Code of Conduct - v0.5
Introduction
Please read and commit to the following Code of Conduct before engaging in any community discussions or other forms of participation in a Bonfire space
Is there an emergency? go straight to REPORT AN ISSUE.
When participating we commit to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, healthy, and sustainable community.
This code of conduct is long. We appreciate that it may take a good few minutes over a cup of your favourite beverage to read through these guidelines. It is also a living document, it cannot account for all the ways that people might feel excluded, unsafe or uncomfortable, so it is never truly finished and should change whenever needed to reflect the priorities and sensitivities of the community as it evolves.
Scope
Unless otherwise noted, this code of conduct applies to all Bonfire spaces*, including interactions, discussions and other content, both online or offline. Some spaces may have additional rules in place, which will be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for knowing and abiding by these rules.
It should be noted that because anyone can set up and operate a Bonfire instance, your community may have a different code of conduct (which should be posted on the instance itself). This document only governs the spaces that choose to abide by it.
Our principles
Bonfire is not a single community but an ecosystem of interconnected circles, some closely aligned, others more loosely connected. Being part of this ecosystem means being involved as equal partners from the start in identifying needs, planning, building, and evaluating, not just consulted or informed after the fact.
Across our diverse communities and spaces, we support each other's emotional and intellectual needs so that we can sustainably engage in discussion and collaborative work, and foster respect, diversity, inclusion, wellbeing and learning.
Bonfire is part of a broader movement for free culture and collective liberation in computing who believe that free software, open knowledge, and the digital commons belong to everyone, not just those who have historically dominated these spaces. We strive to embody the kind of society we want to build in how we organise and relate to each other, and to ensure that the tools and structures we create don't reproduce the very harms we set out to address.
These harms are rooted in an extractive economy built on colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy, on the exploitation of land and labour, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
We believe in community sovereignty and self-determination: the right of people and communities to govern themselves, define their own futures, and make decisions about their own spaces, rather than having those decisions made for them. The smallest unit of our ecosystem, whether an instance, a circle, or a working group, is a self-governing body with the power to make decisions about its own affairs, set its own additional guidelines, and resolve its own issues.
Federation is a choice, not an imposition: communities join together by consent, not by subordination. People should never be locked into platforms or spaces by their data or social connections. The freedom to leave, to migrate, and to take your relationships with you is inseparable from the right to self-govern.
Self-governance is not merely a preference but an act of resistance: a demonstration that our collective ability to care for each other and meet our own needs is more just and effective than the governance imposed by state or corporate forces.
We embrace principled boldness: building alternatives sometimes means acting without waiting for permission from systems that were never designed with our wellbeing in mind, and we support each other in taking courageous action that aligns with our shared values.
We affirm the legitimate right of peoples and communities to resist oppression, assimilation, and exploitation, online and offline. We stand with those who take to the streets, who strike, who occupy, who blockade, and we oppose the criminalisation of protest and the use of state violence against those who resist.
Our tools and spaces exist to support that resistance, not enable the forces that suppress it, and we won't moderate it into polite silence.
Our struggles are intersectional. We resist single-issue framing that isolates concerns into silos, and instead recognise that health and disability, gender violence, migration, indigenous struggles, racial justice, labour exploitation, digital rights, ecological crisis, and access to water, food and housing, are all expressions of the same underlying systems.
Bonfire is a commons: not a product, not a platform, not a startup. We reject venture capital, advertising, and profit-driven models that inevitably subordinate people to shareholders. Our work is funded transparently and sustained collectively, because the tools we depend on should answer to the communities that use them, not to investors or advertisers.
We are alert to co-optation: the ways our work can be absorbed, rebranded, or diluted by institutions seeking legitimacy without structural change. We resist being framed as complements to systems we oppose, and when our ideas are adopted by those in power, we ask whether root causes are being addressed or merely managed.
We also acknowledge that this community, however caring, cannot replace the systemic support that many in our society are deprived of, but it can be a place where we show up for each other within our means.
We aspire to build an inclusive community "donde quepan muchos mundos" (a world in which many worlds fit): where fundamentally different ways of organising, knowing, and being coexist, each with their own place, their own time, and their own way. Our federated structure embodies this commitment: unity through mutual respect, not uniformity.
Community Guidelines
1. Let's be excellent to each other
At the root of our community is dignity, not merely as a standard for how we treat each other, but as the force that compels us to say enough when we see injustice and no one is saying anything or doing anything. Dignity is also what moves us to organise and to build.
We ground our engagement in love, not just as sentiment but as practice: the ongoing commitment to show up for each other with care, honesty, and a willingness to be transformed by the encounter. Like any practice, it requires patience with ourselves and each other as we learn.
We build at the speed of trust, prioritising relationships and respect over urgency and output. Relationship building is not just a means of collaboration, but fundamental to the work itself. Our survival as a community depends on cooperation, not competition.
We treat each other with dignity and respect, by speaking and acting gently and inclusively, acknowledging that those who uphold these guidelines have the right to participate without fear of harassment, discrimination, or condescension, whether blatant, or via micro-aggressions or subtle negativity.
We operate with integrity in word and action, upholding our shared values and honoring our commitments to each other. In practice, this means:
-
We welcome people of all backgrounds and identities and actively work to make participation accessible, not just theoretically possible.
-
We're friendly and patient, treating each other with empathy and gratitude.
We meet people where they are, not where we think they should be. Real inclusion sometimes means slowing down, and that's a trade-off worth making.
- We practice mutual aid and solidarity, not charity. We share our time and abilities freely and without expectation of reciprocity, supporting each other as equals rather than as benefactors, building lasting networks of care and collective infrastructure, not performing acts of benevolence.
One's idea of caring may differ from how others want to be cared for, so we treat others the way they want to be treated, asking what's needed rather than assuming, as there are many ways to contribute and unexpected help isn't always welcome.
Charity frames support as flowing downward from those who have to those who lack, reinforcing moral hierarchies of wealth and worthiness. It often comes with conditions (proving need, performing gratitude, accepting surveillance) and can humiliate those it claims to help. Mutual aid, by contrast, flows between equals and is rooted in the understanding that the systems producing scarcity are the problem, not the people navigating them.
-
When we engage with other communities, we recognise that those most affected by a problem are those who best understand it, and we follow their leadership rather than arriving with assumptions about what's missing. We guard against saviorism and paternalism: the tendency to position ourselves as rescuers or to assume we know what others need better than they do.
-
We acknowledge the time and effort that goes into care work, much of it voluntary and often invisible (moderation, coordination, emotional support, documentation, translation, maintenance, etc, etc) and recognise all of these contributions as equally valuable, approaching them with gratitude rather than entitlement.
-
When we engage with other movements and communities, we do not arrive to lead, to recruit, or to replicate ourselves. We do not tell others what to do or ask them to be like us. We walk alongside, sharing our struggles, learning from theirs, seeking the points where our paths converge. Groups working on similar issues consciously incorporate each other's goals and values into their own work, rather than just lending support. Solidarity means accompanying, not directing.
-
Solidarity is not only a political commitment but something felt. When we genuinely connect with others' struggles, we also touch their sorrows, and in them we recognise our own. True solidarity begins when we see ourselves reflected in each other.
-
We respect each other's privacy. Sharing personal information without consent can put people at risk. We also avoid prying into personal details, such as someone's health, background, or identity, unless they're open to discussing them.
- We take into account each other's needs as individuals, and as a community.
- We foster inclusive dialogue by sharing ideas, asking clarifying questions, and responding to others' ideas. We avoid excluding people through unnecessary jargon, gatekeeping knowledge, or dominating discussions with assumed authority.
- More broadly, we organise by listening: when we enter new spaces, engage with other communities, or begin new work, we start by asking (about people's lives, their struggles, their needs) rather than arriving with solutions. Listening is not a preliminary step before the real work begins; it is the work. What we have learned, in fact, is to learn.
Active listening also means recognising that silence can enable others to speak, that not everyone participates in the same way or at the same pace, and that we should check ourselves on how much space we're taking up, especially when others have less. Sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting.
Techniques like turn-taking (as used in sociocratic meetings, where each person speaks in turn before open discussion) can help ensure everyone has a chance to be heard, especially in larger or more heated conversations.
- We commit to ensuring that women and other marginalised groups can participate, lead, and feel safe, not as a concession, but as a condition of the world we claim to be building. This means actively dismantling male-centeredness in our spaces: examining who speaks most, whose concerns are treated as urgent, whose expertise is assumed, and whose contributions go unrecognised. We reorganise when we find the patterns we expected to find.
Communities striving to make social progress, including our own, are not exempt from reproducing the very harms they set out to challenge. The history of liberation movements shows that this must be named and organised against explicitly, not assumed away by good intentions.
- We respect that others have differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
Not everyone has read the same books or had the same experiences. Our journeys are unique and varied. Compassion births patience.
We won't all agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
- We try to understand why we disagree:
Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Let’s remember that we’re different. The strength of our community comes from its diversity, people from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.
Don’t forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn’t get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes. Some differences will be irreconcilable in a diverse community, and that’s okay. What matters is how we hold disagreement, not that we eliminate it. When crisis or conflict disrupts our spaces, we recognise that moments of rupture, however painful, can open possibilities for deeper solidarity and more just ways of organising.
- We can each determine our level of involvement.
Consent is not just the absence of a "no," but the presence of a "yes." We can say no to any requests, such as not participating in a discussion, and set clear limits on the obligations we make, and renegotiate agreements that are no longer working for us, or revoke consent at any time.
- We’re considerate about how we communicate, and carefully choose our words. We conduct ourselves civilly, with kindness, and don’t insult or put down other participants.
Remember that we’re a world-wide community, we may not share a primary language, see things the same way, or come from the same background. Sarcasm and irony in particular can easily be misread across cultures, languages, and neurotypes; what feels playful to one person may land as dismissive or hurtful to another.
By staying considerate, we can help navigate complex issues. We also recognise that we can’t always be articulate, and that struggling to find the right words is not the same as not caring.
We also avoid using disability or mental health terminology metaphorically (e.g. "crazy", "lame"), even when it feels normal, as these reinforce harmful associations.
We avoid derailing: if we want to talk about something else, we start a new conversation rather than pulling an existing one off track.
While social media can be a space to process frustrations, our community spaces and the people in them are not outlets for venting anger or dumping negativity.
-
We talk to and with people, not about them. Before taking a concern to social media, group chats, or third parties, we try to address it directly with the person involved. Indirect remarks, subtoots, and vague-posting can be just as corrosive as direct confrontation, and bypass the possibility of repair. When direct communication isn’t safe or possible, we turn to moderators rather than the court of public opinion.
-
Let’s have conversations based on what was actually said.
Often our translations of people’s ideas is far from the actual message they were sharing. Let’s engage with people based on their actual words and not what we assume those words meant. When we share our perspective, we speak from our own experiences rather than generalising about others. If we are unsure, we ask for clarification.
- Let’s give and gracefully accept constructive feedback, and expect and accept discomfort.
Every interaction is an opportunity to both teach and learn, no one is only ever one or the other. We honour that we have all been indoctrinated into systems of oppression that we must all unlearn. Unlearning is challenging; thus, we do not expect neat, tidy resolutions. We will not “fix” the world’s ills on a social media thread but we will get closer if we are willing to be uncomfortable.
When offering criticism, we try to be constructive: rather than merely pointing out what’s wrong, we offer or at least invite suggestions for how things could be better.
This applies with particular force to conversations about race, anti-Blackness, and white supremacy. We do not sanitise these conversations to protect the comfort of those who benefit from the systems being named. Discomfort in the face of injustice is not a problem to be managed; it is a signal to listen more carefully.
- Let’s assume the best about one another and attempt cooperation before conflict.
We start from the assumption that people’s experiences are REAL. We also acknowledge that our experiences are often shared, but not always. We ask to learn MORE about other people’s truths, rather than erasing them. It is exceptionally painful to be dismissed, called a liar or accused of making up their experiences. We start from the assumption that we are all doing our best in any given moment with the tools we have.
- We actively co-create this community and take breaks for self-care. Let's not let the group happen to us, but make it together, participating with self-respect and without exhausting ourselves. We resist the capitalist pressure to measure our worth by outputs or productivity. We do things because we want to and need to, not because we feel pressured to.
At the same time, this work should also enliven us. Sustainable participation comes not just from rest, but from engagement that feels meaningful and alive. We build projects and practices designed to endure, with care for ourselves and each other treated as integral to the work, not separate from it.
Community dialogues can be challenging and triggering, bringing up painful memories, old wounds, and current resentments. We prioritise self-care as a tool of radical self-love, doing what we need to navigate our well-being, including stepping away from conversations and coming back when we are re-centred.
Burnout is often the result of systemic patterns, not individual failure; when we see it around us, we reflect on what conditions may have contributed rather than leaving the person experiencing it alone to carry the burden.
-
We recognise joy, humour, celebration, and play as acts of resistance, not distractions from the work but integral to sustaining it. Systems of domination thrive when people are too exhausted or demoralised to imagine otherwise. We nourish ourselves and those who come after us with creativity and laughter as much as with analysis and organising.
-
We build trust through consistent action, not declaration. Showing up matters, but so does staying, earning trust through commitment, accountability, and willingness to learn the context before seeking to reshape it. Influence in our community follows from a track record of care, not from credentials, seniority, or political identity.
- When we propose projects, open issues, or begin work that others come to depend on, walking away without handoff or communication can cause real harm, especially in communities already shaped by cycles of abandonment. If we can no longer sustain a commitment, we say so openly and help with the transition rather than quietly disappearing.
Before stepping into a new space or taking on a role, we examine our own assumptions and motivations: am I here to contribute or to direct? To listen and learn the context, or to import my own? Self-awareness about the privilege and preconceptions we carry is not a one-time exercise but an ongoing practice.
-
We are builders first. We make another world is possible real through actions, not just words, constructing alternatives in how we organise, govern, and care for each other. Critique serves construction, not the other way around. Our structures and practices are shaped by what works, not by what theory says they should look like. We prefer flexible, evolving approaches over rigid blueprints, and remain willing to adapt as circumstances and needs change.
-
Our shared infrastructure (code and collective knowledge) is a commons that belongs to the community, not to any individual who administers or maintains it. Decisions about shared infrastructure should be made collectively and transparently, and access to it should not be leveraged as a source of personal power. The commons should not be privatised, enclosed, or extracted for personal gain.
We contribute to serve the community, not ourselves. The commons we build together is the reward, not personal advancement, recognition, or influence.
- We actively support cooperative and participatory models of organising, and oppose monopoly in all its forms, whether over platforms, protocols, development capacity, or community attention.
Where individual or private initiative exists within our ecosystem, it must not concentrate power or undermine the communal economy we are building together.
- We affirm the right of workers (including digital, creative, care, and platform workers) to organise, to set the terms of their own labour, and to refuse exploitation.
Our commitment to cooperative and commons-based models is inseparable from the struggle for workers' self-determination. We do not cross digital picket lines, and we stand with those who withhold their labour in pursuit of justice.
- We resist the logic that turns everything into merchandise, not just goods and labour, but people, relationships, attention, culture, and care itself.
This logic drives the enshittification of platforms: the cycle by which services that once served their users are degraded in pursuit of profit, first exploiting users' attention, then their data, then their communities. Our tools and spaces are not products to be marketed, and our communities are not audiences to be monetised. We build for use and for each other, not for extraction or exchange.
- We commit to building tools that resist surveillance rather than enable it, and refuse to design features, collect data, or structure systems that could be used to monitor, track, profile, or manipulate communities.
We recognise that surveillance, whether by states, corporations, or platforms, is a tool of control, and is disproportionately wielded against indigenous, migrant, and other minority or marginalised communities.
Technology that cannot be turned against its users is not a limitation but a design principle.
- We commit to designing for people, not for engagement. We refuse things whose primary purpose is to manipulate attention, manufacture compulsion, or exploit psychological vulnerabilities.
Where a feature carries risks of misuse, we mitigate them through transparency, user controls, community moderation, and clear documentation. We shine a light on how things work rather than hiding them behind defaults that consolidate power over the people using the tools.
- We propose rather than impose. We share our perspectives, ideas, and visions freely, inviting dialogue rather than demanding agreement.
No person or group has the right to impose their beliefs, politics, or cultural norms on others through pressure or coercion. We respect that others' convictions are their own.
- We have space to make mistakes, take responsibility, learn and change. Blame is not useful, but accountability is: we don't blame ourselves or others for what we've absorbed from unjust systems, but once we know better, we're accountable for doing better.
Those of us with more power or privilege carry a greater share of the responsibility for change.
- We follow up on our commitments, and take responsibility for the good things we do, but also for the bad ones, keeping in mind that the impact of our words and actions on other people doesn't always match our intent.
2. Harassment
We are intolerant of intolerance, harassment, exploitation and domination. This includes, but is not limited to:
-
Offensive or unwelcome comments related to one's background or identity, including micro-aggressions (small, often unconscious actions or remarks that marginalise people).
-
Minimising, dismissing, or treating the rights, identities, or lived experiences of marginalised people as topics for debate.
-
Intentionally spreading misinformation or disinformation that undermines safety, equity or consent. That includes posting or disseminating libel, slander, or other deliberately false claims.
-
Abuse of power relations, for example, role as an admin or moderator; privileged access or control over infrastructure or tools; technical knowledge or skills; privilege, ability or seniority, etc.
This includes allowing attention and visibility to create informal hierarchies, centring individuals as spokespeople or celebrities rather than lifting up collective work, or letting disproportionate attention erase or undervalue others' contributions.
-
Violence, incitement or threats of violence (both physical and psychological) towards another participant, including encouraging someone to engage in self-harm.
-
Deliberate intimidation or bullying.
-
Displaying symbols, slogans or language associated with fascist, white supremacist, chauvinist or authoritarian movements.
-
Denial or attempting to cast doubt on historic or ongoing acts of genocide.
-
Any exercise or promotion of domination, hierarchy or exploitation.
-
Name calling, insensitive sarcasm, offensive jokes, and general unkindness. "It was just a joke" is not a defence.
-
Sustained disruption of discussion (e.g. sealioning or Gish gallop).
-
Bad-faith arguments:
- Let's have discussions in good faith, keeping to the arguments being discussed and arguing methodically, and when appropriate, with citations. The object of a discussion is to understand the topic better, not to win the discussion. Discussions are an opportunity for all parties to learn; this process is best served in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
- “Devil’s advocate”: Let's argue from a position which represents our beliefs and experiences, and not with strawman positions which we do not hold or which are not representative of our experience and community.
-
Spam, such as repeatedly promoting products or services with no relevance to our ecosystem or values (spam), such as advertising or promoting for-profit companies or proprietary products or services, whether or not the company is involved. This does not include personal or commons-based projects (such as open source communities), cooperatives or non-profits. We encourage sharing project announcements, calls for collaboration, upcoming events, and ways to support each other's work.
-
Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others.
-
Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease, or not disengaging from a conversation that is clearly escalating.
-
Inciting others to target an individual (also known as “dogpiling”);
-
Stalking or following. This includes virtual following (locating someone in other web spaces in order to continue unwelcome contact).
-
Sharing of non-harassing private communication (not including conversation that leads into harassing statements) or participants’ private personal information.
-
Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent (except when necessary to protect from intentional abuse).
-
Deliberate misgendering or mislabelling. This includes deadnaming or persistently using a pronoun that does not correctly reflect a person’s gender identity. We address people by their pronouns when provided, and otherwise default to their name/handle rather than guessing.
When asking about someone’s pronouns, we ask everyone equally rather than singling out those we perceive as gender non-conforming.
-
Questioning or challenging someone’s stated self-identity or chosen labels, even if well-intentioned.
-
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “kiss” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop.
-
Unwelcome sexual attention, including gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour.
-
Non-consensual photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes (or reading logs one has access to), doxxing, or screenshotting to carry out acts of aggression or trolling. For minors, consent of a parent or guardian is required. If someone requests removal of a photo or recording that includes them, we honour that request.
-
Non-consensual pornography and sexualized images of people who did not consent to their likeness being shared.
-
Promoting pedophilia or content involving the exploitation of minors in any form.
-
Condoning, defending, enabling, or standing silently by during harassment or behaviour that violates these guidelines. This is not about guilt by association, but about complicity.
-
Anything that threatens the physical, legal or ethical integrity of the community or shared infrastructure with malicious software or behaviour (e.g. spamming, DDoS, posting illegal content, etc).
3. Diversity statement
Everyone who chooses to follow these guidelines is welcome and encouraged to participate. Although we will fail at times, we seek to treat everyone fairly and equitably. Equity is different from equality: equality treats everyone the same, while equity recognises that not everyone starts from the same position, and so treating everyone identically may leave existing imbalances intact. We acknowledge that computing spaces have historically been dominated by narrow demographics, and we actively work to counter that.
There are implicit hierarchies in any community that we can and should strive to challenge, including meritocratic ones that conflate technical skill or seniority with authority or worth, or ideological ones where our identity or politics are treated as a shortcut to leadership. Let's consider degrees of privilege, and use whatever access, skills, knowledge, or influence we have to support others' self-determination rather than to consolidate our own position. As we grow in experience or seniority, we actively make room for newer voices rather than holding on to space.
We hold our values seriously, but we don't demand ideological purity as a condition of participation. This includes the tools people use: we advocate for free software and the commons, but we don't exclude people for using what's available to them until alternatives are ready. When we adopt new tools or ways of working, we make sure the transition doesn't burden those with the fewest resources to adapt.
Protected characteristics
Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honour diversity in:
- educational background or experience;
- social and economic class;
- mental, physical, or technical ability;
- profession, occupation, or speciality;
- age;
- language, culture, regional/national origin, or migratory status;
- disability;
- gender identity, expression or presentation;
- neuro(a)typicality or neuro-diversity;
- race, ethnicity, caste, or colour;
- sexual orientation;
- appearance or body size;
- political or religious beliefs (or lack thereof);
- a person’s lifestyle choices (including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment).
We will not tolerate discrimination or harassment based on any of the protected characteristics above. This includes discrimination based on perceived identity or for associating with people who have these characteristics.
We acknowledge the need for groups aligned around shared identities or experiences to organise autonomously, not only to create spaces for healing, reflection, or mutual support, but to make decisions about issues that directly affect them. This is not a concession but a structural commitment: those most impacted by a problem have the right to lead the response, set their own priorities, and organise at whatever level they need.
We recognise that borders, immigration enforcement, and detention are tools of racial and economic control. Participation in our community is not conditional on citizenship, legal status, or documentation, and we actively oppose the use of technology to surveil, detain, or deport migrants.
We are actively trans-affirming and queer-affirming, not only in protecting people from harassment, but in examining and dismantling the cisgender and heteronormative assumptions embedded in our language, tools, and structures. Affirmation means more than tolerance: it means ensuring that trans, queer, gender non-conforming, and intersex people can lead and shape our spaces, not merely exist in them safely.
We value intergenerational exchange and resist ageism in all directions, whether it dismisses younger people's capacities and leadership, or treats older people as irrelevant. Different generations carry different knowledge, and our community is stronger when we learn across those differences rather than sorting ourselves by age.
4. We stand together
We do not have to suffer in silence, or see others harassed without feeling like we have no course of action. We should not assume that people experiencing a violation are comfortable or able to address or report it themselves. If we witness something, it may be on us to act.
Defending our community against harassment, bad-faith disruption, co-optation, and the erosion of our values is not solely the responsibility of moderators. It is a shared duty. Just as self-governance requires everyone's participation, so does the protection of the spaces that make self-governance possible.
Not every concern needs to immediately go through a formal moderation process. Many problematic behaviours fall short of harassment, and we are empowered to address them directly, by gently naming what we notice, sharing our experiences and needs, and working things out together.
That said, if you feel unsafe or unable to speak up, a formal report is always valid. This is an encouragement to commununicate, not a barrier to seeking help.
Identifying issues
We respect the person; we challenge their behaviour. The aim is not to win a conflict but to address and solve the problems from which it arises.
- It can be good to take time to process experiences if we feel confused, overwhelmed or agitated.
- Note uncertainties and possible misunderstandings in our interactions, including cultural differences.
- Distinguish people's actions from our feelings about them. They're both important, but they're different.
- Distinguish disagreement from personal hostility. We're allowed to disagree, dissent and discuss.
Setting boundaries
If we feel able and safe to, we may want to directly discuss our concerns with the person making us feel uncomfortable, and sooner rather than later. Small things left unaddressed can build into resentment. It helps to start by assuming positive intent, as they may not be aware of what they are doing, and politely bringing it to their attention is encouraged. Here's a suggested structure:
- I read/noticed... an observation, free of judgement
- I feel... emotions, rather than a projection or thought
- Because I need/value/care about... needs, boundaries, shared values, or specific community guidelines
- Would you be willing to... specific request
It can also be helpful to:
- Start by identifying our feelings and needs.
- Make offers or requests.
- Develop points of agreement to facilitate progress.
- Negotiate plans to treat conflict in a mutually satisfactory way.
- Follow up later to discuss progress.
Non-harassment
Our community prioritises marginalised people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. Moderators reserve the right not to act on complaints regarding:
- ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia.’ or critiques of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behaviors or assumptions.
The reason these terms are problematic is because they are too easily used as a political weapon to claim parity between the suffering of the majority demographic and that of marginalised peoples without taking into account structural ‘isms’, which the majority demographic do not experience.
-
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone”, “go away” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
-
Refusals from one party to explain or debate another. Everyone has the right to end their involvement in a conversation without explanation or debating why.
-
Communicating in a ‘tone’ one doesn’t find congenial.
Content warnings and considerate posting
Without policing every post or conversation, we encourage all participants to be aware that others may be navigating trauma, neurodivergence, or sensory sensitivity.
We therefore use Content Warnings (CW) where available and appropriate, especially when sharing:
- Visual depictions of nudity
- Graphic injury, violence, blood or medical procedures
- Explicit depictions or detailed discussion of sex or drug use
- Mentions of suicide, self-harm, abuse, rape or sexual assault not tied to immediate safety needs
- Media spoilers (within reason)
- Other NSFW or otherwise risky content (use common sense).
If a post is reported and does not contain a relevant CW, moderators may choose to add one and notify the author. Continued posting of sensitive content without CWs may result in moderation action. Let’s care for each other by making space for informed consent in our feeds.
Escalating
If we are uncomfortable about how a conversation is proceeding, we should bring it to the attention of moderators, as they are not present in all discussions. There's power in numbers, so we should do so even if someone else may have done so already. When multiple people share how they feel, it has a unique way of changing the conversation. Refer to the section on reporting issues.
5. Reporting issues
All reports will be handled with discretion, and all people involved will be treated with respect.
If we experience or witness harassment or unacceptable behaviour (or have any other concerns) we can use the flagging feature where available, or tag moderator(s) in the thread to bring it to their attention. We can also report it by directly contacting moderator(s), instance admin(s), and/or directly sending a message to the email address on the project homepage. If the person being reported is on a moderation or admin team, they must recuse themselves from handling the incident.
It's okay to need time to process before coming forward, even if that means reporting an issue we didn't raise right away when it happened. Reaching out to moderators is never a nuisance; it's an act of care for the community.
In addition to the points specified in the Setting Boundaries section, please include in your report:
- Urgency (e.g. is somebody in danger?) and whether the incident is ongoing
- Names (usernames/handles and/or real names) of any individuals involved
- Links and/or screenshots to the relevant conversation or content
- Any additional information or context that may be helpful
Please keep in mind:
- Reports that include links, screenshots, or context are much easier to assess.
- While all good-faith reports are reviewed, not all result in the specific outcome requested.
- We always have the right to mute or block others where needed, and these are valid forms of boundary-setting.
We do not tolerate retaliation against anyone who, in good faith, reports a concern or participates in an investigation. Retaliation is itself a violation of these guidelines. A report made in good faith (meaning the reporter honestly believes the information is accurate) is valid even if an investigation does not ultimately confirm a violation. An unsubstantiated report is not a false report.
In order to protect moderators from abuse and burnout, they reserve the right to reject any report believed to have been made in bad faith. Reports intended to silence legitimate criticism may be deleted without response.
While a report is being handled, we ask that people avoid publicising the dispute or rallying sentiment against individuals involved. This protects everyone's ability to engage in a fair process, though this should not prevent anyone from speaking up to protect their own or others' immediate safety, or from raising concerns publicly after a moderation process has failed to address them.
Moderators will not name harassment victims without their affirmative consent, and will respect confidentiality requests for the purpose of protecting victims of abuse. At their discretion, they may publicly name a person about whom they've received harassment complaints, or privately warn third parties about them, if they believe that doing so will increase the safety of the community or the general public.
On the fediverse, we sometimes receive reports from users of other instances. When these reports are made, the identity of the reporter is often anonymous. In these cases, we may not be able to follow up directly with the person who made the report.
6. Violations of community guidelines
First and foremost, these guidelines make it clear that it is necessary for communities to self-regulate. This means that asking people to follow community guidelines is not itself a violation of the spirit or intent of our community. It is important to make this clear, because trolls often attempt to put this into question. Subsequently the following agreements bind this document:
- All participants of the community are expected to abide by behavioural norms.
- It is okay to draw boundaries against those who are impeding a space’s community guidelines.
- All communities should be able to create and enforce guidelines.
In the case that individuals do not adhere to the community guidelines, community members and moderators should be empowered to engage in the following tactics:
-
Protect the victim(s) and implement measures needed to ensure their safety.
-
Confront the individuals involved. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to stop immediately, even if they disagree with the assessment.
-
Talk with people involved or who witnessed the issue.
-
Remove, edit, or block posts, comments, commits, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions, contributors or communities that do not align with this Code of Conduct, and communicate reasons for those decisions when and where appropriate.
-
Enlist support of other community moderators (power in numbers)
-
Call out individuals to stop or change specific behaviour(s), privately and/or publicly.
We also practice "calling in": gently drawing someone's attention to harmful patterns in a way that helps them grow, recognising that we all stray and there is always a chance to return.
- Start by assuming good intent (i.e. that the person was just careless or had not realised). The moderator(s) will check that they understand why it is considered harassment or otherwise inappropriate. If they do not understand why, but they wish to understand, they will receive an explanation if the moderator(s) have the time, or they will be pointed in the direction of more information.
During a moderation process, the person reported is presumed to have acted without malicious intent until the facts indicate otherwise. We also recognise that any account of events, whether from the reporter or the reported, may be incomplete or inaccurate, shaped by perspective, emotion, or miscommunication. This is not a reason to dismiss anyone's experience, but it is a reason to investigate carefully before reaching conclusions. Fair process serves everyone.
-
Whenever a participant has made a mistake, we expect them to take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong.
-
If there is a need for education, the person causing offense can ask for more information. They may either be given an explanation or be referred to links and educative content if available. If relevant content is not yet available, or if nobody in the community has the ability, time, or willingness to help, they may need to do their own research.
-
The individuals may be given a chance to apologise to the person(s) they targeted, or make other reparations as appropriate, within a specified time frame.
-
If an understanding and positive outcome cannot be reached, one of these steps may be taken, temporarily or permanently:
- Suspension of participation privileges.
- Removal from the specific space (block the person from one group, but not all spaces).
- Removal from the community (all spaces).
-
A person's history of behaviour may be taken into account when deciding on consequences, while recognising that people have the right to transformation and should not be permanently defined by their worst moments or by the punishments imposed on them by unjust systems.
Our approach is restorative rather than punitive: we prioritise the affected person's voice, recognising that those most impacted know best what they need, and commit to ensuring they are listened to and accompanied through the process. Where possible, consequences aim not at exclusion but at education and re-engagement, creating the conditions for someone to return to community life having understood and addressed the harm they caused.
Of course setting boundaries, including blocking or removal when necessary, is not punishment but a protective act. We aim to be transparent and never quietly tolerate harmful behaviour. When problems are known but worked around rather than addressed, everyone is put at risk. With this in mind, we set clear expectations for how to approach potential conflict and settle disputes peacefully.
The goal is not just to right the wrong but to repair the relationship and address the root conditions that enabled harm, whether interpersonal, structural, or systemic, so as to create new relationships going forward such that the harm can never happen again. True reparation means more than restitution for a specific incident; it means reorganising the conditions and power dynamics that made the harm possible in the first place.
Our commitment to restorative justice extends beyond individual incidents. Where community structures, practices, or patterns of moderation have systematically harmed or excluded people, we recognise the need for broader reparative measures, not merely moving on, but actively redressing the conditions that allowed harm to accumulate.
Rights are not granted by authority; they are inherent and exercised. They can only ever be violated, never taken away. The need to articulate a right arises only when it is under threat. This understanding grounds our approach to harm: when rights are violated, remedy is owed, not as a favour, but as a matter of justice.
Moderation and governance decisions are grounded in these shared guidelines and in fair process, not in ideological orthodoxy, moral righteousness, religious doctrine, or the weight of popular opinion. The fact that a crowd is angry does not make someone guilty; the fact that someone's politics are popular does not place them above scrutiny. We resist the tyranny of unchecked authority and the tyranny of the mob alike, holding ourselves to the same standards regardless of who is involved.
If a moderation action is later found to have been unjust or disproportionate, those affected have the right to remedy, including acknowledgment of the error, reversal of the action where possible, and any other appropriate reparation. Accountability applies to those who govern, not only to those who are governed.
Where possible, we should separate the functions of setting community guidelines, enforcing them (taking immediate action when violations occur), and adjudicating disputes (deliberating on contested cases, interpreting guidelines in ambiguous situations, and hearing appeals). The person who acts in the moment should not always be the sole judge of whether that action was right, especially when there is disagreement. Separating these functions helps ensure that no single person or group holds unchecked authority.
Those who take on roles of coordination, moderation, or stewardship do so in service of the collective will. They carry out the community's mandate, not their own agenda. If they cease to serve the community, they are replaced. We aim to periodically renew these roles, whether through rotation, shared stewardship, or community reaffirmation, so that no individual holds unchecked authority indefinitely.
A community that does not watch over those who govern it risks reproducing the very hierarchies it set out to dismantle. We organise to be free, not to change who commands us.
The community retains the right to withdraw confidence from those in governance or moderation roles when their actions no longer reflect the community's trust or values. Communities and groups also have the right to object to decisions made on their behalf that conflict with their interests or were made without meaningful consultation. Where objection cannot be resolved by dialogue, the matter should be put to the broader community for resolution.
This same principle applies to changes to these guidelines themselves: the community should have a meaningful say in how this code of conduct evolves. While any provision can be revised and improved, the spirit of its core principles (such as self-governance, the commons, restorative justice, and the rights of marginalised groups to organise autonomously) is not up for negotiation. If some find themselves fundamentally at odds with these values, the path is to fork, not to hollow them out from within.
We practice collective self-reflexivity: regularly examining together (not just as individuals) whether our structures, practices, and patterns of organising are living up to our values, and having the courage to reorganise when they are not, even when that means giving up power we have become accustomed to holding.
6.1 Boundary violations and block evasions
Evading a block or time out, continuing to reply to someone who has clearly asked for space, or using alternate accounts to bypass boundaries is considered a form of harassment.
We uphold the importance of consent in conversation, and repeated disregard for others’ limits, even under the guise of “debate” or “free speech”, is not aligned with our values. We are committed to open dialogue, but not at the cost of safety or dignity. Our goal is a low barrier to entry and a high standard of conduct. Let’s help each other learn how to meet that bar.
Appendix
Wrapping up
This community is made up of disparate online collections of people committed to exploring and building an open ecosystem with the awareness and sensitivity of intersectionality. This is fundamentally different from a “public forum” or a “debate hall”.
This requires us to have challenging conversations about privilege, power, history, culture, inequality, pain, injustice, trauma, and the influence of hegemonic ideas, institutions and practices. Our goal is to have these dialogues and debates from a place of compassion that honours our shared humanity. We recognise this may require us to level up our conversational skills, both as individuals and as a collective. Hence the spirit of learning together must try to describe this process in detail. We believe this kind of work is transformative, and any learning here will initiate similar changes in the other communities we participate in.
If we think about how difficult conversations can be online, we might consider the following points:
- In the ‘flesh’ world of in-person conversation, we have centuries of methods that we have developed that enable people to attempt to communicate and act appropriately when situations break down.
- Online and social media platforms are often more like a social wilderness by default, setting people up to fail. See the classic Tyranny of Structurelessness about the perils of insufficient social structures.
- Minimal intervention works best when there are realistic means (structures, processes) for setting boundaries or making consent-based decisions and resolving conflicts in a horizontal way. Cyber bullying is real, and we often have no real idea how conversations are affecting individuals, so it seems better to err on the side of spelling things out “more” rather than “less” as there is a lot to be aware of when addressing difficult topics.
- Most likely it will be encouraging in some way, or a chance to learn something new, as they have arisen out of a lot of care and extensive practice and learnings from various online communities.
- Admins and moderators are often unpaid roles. They can be very exhausting and it is much better if the role of keeping a strong community culture is shared more widely by everyone. So we need to be empowered to facilitate each other, and these guidelines are a learning process about how to have conversations online.
This code of conduct outlines our expectations for participants within our shared spaces, as well as steps for reporting unacceptable behaviour.
Expectations are neither rights nor privileges, but rather shared aims and intentions based on research that have evolved from the collective work of dozens of communities trying to find effective rules for communities to run by.
These expectations include the idea that anyone who violates this code of conduct may face restrictions, including temporary or permanent banning from community spaces.
Accessibility and multilingual support
To help make Bonfire a welcoming space for all participants, we encourage the use of:
- Alt text and image descriptions for any visual content.
- Thoughtful use of emojis or decorative characters, avoiding those that disrupt screen reader functionality or comprehension.
Bonfire spaces are multilingual and decentralized. While English, (along with French, Italian, and Spanish) may be the most commonly used language so far, many participants speak other languages. Where possible, we will seek support from multilingual contributors to bridge understanding, and we may also use translation tools to facilitate communication.
Communication is not just what we say, it’s how we ensure others can receive it. Accessibility is a community value.
Extra Resources
NVC (Nonviolent Communication)
Any investment in learning NVC is an investment in better relationships in our life. NVC can help diffuse conflicts, by getting to what is underneath them.
There are two aspects to NVC: one is the deeper attitude (spirit) behind it and the other aspect is the technique. If the technique is applied without the deeper attitude behind it, it can be used as a weapon, like any technique used in bad faith.
There are four practical components to the technique. Remember that it is a practice. Most of us are not trained to think in these ways. Each component requires practice. It is really useful to know and understand the philosophy behind each one.
If you're not familiar with it, you can start with this introduction to NVC. You can go further with these resources or this article about NVC in the context of code reviews.
Let's keep in mind that communication is not easy:
- it is hard in real life
- it is harder online when conflicts occur
- it is harder still when we are dealing with conflicts on difficult topics
- it is even harder at a time when these topics are showing up everywhere... it can wear you down, and everyone involved.
NVC IS NOT A PANACEA. There are times in life when you would not have time to use it and it would not be appropriate.
We’re not saying this to get everyone down. We are saying this to honour how well we do, in fact, considering all these challenges, most of the time. We don’t always get it right. But the point is to learn together, gradually. And sometimes we are pushed to accelerate our learning because of events that lead to fractioning, frictions, conflicts and group forking.
Trolling and bad-faith tactics
We live in an age of tactical online aggression. With regard to social engineering, we take extra exception to the following tactics and practices: Dogpiling, Camping, misdirection, gish gallop, “Angry Jack Syndrome”, baiting (reductio ad X), suppressing power level, crowd cover, crypto/redpilling, and “silent identity attacks.”
We want to promote our community's literacies with regard to identifying and combatting disruption tactics. See for example:
Attribution & Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the many communities and projects that established code of conducts, which inspired this one, particularly:
- The authors of Designing Care and Commoning into a Code of Conduct, who put a lot of care into their community guidelines, which were in large part copied for this document.
- The Zapatistas (EZLN), particularly the principles of Zapatismo, the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona (2005), and the Women's Revolutionary Laws (1994)
- Social Contract of the Democratic Autonomous Federation of Northern Syria (2014 and 2023)
- Geek Feminism's Community Policy
- Enspiral's handbook
- Sunbeam City co-operative
- kolektiva.social
- Contributor Covenant
- Co-op Cloud's Code of Co-operation, with inspiration from LURK and others
- Sutty's Code for sharing
- LGBTQ in Technology
- The Anti-Oppression Network
- Occupy London
- Occupy Dame Street
- Mutual Aid Disaster Relief's guiding principles, code of conduct, and facilitation guide
- Movement Generation
- The Movement for Black Lives — Vision for Black Lives (2016, updated 2020)
- Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing
- Food Not Bombs
- Principles of Environmental Justice
- Principles of Climate Justice ()
- Youth Principles of Collaboration (Second National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit)
- #WeGotOurBlock — Mutual Aid 101 Toolkit
- Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next) by Dean Spade (Verso, 2020)
- scott crow, Anarchy and the Common Ground Collective (2006)
- Red de Apoyo Mutuo de Puerto Rico
- Humans United in Mutual Aid Networks (HUMANs)
- Gathering for Open Science Hardware (GOSH), with inspiration from The Carpentries, The Turing Way, Django, and others.
- Queer code
- Fedora
- Python
- Elixir