>>> [!note] Migrated issue <!-- Drupal.org comment --> <!-- Migrated from issue #2424683. --> Reported by: [webchick](https://www.drupal.org/user/24967) >>> <h3>Background</h3> <p> Because we're a diverse community&mdash;geography-wise, skill-wise, gender-wise, personal experience-wise&mdash;it's perfectly natural that some degree of disagreements and miscommunication will happen. That's why the <a href="https://www.drupal.org/dcoc">Code of Conduct</a> exists. It's the "coding standards" for our community to explain how we should try and act in a given situation to uphold our shared values. The Code of Conduct applies to everyone in our community, equally, regardless of past contributions or personal relationships.</p> <p><a href="https://www.drupal.org/conflict-resolution">https://www.drupal.org/conflict-resolution</a> lays out our standard conflict resolution process when these disagreements inevitably come up. And in 90%+ of cases, it's totally sufficient. It recommends people should first attempt to resolve the dispute(s) on their own, then bring in a neutral friend/third-party if required, and then finally escalate to the <a href="https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group">Community Working Group (CWG)</a> if that fails. The CWG then employs a number of strategies for incidents that get brought to our attention. Sometimes we ourselves do mediation, other times we have some "hard conversations" with the folks involved, still other times we simply give participants advice on how to handle it themselves (basically, we evaluate case-by-case and do whatever is best for the particular situation/people involved).</p> <p>But sometimes even intervention by the CWG is not enough. Conflicts escalate further, or start happening more frequently. We are no longer talking about a one-off disagreement. Instead, we're seeing a disruptive pattern of behaviour emerge by an individual, or perhaps a pair or group of people. Behaviours that leave others feeling victimized and bullied also brings "collateral damage" to the community. Other long-time contributors feel burnt out, it creates a "hostile work environment" in the issue queues, and can make newer community members feel unsafe. It also pulls community leaders away from other responsibilities to "deal with" these issues time and time again.<br> It's therefore extremely important to establish a consistent process in how we handle these situations, so everyone knows what to expect.</p> <h3>Proposed Process</h3> <p>While the CWG is empowered to forcibly remove members from the community (something we have yet to exercise), doing so is tremendously painful for everyone, particularly in the case of a long-time contributor who many people respect. And almost all individuals exhibiting patterns of disruptive behaviour fit this profile, often either out of ignorance or lashing out because they're dealing with burnout themselves (their behaviour is often actually a "cry for help").</p> <p>Therefore, what we propose in lieu of a "3 strikes and you're out" policy or similar, is instead a "3 strikes, last chance, then you're out" policy. Once you've had three or more CWG reports reported against you, your last chance is to follow an "action plan."</p> <h4>What is an action plan?</h4> <p>An action plan isn't "punishment"; it is an attempt to create a framework&mdash;working together with the CWG&mdash;that helps individuals deal with their frustrations more effectively. The aim is to find a path forward that isn't harmful to the community, and tries to lay out ways for individuals instead to be involved constructively by helping them to avoid triggers and give alternative approaches to problem-solving. The hope is that the recipient of an action plan works with the CWG to develop it into something that's both good for them, and also good for the community.</p> <p>However, the action plan also serves as an individual's "final warning." If another similar complaint comes into the CWG, punitive action may be necessary. As a group, our authority derives from Dries, so when necessary, we also consult Dries and involve him in the process. </p> <p>The action plan itself has the following headings:</p> <dl> <dt>Summary</dt> <dd>A TL;DR of the rest of the document: a brief summary of reported incidents, their impact on the community, and what is expected of the person from here out.</dd> <dt>Action plan consequences</dt> <dd>Spells out what's going to happen if the framework laid out isn't followed, and encouragement for the community member to take part in the process of defining this plan.</dd> <dt>Complaints summary</dt> <dd>A detailed list of the incidents that have been reported about the individual. While we will not reveal who sent in the reports without their express permission, we will reveal as much as we can about the incidents themselves, so that the individual knows exactly what it is they're being accused of.</dd> <dt>Consequences of the complaints</dt> <dd>A detailed list of the consequences that these complaints have had on the community so the individual understands the impact of their actions. It can be easy to focus at the individual(s) you're angry with, much harder to understand the "ripple effects" of lashing out against them.</dd> <dt>Action Plan</dt> <dd>A list of 2-3 suggested actions the individual can take to reduce conflict and minimise the likelihood of repeating this behaviour causing problems. <p>For example:</p> <p><strong>Action:</strong><br> <em>Avoid confrontation with other community members that you clearly have disagreements with</em></p> <p>Where possible, if there is a <strong>history of confrontation or conflict</strong> with other community members, <strong>avoid dialogue with them</strong> unless it is sincere and factual. If there are people who you find difficult to work with, <strong>involve another community member</strong> in working the issues out, or just <strong>keep your distance</strong>.</p> <p><strong>Expected results:</strong> </p> <p>Rather than antagonising difficult relationships, they should be left alone to enable everyone involved to <strong>b&#8203;e more productive and avoid unnecessary conflict</strong>.&#8203;<br> </p></dd> </dl> <p>Action plans are always kept confidential between the Community Working Group and the individual.</p> <h3>Discussion</h3> <p>We need to find a process that balances the health of the community, with compassion for burnt-out long-time contributors, with the assurance that our Code of Conduct isn't just words, and actually stands for something.</p> <p>Action plans might not be exactly the right process. Our hope is that the act of very clearly laying out what an individual has done, explaining the community impact those behaviours have had, and working <em>with</em> individuals to provide a concrete, useful structure that enables them to not create further conflict, will help us to address some of the biggest and long-standing community issues we have. And if the process fails, and an individual resumes their prior abusive behaviour, it lays the proper foundation for more severe measures, if required.</p> <p>We appreciate your input/feedback. We're hoping to get this into a formal process document by mid-March.</p>