Proposed Code of Conduct for the Go project

Now available for review - remember to send all feedback via email to


This was really well done! All the points addressed in this proposal were extremely well articulated, and I can’t think of anything that was left out. I’m really grateful that this group of people came together to do this work.

It seems that we will need the link to the form where people can send suggestions anonymously when you have it.


Interesting, and dismissive, how the idea of open debate is considered “unnecessary noise”.

I do not believe that CoC’s actually change people’s behaviour, but I suppose some will take comfort in the micro aggression clause, ensuring that any perceived rudeness is dealt with swiftly.

If I may address your comments, I don’t think this CoC dismisses open debate, only debate that is conducted in a way that is degrading to any of the participants. About the CoC changing people’s behavior, I agree with you but, again, I don’t believe it is the intent of the CoC anyway. People will behave however they please anywhere, but this CoC is stating what is unacceptable behavior in the Go communities that are listed.

Thank you for this :slight_smile: I’ll be adopting it for the Go devroom at FOSDEM

1 Like

My reference was not to the CoC itself, but to Andrew G’s closed proposal process. Community members must debate with him directly, “behind closed doors.”. It is unfortunate that a community cannot openly discuss and help to shape a “Community” Code of Conduct. There is some irony in that.

It’s a moot point anyway, because as in any quasi democracy, the powers that be have already dictated not only that a CoC is forthcoming, but its terms as well.

Regarding democracy: The Go language communities are not really democracies, because they’re systems designed specifically to fulfill technical support needs for use of Go.

I see the CoC as a quality control device intended to reduce and remediate certain defects in community interaction, in order to fulfill our mutual technical support needs in a more satisfactory manner.

If you’ve noticed a significant defect that the CoC doesn’t address, let ADG know so it can be considered.

That said, a great deal of open community discussion and debate preceded this proposed CoC, so the major defects in community interaction should already be addressed.

Abiding by the CoC might not be perfectly comfortable, but when we gather together in these technical communities, I believe it’s important to interact in ways that are inclusive and non-toxic (to the greatest reasonable extent), so that we can work well together. Personally, I will be doing my best. :relaxed:


Gotcha. Yes, I misunderstood what you were referring to on that one, apologies.

Andrew made it clear: CoC won’t be discussed openly.

This thing will obviously get in the master asap, no matter what community actually thinks about it. Aaaand I am not quite sure community is fine with it: related Reddit post on /r/golang had been downvoted heavily and subsequently locked.

As IbanezDavy from Reddit pointed out, “this seems like a continuation of the Golang philosophy. Whatever the creators thinks is good, is good. And if you disagree you are bad or not good enough to argue. So shut up and use it or go away”.

Honestly, I find the reddit toxic and hostile to outsiders. I’d have been very surprised if they had approved of any kind of CoC at all.


If I disagreed with what problems needed solving (if any at all), or disbelieved that the adoption of simple conventions and mechanisms could solve them, then both the Go language design and the CoC would probably seem awful.

But I’ve witnessed those problems first hand, and watched the Go “engineering approach” to problem-solving prove extremely successful thus far. So I’m optimistic the CoC will work out well :relaxed:


I see. So let’s sum it up:

  1. Reddit is toxic and shouldn’t be seriously considered at all.
  2. Andrew Gerrand is just right for violating the whole “proposal” concept, by dismissing open debate.

Alright, I see.

Looks pretty good to me. The only thing that concerns me is this tidbit:

Furthermore, if your conduct outside the Go community is against our values (below), it may affect your ability to participate within our community.

I understand why as a community moderator one would want this clause, but I also worry it might be used as an excuse to banish people over political disagreements that really have nothing to do with the community. This is especially an issue when the document defines “Romantic or sexual commentary, remarks, or questions.” as destructive behavior. Which is often the case in the workplace, but a totally absurd restriction on peoples personal lives. To clarify, I think it’s a pretty good code for activities within the community, but that particular clause is out of place and will almost certainly be abused by the moral entrepreneurs of the industry.


I hope you write to Andrew with your very valid point. They might be reading this but who knows.

1 Like

Yes, the arrogance of that tidbit is quite astounding.

Per your recommendation I sent Andrew an email. Hopefully he isn’t being drowned in hate mail and has time to read it. :smile:


I sent an email to adg about the same line. I don’t think romantic or sexual remarks is a problem. Sexual harassment is. There is a difference. You can sexually harass a person without any such remarks. And you can actually mutually flirt with the use of romantic and sexual remarks.


I’m wary of these CoCs. I understand the intent is to foster a climate of good and constructive discussion between very diverse people. But I’ve seen it used to shut down discussion, ideas and go after people who have a different opinion.

Also some of the concept used are very subjective. “Flirting with offensive or sensitive issues”, what is offensive and sensitive to me is not the same to you. Deciding if a comment is snarky or not is not obvious. Microaggressions is not a thing outside of the western world and with the different social history and language I would have a hard time explaining the concept.

It is such a difficult problem to solve. Communication between diverse people from different background and languages in a medium of text without the information of the tone and facial expression has so much room for misunderstandings. Hopefully we use common sense and reason to deal with that.

Do you guys really want to become this?

Follow-up to my email: Andrew responded almost immediately and he agrees the clause about conduct outside the community is overreaching. Expect edits with clarification.