Code of Conduct Conversations in Open Source Software Projects on Github
Abstract
The rapid growth of open source software necessitates a deeper understanding of moderation and governance methods currently used within these projects. The code of conduct, a set of rules articulating standard behavior and responsibilities for participation within a community, is becoming an increasingly common policy document in open source software projects for setting project norms of behavior and discouraging negative or harassing comments and conversation. This study describes the conversations around adopting and crafting a code of conduct as well as those utilizing code of conduct for community governance. We conduct a qualitative analysis of a random sample of GitHub issues that involve the code of conduct. We find that codes of conduct are used both proactively and reactively to govern community behavior in project issues. Oftentimes, the initial addition of a code of conduct does not involve much community participation and input. However, a controversial moderation act is capable of inciting mass community feedback and backlash. Project maintainers balance the tension between disciplining potentially offensive forms of speech and encouraging broad and inclusive participation. These results have implications for the design of inclusive and effective governance practices for open source software communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In 2014, Coraline Ada Ehmke created the Contributor's Covenant after reports of sexualized language and assaults at events and a general lack of governance.
“In 2014, Coraline Ada Ehmke created the Contributor's Covenant (hereafter referred to simply as CC), after reports of sexualized language and assaults at events and a general lack of governance [15].”
From Codes of Conduct in Open Source (2024) · cites this paper as [15]
Our analysis suggests CoC conversations exist in private spaces without broader community involvement.
“Our analysis suggests CoC conversations exist in private spaces without broader community involvement [15].”
From Codes of Conduct in Open Source (2024) · cites this paper as [15]
Cites
The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community
O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 · Cited by 899 · see citing works
‘Patches don’t have gender’: What is not open in open source software
Nafus, D. (2012) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444811422887 · Cited by 204 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As work by Nafus has pointed out, the very concept of meritocracy in and of itself is problematic in encouraging a broader set of voices to participate, and allows users to sidestep the issues of inclusion and diversity altogether [40].”
BackgroundThe Signals that Potential Contributors Look for When Choosing Open-source Projects
Qiu, H. S., Li, Y. L., Padala, S., Sarma, A., & Vasilescu, B. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359224 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Committed to Trust: A Qualitative Study on Security & Trust in Open Source Software Projects
Wermke, D., Wöhler, N., Klemmer, J. H., Fourné, M., Acar, Y., & Fahl, S. (2022) · 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833686 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software
Frluckaj, H., Stevens, N., Howison, J., & Dabbish, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687047 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationCodes of Conduct in Open Source
Frluckaj, H., & Howison, J. (2024) · Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9651-6_17 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Li, R., Pandurangan, P., Frluckaj, H., & Dabbish, L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2021-04-13
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- CSCW1
- Pages
- 1-31
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3159563414
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 6.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Block Center for the Future of Work
- Sloan Foundation (2020-14036)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
- Keywords
- codes of conduct, open source software, community governance, online harassment, moderation, GitHub issues, community participation, inclusive participation, backlash
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
