Hi @adagj , thanks for bringing this up.
I see that it could be useful to explicitly state a code of conduct for the NorESM community, but how will it work in practice? Hopefully, we will not have a problem of this sort, but if there are complaints, we need to have some procedures in place to handle them.

• who should respond to complaints?
• who should be included in discussions to decide what actions to take?

If there is a conflict in the NorESM community, I think it will be useful to have clarified the roles and procedures before hand.

I support this. In addition to Tomas' feedback, it would be good to report 'anonymously'.

@TomasTorsvik, perhaps a rotating committee with representation from each partner.

I support this, the text from the AMWG is very good. I believe that the NCC consortium and their representatives have to take responsibility for any follow up on any complaint. Which means that the NCC institute representatives have to discuss this (also).

I agree that the text at AMWG is good, but I think it will be hard to use it for anything except good intentions. Since any project obligations is on the institutions not individuals, the code of conduct must also be accepted on an institutional level. How to respond to/treat any complaints is also an issue, but can likely be done be done with a group of partner representatives e.g. following the suggestion from Jerry. I tried to look at the AMWG complaint form btw and it was not accessible.

I also support this. I also like the example of the Atmosphere Working Group - it is concise and clear. I also agree that we then need a good way of reporting and a well defined responsibility for following up reports.

Thanks you so much for commenting. We'll address this in the upcoming NCC meeting @matsbn

I see that this issue is still open. NCAR was forced to remove the code of conduct due to political considerations. The impact is the code of conduct is gone in the most recent updates of CAM. It can / should? still be included at the top level of NorESM

I agree that it would be good for us to at least 'maintain' this concept while it is on hold in the US :/

It was discussed in the NCC meeting in the autumn. I fear I lost track of what was decided then. Hopefully Mats or Ada remember. All institutions have to back this up in a reasonable way.

There is a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in the noresm_develop branch, but it is referencing CESM. We could copy this over to the master branch as a starting point.