The magnitude of the impact of the decision to create our Code of Conduct dwarfs my decision to keep growth sensible by designing a robot-unfriendly complex application process. The fact that it exists addresses many initial concerns of the community. Its regular use in conversations within the community gives us a useful playbook for deconstructing complex people issues. Most of every week since the Code of Conduct landed, I’ve used to explain a bit of this community to another member. Most months, I take time to edit it to help clarify the thinking laid out in the artifact. Policy changes land in the document multiple times a year because I do what I initially failed to do when the community asked for its existence — I listen.

When I realized the single best feedback source on what the community needed was the community, my job became obvious. Not enforcer, but educator. This feedback does not arrive conveniently. It’s usually packaged inside high drama. Two or three, or fifty members are ready to fight. Tempers are often high. When they show up, I clench my jaw and remember that while they might not know it, they are teaching me about the community, and I have to listen to understand the lesson. I have to empathize with the concerns, but not so much that I participate in the often heated emotions. My job is to ask questions to gather as many perspectives as possible. Finally, I must decide: “Does our Code of Conduct help resolve this situation? Or does it need to evolve?”

I need to find the lesson and then do the work to teach that lesson to everyone else.