, reading groups, online forums, and research collaborations. If you organise or attend any of these, you are likely already operating under one, or should be. The principles in this lesson transfer directly to all of those contexts.

Reporting an issue

Reporting is the mechanism by which the CoC functions in practice. A code of conduct that no one reports violations of provides no protection.

Who to contact

Report possible violations by email to the maintainer: stephan.meighenberger@gmail.com.

What to include

You do not need to provide a perfect account. Include as much as you know:

  • What happened, as specifically as you can describe it.
  • When and where it happened (a GitHub link, a meeting date, a Slack channel).
  • Who was involved (the person whose conduct is in question, any witnesses).
  • Any messages, screenshots, or other evidence you have access to.

If you are not sure whether something is a violation, report it anyway. It is better to raise something that turns out not to be a violation than to leave a genuine one unreported.

What happens after you report

  1. Your report is received and acknowledged promptly.
  2. The situation is investigated, which may involve speaking to others involved.
  3. An enforcement decision is made, guided by the ladder below.
  4. You are informed of the outcome to the extent that confidentiality allows.

Investigation and enforcement are kept as transparent as possible while prioritising the safety and confidentiality of everyone involved, especially the person who reported.

You will not be penalised for reporting in good faith

Retaliation against someone who reports a possible violation is itself a violation of the CoC. If you experience retaliation after reporting, report that too.

Consequences and the enforcement ladder

The CoC uses an enforcement ladder: a graduated sequence of consequences that scales with the severity and pattern of violations. Depending on the severity of a single incident, lower rungs may be skipped entirely.

Warning

When used: A single incident or limited series of incidents.

What it looks like: A private, written message that explains what behaviour violated the CoC and what is expected going forward.

Repair: A private written acknowledgement of responsibility, and a clear commitment to changed behaviour.

Warnings exist because many violations are not malicious. Someone may not have realised their behaviour was causing harm. A warning gives them the opportunity to understand and change. It is not a punishment. It is a signal that something needs to change.

Temporary suspension

When used: A pattern of repeated violations that warnings have not resolved.

What it looks like: A private written notification that access to community spaces is suspended for a defined period, with stated conditions for return.

Repair: Respecting the spirit of the suspension and meeting the conditions for return. Re-entry into the community carries an expectation of genuine change, not just serving a waiting period.

Permanent ban

When used: A pattern of violations that other steps have failed to resolve, or a single violation so serious that no other response can keep the community safe.

What it looks like: Access to all community spaces, tools, and communication channels is removed.

Repair: There is no repair path for violations at this level.

The ladder is a guideline, not a rigid script

Enforcement is ultimately a matter of judgment. The ladder does not prevent skipping rungs for a sufficiently serious violation, nor does it require escalation if earlier steps have been effective. The goal at every step is to repair harm and protect the community, not to punish mechanically.

What you can do

The CoC is not only for extraordinary situations. It shapes everyday interactions.

If you observe a violation: You are not required to intervene in the moment if that feels unsafe. You can document what you witnessed and report it, or offer support to the person affected and encourage them to report.

If you are the person harmed: You do not have to decide alone whether what happened was "bad enough" to report. Report it. Let the process make that determination.

If you are told your behaviour violated the CoC: Resist the impulse to dispute the framing immediately. Listen first. A warning is an opportunity to understand how your actions affected someone, which is more valuable than a clean record.

If you are unsure: Ask. An informal conversation about whether something is appropriate is far better than an unaddressed incident that damages trust over time.

The full Code of Conduct is the authoritative document. This lesson explains it, but the CoC itself is what governs.

For broader context on building inclusive research environments, the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines and the Contributor Covenant are widely used references that informed the Nestling CoC.