Part 1: The Go Community Code of Conduct

The Go project has a well-defined Code of Conduct that serves three primary purposes:

1. Establishing a baseline standard of behavior for effective and respectful communication.
2. Providing a official email address for conflict resolution.
3. Ensuring the community remains inclusive and welcoming to people from different backgrounds.

The Go Code of Conduct emphasizes key values such as respect, thoughtfulness, and responsibility. It includes provisions against harassment, personal attacks, and inappropriate behavior. The document also outlines procedures for reporting misconduct, ensuring that concerns are addressed fairly.

Comparison with the Contributor Covenant

The Go Code of Conduct is based on the Contributor Covenant but has some notable differences:

1. Conflict Resolution Approach - The Go project explicitly encourages individuals to resolve conflicts directly when possible before escalating to project stewards. This promotes a culture of open communication and de-escalation.
2. Emphasis on the Project’s Unique Culture - The Go Code of Conduct includes specific language about “Gopher values”—qualities that Go community members are expected to uphold, such as patience, charity, and constructive communication.

These changes likely reflect the Go project’s efforts to foster a more self-regulating and inclusive community while maintaining a clear escalation process for serious issues.

The Eclipse Project Code of Conduct

The Contributor Covenant has been widely adopted, including by the Eclipse project, which maintains its own version of a Code of Conduct. The Eclipse Code of Conduct differs structurally from the Go project’s version in the following ways:

1. Detailed Scope and Enforcement Policies - Eclipse’s document explicitly outlines the Conduct Committee’s role, the scope of application, and the process of investigating and handling reports.
2. Explicit No Retaliation Clause - This section ensures that individuals reporting violations are protected from retaliation, fostering a safer reporting environment.

These differences highlight Eclipse’s commitment to ensuring a transparent and enforceable CoC within their large and structured community.

Part 2: The Sugar Labs Code of Conduct

Sugar Labs takes a slightly different approach to its Code of Conduct. It is rooted in principles of collaboration, respect, and inclusivity, much like the Go project and the Contributor Covenant. However, there are some key differences:

1. Based on the Ubuntu Code of Conduct - Unlike the Go project, which adapted its CoC from the Contributor Covenant, Sugar Labs’ CoC is directly influenced by Ubuntu’s guidelines. This results in a more community-driven and educational tone, emphasizing collaboration and consideration over rigid enforcement.
2. Emphasis on Educational and Developmental Values - Given Sugar Labs’ focus on educational software, its Code of Conduct places a strong emphasis on patience, flexibility, and mentoring.

While the Sugar Labs CoC is less strict in defining unacceptable behavior, it still sets clear expectations for respectful collaboration, which aligns well with its mission.

Part 3: PyTorch Code of Conduct

For this section, we analyze the Code of Conduct for PyTorch, a widely used open-source machine learning framework.

PyTorch Code of Conduct: PyTorch Code of Conduct

The PyTorch Code of Conduct closely follows the Contributor Covenant, ensuring:

• Inclusive and Respectful Communication - PyTorch maintains a strict policy against harassment, discrimination, and personal attacks, ensuring a welcoming environment for developers of all backgrounds.
• Clear Reporting Mechanisms - The CoC provides explicit instructions for reporting violations and outlines the responsibilities of project maintainers.

Comparison with Go and Sugar Labs

Compared to the Go project:

• PyTorch follows a more standardized approach with the Contributor Covenant template, whereas Go has customized its CoC to include “Gopher values.”
• PyTorch’s enforcement guidelines are more aligned with the Contributor Covenant, making them slightly broader than Go’s direct conflict-resolution approach.

Compared to Sugar Labs:

• PyTorch’s CoC is more structured and specific in defining unacceptable behavior, whereas Sugar Labs focuses more on fostering an educational and collaborative culture.
• PyTorch provides a detailed reporting mechanism, whereas Sugar Labs relies on an oversight board for dispute resolution.