diff --git a/docs/adr/2021-08-26-code-of-conduct.md b/docs/adr/2021-08-26-code-of-conduct.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9441bd9d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/adr/2021-08-26-code-of-conduct.md
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Expectations of community are clearly explained by a code of conduct
+
+* Status: accepted
+* Deciders: @relequestual, @Julian, @jdesrosiers, @karenetheridge
+* Date: 2021-08-26
+
+## Context and Problem Statement
+
+To the best of my knowledge, JSON Schema has never formally had a Code of Conduct (CoC).
+
+I personally recall a few instances where a CoC may have been useful.
+
+We want to make people feel welcome, and so should have a formal CoC.
+
+## Decision Drivers
+
+* We have had a few instances where it would have been useful to have a CoC
+* Assuming we continue to join the OpenJS Foundation, they would expect us to have a CoC
+* Not having a CoC may make our community less welcoming
+
+## Considered Options
+
+* Contributor Covenant
+* IETF BCP 54
+* Roll our own
+* Combination of Contributor Covenant and IETF BCP 54
+
+## Decision Outcome
+
+We decided to use the Contributor Covenant in conjunction with IETF BCP 54.
+
+BCP 54 defines some specifics on how we should interact with each other which the Contributor Covenant does not.
+
+For example: "We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument rather than through intimidation or personal attack."
+
+Further, should we choose to pursue publication throught the IETF, we would remain compatible in a sense.
+
+## Pros and Cons of the Options <!-- optional -->
+
+### Contributor Covenant
+
+The Contributor Covenant is well established and regarded as a de-facto Code of Conduct option for open source projects.
+
+* Good, because it is well known and recognised as a good and useful Code of Conduct base
+* Good, because the familiarty of it from other communities will make people feel more comfortable
+* Good, because we do not have unqiue needs as a community
+* Good, because we can discuss situations or get help from other projects/orgs (Such as OpenJSF) that use the same Code of Conduct
+* Good, because it can be modified / added to, and used as just a base
+
+### BCP 54 / RFC 7154
+
+BCP 54 is an Internet Best Current Practice memo document, used by all new IETF based RFCs and publications.
+It outlines behavioural and conduct expectations for individual contributors, including the expectation to actually contribute.
+
+* Good, because we want to operate using general consensus by understanding others
+* Good, because it considers the type of work we are producing
+* Bad, because it doesn't reflect our organisational situation (We aren't working under an IETF Chair for example)
+* Bad, because consequences don't reflect our projects operations
+
+### Roll our own
+
+* Good, because it would be exactly what we think we want
+* Bad, because it would likely not be what we actually need
+* Bad, because none of our core contributors have experience writing a Code of Conduct
+
+### Combination of Contributor Covenant and IETF BCP 54
+
+* Good, because we can pick the parts from BCP 54 that are applicable to our organization
+* Good, because we have clear enforcement for conduct which covers the whole Code of Conduct
+
+## Links
+
+* Discussion: [We should adopt a Code of Conduct. Let's start with Contributor Covenant #2](https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/discussions/2)
+* Issue: [Adopt a Code of Conduct for JSON Schema #26](https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/issues/26)
+* Pull Request [Add ADR for Code of Conduct](https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/pull/41)
+* https://www.contributor-covenant.org
+* [BCP54 / RFC7154](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154)