AAEP Code of Conduct

1. Our pledge

We, the contributors and maintainers of the Agent Accessibility Event Protocol, pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and accessible community.

Accessibility is the reason this project exists. Disability is not a character flaw to overlook in the name of inclusion — it is a defining context for our work. Disabled contributors and users are central to this project, not an afterthought to be accommodated.

2. Our standards

2.1 Behavior we welcome

• Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward others
• Respecting differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
• Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
• Accepting responsibility, apologizing to those affected by mistakes, and learning from the experience
• Focusing on what is best for the overall community, with particular attention to AT users
• Using clear, inclusive language; avoiding jargon when alternatives exist
• Providing alternative text descriptions for images shared in discussions
• Using descriptive link text rather than "click here" or bare URLs in shared documents
• Being patient with contributors using assistive technology, machine translation, or accessibility-related accommodations

2.2 Behavior we don't accept

• The use of sexualized language, imagery, or sexual attention of any kind
• Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
• Public or private harassment
• Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
• Ableist language or comments that diminish, mock, or invalidate disabled people's experiences
• Dismissing or minimizing accessibility concerns ("it's just an edge case", "users can adapt", "we'll fix it later")
• Speaking on behalf of disabled people without their consent
• Demanding that disabled contributors explain or justify their accommodations
• "Inspiration porn" — treating disabled contributors as motivational props rather than peers
• Other conduct that could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

2.3 Accessibility-specific norms

Because AAEP exists to serve AT users, we hold ourselves to higher accessibility standards than most projects:

• Listen first. When a disabled contributor or user describes their experience, listen and understand before responding. Don't immediately propose solutions; understand the problem first.
• Don't assume capability. A contributor's use of voice dictation, screen reader output, or machine translation is not a deficiency. It's a working tool. Comment on the substance of their contribution, not the form.
• Take "this is a barrier" reports seriously. If a contributor reports that something in our process, tools, or documentation is inaccessible to them, treat it as a bug, not an opinion.
• Disclose self-advocacy explicitly when relevant. When advocating for an accessibility feature, you may (but are not required to) note whether you're advocating from personal experience, from observation, or from research. This isn't a requirement — disability disclosure is always voluntary — but it can help calibrate weight when it's offered.
• Don't gate-keep disability identity. Disability is a self-identified category. We don't ask people to prove or justify it.

3. Enforcement responsibilities

Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards. They will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned with this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate.

During the bootstrap period (defined in GOVERNANCE.md §2.4), enforcement responsibility rests with the Protocol Architect. The Protocol Architect may consult with the Advisory Committee for guidance but holds final authority. After the bootstrap period, enforcement responsibility transfers to the Steering Committee.

4. Scope

This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include:

• Using an official AAEP email address
• Posting via official AAEP social media accounts
• Acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event
• Participating in AAEP discussion forums, issue trackers, or chat channels
• Speaking at conferences as an AAEP maintainer

This Code of Conduct also applies in situations where an individual's behavior outside community spaces directly and seriously harms the community or its members.

5. Reporting

If you experience or witness behavior that violates this Code of Conduct, please report it through one of these channels:

5.1 Primary channel

Email: conduct@aaep-protocol.org

This address routes to the current enforcement authority (the Protocol Architect during bootstrap, the Steering Committee Conduct Subcommittee afterwards). Reports are treated as confidential except as needed for investigation.

5.2 If the primary channel is the source of the conduct issue

If your report involves the Protocol Architect (during bootstrap) or a Steering Committee member, you may report to:

Email: conduct-escalation@aaep-protocol.org

During the bootstrap period, this routes to the Advisory Committee, who will appoint an independent investigator if needed. After the bootstrap period, it routes to Steering Committee members not implicated in the report.

5.3 What to include in a report

You don't need to be formal. Helpful information includes:

• What happened (in your own words; we don't require a specific format)
• When it happened, approximately
• Where it happened (issue link, PR comment, email thread, conference, etc.)
• Who was involved
• Whether you've raised it with the person directly (you don't have to have done this)
• Any supporting context (screenshots, links, etc.)
• What outcome you're hoping for (acknowledgment, mediation, removal, ban, etc.)

You can include only what you're comfortable sharing. We can investigate with limited information; we just may need to ask follow-up questions.

5.4 What happens next

1. Acknowledgment within 3 business days. The enforcement authority confirms receipt and explains next steps.
2. Investigation typically completes within 14 business days. The investigator gathers context, may speak with involved parties, and reviews relevant communications.
3. Decision is communicated to the reporter and, separately, to the person whose behavior was reported. The reporter learns the general nature of the outcome but not necessarily its specifics.
4. Enforcement action is taken if warranted (see §6).

We aim to keep reporters informed throughout. If investigation extends beyond 14 business days, the reporter is told the reason and a revised timeline.

5.5 Anonymous reports

You may submit anonymous reports. They receive the same investigation but may be harder to act on without the ability to ask follow-up questions. We don't require you to identify yourself, but identifying yourself helps us serve you better.

6. Enforcement guidelines

Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:

6.1 Correction

Community Impact: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.

Consequence: A private, written warning from a community leader, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.

6.2 Warning

Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions.

Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

6.3 Temporary ban

Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior.

Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.

6.4 Permanent ban

Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.

Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.

7. Appeal process

If you disagree with an enforcement decision (whether you were the reporter or the subject), you may appeal:

1. Within 30 days of the decision, send an appeal email to conduct-appeals@aaep-protocol.org.
2. The appeal is reviewed by community leaders who were not part of the original decision. During the bootstrap period, this is the Advisory Committee; after the bootstrap, this is Steering Committee members not involved in the original case.
3. Appeals are decided within 30 business days. Appeal outcomes are final.

The appeal process is genuine. Decisions are sometimes reversed or modified on appeal. We don't treat appeal as an annoyance to be deflected.

8. Confidentiality

Reports and investigations are confidential. We share information only with those who need it to investigate and act. We do not:

• Publish reporters' names without their explicit consent
• Discuss specifics of cases in public forums
• Share investigation materials beyond the enforcement team
• Confirm or deny that a specific person has been reported

We may publish aggregate, anonymized statistics about Code of Conduct activity once per year (number of reports, number of enforcement actions taken, etc.) to demonstrate that the system is being used.

We may publicly acknowledge an enforcement decision when the subject of the decision publicly disputes it in ways that misrepresent what happened, with the consent of involved reporters.

9. Conflicts of interest

Community leaders involved in a Code of Conduct case must recuse themselves if they have:

• A personal relationship with the reporter or subject
• A financial interest that could be affected by the outcome
• A prior involvement that could reasonably be perceived as biasing them

Recusal is determined by the recusing leader's own judgment but may also be requested by any party.

10. Attribution and adaptation

This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant version 2.1, available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. It has been modified to add:

• An accessibility-specific norms section (§2.3)
• Bootstrap-period enforcement structure that matches our governance state
• Explicit appeal process with non-trivial review (§7)
• Confidentiality commitments with annual statistics publication (§8)

For Community Impact Guidelines, we adapted Mozilla's code of conduct enforcement ladder.

11. Updates to this Code

This Code of Conduct may be amended by an ACP at the constitutional decision tier (GOVERNANCE.md §3.4). The amendment requires:

1. Public discussion of at least 30 days
2. Two-thirds supermajority of the Steering Committee
3. Notice to all known active contributors

Material changes are announced in the changelog and on the announcement channel.

12. Acknowledgments

We thank the disability rights community for decades of work that shaped how this document approaches accessibility norms. Specific influences:

• The Center for Independent Living movement (independent vs. dependent framing)
• Disability Justice principles (collective access, leadership of those most impacted)
• The W3C WAI's Accessible Communications guidance
• The disability community's long-standing position: "Nothing about us without us"

We also thank the Contributor Covenant, the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines, and Rust's Code of Conduct project for serving as the foundation of this document.