Open Letter to the Linux Foundation
致Linux基金會的公開信
08 November 2019
20191108
To: The Linux Foundation
致：Linux基金會
Jim Zemlin: Executive Director
Jim Zemlin：執行董事
Angela Brown: VP of Events
安吉拉·布朗：事件副總裁
Andy Updegrove: Legal Council
安迪·厄普德格羅夫：法律委員會
From: Robert Martin (@unclebobmartin) ([email protected])
來自：Robert Martin(@unclebobmartin) ([email protected])
Re: Code of Conduct case of Charles Max Wood.
回覆：查爾斯·馬克斯·伍德行爲準則案。
Dear Linux Foundation:
尊敬的Linux基金會：
I am writing to you as a concerned member of the software development community which I have enjoyed serving for the last 50 years. I am writing in public because the events I wish to describe took place in public. I fear that something has gone terribly wrong within your organization; and that it will have deep repercussions within this industry that I cherish.
我寫信給你作爲一個軟件開發社區的有關成員，我在過去的50年裏一直很享受服務。我在公共場合寫作是因爲我想描述的事件發生在公共場合。我擔心你的組織出了嚴重的問題，我所珍視的這個行業將會產生深遠的影響。
The timeline of events, as far as I can determine them, is as follows:
據我所知，事件的時間表如下
The Linux Foundation received a public tweet sent to the @KubeCon twitter address. That tweet recommended that Kube Con discontinue their association with Charles Max Wood. The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat.
Linux基金會收到了一條發送到@KubeCon twitter地址的公開tweet。那條推特建議庫貝·孔停止與查爾斯·馬克斯·伍德的交往。在這一申訴中提出的理由是，他要求打一個公開和文明的電話，以及一張伍德先生戴着馬加帽的照片。
The Linux Foundation publicly replied from the @linuxfoundation twitter account as follows:
Linux基金會公開從@ LINUX基金會Twitter賬戶回覆如下：
Hi all, We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated and his registration to the event has been revoked. Our events should and will be a safe space.
大家好，我們已經查看了社交和視頻，確定違反了活動行爲準則，並已取消了他對活動的註冊。我們的活動應該也將是一個安全的空間。
First let me say that I find it highly problematic that the complaint and the decision were public. Indeed I am surprised that LF would accept a publicly submitted code of conduct complaint. I am much more than surprised that LF would ever consider publicly responding to such a complaint. Indeed, it seems to me that the public complaint, and perhaps even the public response by LF, could be seen as public harassment – which is explicitly prohibited by the LF Code of Conduct.
首先，讓我先講述一下，我發現投訴和決定是公開的，這是非常有問題的。事實上，我很驚訝，如果接受公開提交的行爲準則投訴。我非常驚訝，如果你考慮公開回應這樣的投訴。事實上，在我看來，公衆的抱怨，甚至是LF的公衆迴應，都可以被視爲公衆騷擾——LF的行爲準則明確禁止公衆騷擾。
It seems to me that Code of Conduct complaints made in public must be immediately rejected and viewed as Code of Conduct violations in and of themselves. Code of Conduct complaints should be submitted in private and remain private and confidential in order to prevent their use as a means of harassment. It also seems to me that while the process of accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating such complaints should be public, the proceedings and decision of each individual case should remain private and confidential in order to protect the parties from harm. Making them a public showcase is, simply, horrible.
在我看來，公開提出的行爲守則投訴必須立即予以拒絕，並視爲違反行爲守則本身。行爲守則投訴應私下提交，並保密，以防止其被用作騷擾手段。在我看來，雖然受理、審查和裁決這些申訴的過程應該是公開的，但每個案件的程序和決定都應該保密，以保護當事人不受損害。讓他們成爲公衆的展示，簡單地說，是可怕的。
Was the Code of Conduct actually violated by Mr. Wood? I have watched the videos in question and read the tweets and I can find no instance where Mr Wood violated the LF Code of Conduct. I understand that LF can make any decision they like about what constitutes a Code of Conduct violation. However, when both the complaint and the response are so blatantly public, it seems to me that LF owes it to the observing community to explain their decision and describe the due process that was used to make it – including the decision to make the public response that undoubtedly caused harm to Mr. Wood. To date no such explanation has been forthcoming, despite repeated requests.
伍德先生真的違反了行爲準則嗎？我看過相關視頻，也看過微博，我找不到伍德違反LF行爲準則的任何例子。我知道如果你能做出任何他們喜歡的決定什麼構成了違反行爲準則。然而，當投訴和迴應都如此公開的時候，在我看來，如果有責任向觀察羣體解釋他們的決定，並描述作出決定的正當程序——包括作出無疑對伍德先生造成傷害的公開回應的決定。迄今爲止，儘管一再提出要求，但仍沒有作出這種解釋。
The software community needs to understand how decisions like this are going to be made. Otherwise those of us who have watched this case may be forced to conclude that LF has no internal process, that no due diligence will be applied to Code of Conduct complaints and determinations, that the accused will have no rights either of appeal or privacy, that LF feels free to make its decisions based on the blowing of political winds, and will loudly announce their decisions regardless of the harm it might cause.
軟件社區需要了解如何做出這樣的決定。否則，我們這些看過這起案件的人可能會被迫斷定，如果沒有內部程序，行爲準則申訴和裁決將不適用盡職調查，被告將沒有上訴或隱私權，如果認爲可以根據政治風向自由作出決定，並將大聲宣佈他們的決定，無論它可能造成的傷害。
Therefore I have the following questions:
因此我有如下問題：
-
Why was the initial complaint accepted and acknowledged in public? It was clearly political in nature, and very clearly intended to cause harm to Mr. Wood.
-
爲什麼最初的不滿會被公衆接受和承認呢？這顯然是政治性質的，而且很明顯是爲了傷害Wood先生。
-
Is it LF policy to accept complaints that, in and of themselves, violate the LF Code of Conduct?
-
接受投訴本身違反了LF行爲準則，這是LF的政策嗎？
-
Why was the Code of Conduct determination announced publicly, despite the harm it would obviously cause to Mr. Wood?
-
爲什麼要公開宣佈行爲準則的決定，儘管它顯然會對Wood先生造成傷害？
-
Can LF specifically justify the determination that Mr. Wood violated the Code of Conduct?
-
Wood先生違反了行爲準則，你能具體解釋一下嗎？
-
Does LF have a documented process by which Code of Conduct complaints are to be submitted, reviewed, and adjudicated?
-
LF是否有一個記錄在案的程序來提交、審查和裁決行爲準則投訴？
-
Is it LF policy to consider political affiliation, or support of certain public officials, as Code of Conduct violations?
-
如果政策上把政治派別或某些公職人員的支持視爲違反行爲準則？
-
Is it LF policy to publicly denounce registrants who have been determined to have violated the LF Code of Conduct?
-
公開譴責那些被認定違反了LF行爲準則的註冊人是LF的政策嗎？
-
Does LF have a Code of Conduct for how it conducts itself?
-
如果有自己的行爲準則嗎？
In summary, it appears to this humble observer that The Code of Conduct process at The Linux Foundation went very badly off the rails with regard to Charles Max Wood. That LF owes Mr. Wood, and the Software Community at large, a profoundapology. That LF should keep all future Code of Conduct complaints and decisions personal and confidential. That LF should publish and follow a well defined process for accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating future Code of Conduct complaints. And that some form of reparation be provided to Mr. Wood for the public harm that was done to him by the careless and unprofessional behavior of The Linux Foundation.
總之，在這個謙遜的觀察家看來，Linux基金會的行爲準則進程在Charles Max Wood方面嚴重偏離了軌道。如果你欠Wood先生和整個軟件界一個深刻的道歉。LF應將所有未來的行爲準則投訴和決定保密。LF應公佈並遵循一個明確的程序，以接受、審查和裁決未來的行爲準則投訴。對於Linux基金會的粗心大意和不專業的行爲對Wood先生造成的公衆傷害，應向他提供某種形式的賠償。
Yours
你的
Robert C. Martin.
羅伯特.馬丁