The Code of Conduct Working Group aims to be transparent with the wider community about the work we do, the way we do it, and the outcomes. We help to protect the people who trust us in maintaining the confidentiality of reported issues.
Transparency is essential for community trust and accountability. However, it must be balanced with our commitment to protecting the privacy and safety of everyone involved in Code of Conduct matters.
We believe that publishing documentation about the way we work keeps us accountable and allows the Django community to have insight into the processes guiding our decisions. Our published documentation includes:
- Working Group Manual - Our complete internal procedures and guidelines
- Reporting Guide - How to report Code of Conduct violations
- Enforcement Ladder - The range of enforcement actions we may take
- Communications Guidelines - How we communicate with all parties
- Record-Keeping Procedures - How we maintain records and protect privacy
By making our processes public, we enable the Django community to:
- Understand how reports are handled
- Hold us accountable to our stated procedures
- Suggest improvements and changes
- Adopt and adapt our processes for their own communities
Numbers of received reports and actions taken are published in the statistics section of this documentation to shed light on the volume of issues that the working group deals with.
Statistics are compiled every 6 months by the Code of Conduct Working Group and include:
- Number of reports received
- Number of people named in reports
- Actions taken by the working group
- Actions taken by local representatives (conference organizers, online moderators, etc.)
- Number of people banned or flagged
- Reports where no action was taken
These statistics help demonstrate:
- That the Code of Conduct is being actively enforced
- The volume and types of issues the community faces
- Trends over time in community behavior
- The working group's responsiveness and activity level
The working group publishes annual transparency reports that go beyond statistics to include:
- Number of reports received across different Django spaces (forums, events, repositories, etc.)
- Types of violations reported (harassment, discrimination, unwelcome conduct, etc.)
- General outcomes (warnings, suspensions, bans, no action)
- Trends or patterns observed in community behavior
- Lessons learned and process improvements made
- Changes to working group membership or procedures
These reports are prepared carefully to:
- Protect the confidentiality of all involved parties
- Provide meaningful accountability to the community
- Demonstrate that enforcement is fair and consistent
- Help other communities learn from our experiences
The working group will never publicly discuss specific incidents or identify individuals involved in Code of Conduct matters. This protects:
- Reporters - People must feel safe reporting violations without fear of retaliation or exposure
- Harmed individuals - Those affected by violations deserve privacy and dignity
- Reported parties - Even those who violate the Code of Conduct have a right to privacy during our process
All public statements about individual Code of Conduct matters, if deemed necessary, will be made by the DSF Board, not the working group.
When sharing information (such as in transparency reports or with conference organizers), we carefully anonymize:
- Names, usernames, and email addresses
- Specific timestamps that could identify participants
- Unique phrasing or quotes that could reveal sources
- Context that would make individuals identifiable
We do not comment on active investigations or cases under review. This ensures:
- Fair process for all parties involved
- Protection of everyone's privacy
- Space for thorough, unbiased evaluation
- Prevention of community pressure influencing decisions
We strive to balance these competing needs by:
- Being transparent about process - Publishing how we work, not who we've investigated
- Providing aggregated data - Sharing statistics that show patterns without identifying individuals
- Explaining decisions - When appropriate, explaining the rationale behind policy changes or process updates
- Soliciting feedback - Regularly asking the community for input on our processes and transparency measures
- Continuous improvement - Regularly reviewing and updating our transparency practices
We welcome and encourage community feedback on our transparency efforts:
- Suggest improvements - If you have ideas for how we can be more transparent while protecting privacy, please let us know
- Ask questions - If our processes or decisions are unclear, contact us at [email protected]
- Contribute to documentation - Our documentation is open source and accepts contributions (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
Beyond transparency reports and published procedures, we maintain accountability through:
- Board oversight - The DSF Board reviews working group activities and can request information
- Regular membership review - The Board reviews working group membership periodically
- Reconsideration process - Parties can request the DSF Board review working group decisions
- Published statistics - Demonstrating ongoing enforcement activity
- Community feedback - Listening to and incorporating community input
We also encourage transparency in Django community spaces that handle their own moderation:
- Conference Code of Conduct teams should publish their procedures
- Online space moderators should have clear, public moderation guidelines
- Local communities should document their enforcement approaches
We're available to support other Django spaces in developing their own transparency practices. See our event support documentation for more information.
We are continually exploring ways to improve transparency. Potential future initiatives include:
- More detailed breakdowns of violation types in reports
- Case studies with thoroughly anonymized examples
- Regular community Q&A sessions about Code of Conduct enforcement
- Expanded documentation based on lessons learned
We welcome suggestions on improving the transparency of the working group.
Our documents and policies are adapted from and inspired by a number of sources.