5 ms·

If they really care about being banned, they'll have no choice but to follow thorough

by Zarathust 5y ago

simlevesque 5y ago
Yeah and that's some heavy shade on a university. They'll lose good students if this is not fixed.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I don't think that's the case (due to how fame works) and I don't even think it's particularly productive to bring up that point. Their actions should be rectified since they did wrong - not out of fear of a punishment. When we bring only a specific punishment in as a consequence then the question of how to respond can be shifted over to a "which is worse" proposition which means that the punishment needs to be properly proportioned. At any rate - I doubt admissions would be appreciably impacted even if they handled this incident extremely poorly - some potential grad students might look elsewhere while most would likely be ignorant of the whole incident.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    There are enough of us here that have heard about this as to make a UMN degree worth less because we will trash a resume with that name on it.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I certainly wouldn't do so - this looks like it was a research topic by one professor and one grad student... So nearly no one with a degree from UMN was involved with this. Even the specific grad student was college aged at the time and we all did stupid stuff when we were young. I think this only really rubs off on the professor since they clearly should've known better. Honestly I think the biggest blow to the university will be when it comes to hiring CS professors - those are the only folks likely to do the due diligence on this topic or be passively aware of it.
- Arainach 5y ago
  >They'll lose good students if this is not fixed. "Ability to commit to the Linux kernel with my school email" isn't likely to be a major issue for many. It's a non-issue for undergrad work, and even most grad students are unlikely to be affected. Other than this research, only one other person associated with UMN has committed code to the kernel. This impacts any direct school-sponsored research work, but if some random student wants to write a patch, they'll just do it from a personal address - no kernel committer is going to go do social media stalking of every contributor.
  - oivey 5y ago
    Maybe practically this doesn’t prevent most students or faculty from doing anything, but it is a huge reputation problem. How many universities (or organizations in general) are banned from contributing to the Linux kernel? When people search for why, they’ll find a research group basically screwing over their collaborators and anyone else who uses Linux. That that exists at UMN could be viewed as a serious cultural problem at the university and dissuade prospective students and collaborators from contact with UMN. That in real terms costs the university prestige and money.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I feel you're overvaluing the ability to contribute to the linux kernel - this is definitely a bad thing and the university should work to correct the situation. But when I was looking at colleges and universties (for undergrad - I didn't pursue a grad degree) I didn't ever ask if the university was blacklisted by any open source organizations. I don't think anyone would notice this ban - it'd just be an odd curiosity and impediment to any student that tried to submit a patch... that is assuming it doesn't hit the main news circuit.... But, if I hear about this on Colbert tonight I'll be amazed. The fact that the FBI raided Steve Jackson Games[1] over GURPS: Cyberpunk is, I think, completely absent from general public knowledge at this point - even though that incident[2] led to the creation of the EFF which most folks on HN will certainly be familiar with. Notoriety is a fickle thing and no matter how negative the incident is it'll usually either fade into nothingness or give a positive boost to the organization - this is where the concept of "there's no such thing as bad press" comes from. I, at least, am far more aware of UMN now than I was this morning. 1. http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ 2. There's some disagreement over how central this incident was to the EFF's foundation, but from what I've read it was pretty darn central.
dpwm 5y ago
I’ve read and re-read that statement, and it seems like the ban is the focus – not what led to the ban. I get that they may not know anything, but there are other ways to word that without admitting liability, making it seem less like the focus is on the ban and more on the allegedly shady stuff.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  I'm not sure how you get that. The ban is mentioned as part of a single sentence that acknowledges the current state of the situation, which seems obligatory, so of course it's there. Then the whole second paragraph is talking about how they're shutting down the activity that led to that situation while they work on getting to the bottom of it. This seems like an entirely appropriate balance of text and emphasis for a statement that is short and to the point. Which is also appropriate and laudable. Typically when an organization says any more, it's to try and do some spin doctoring.
  - dpwm 5y ago
    > The research method used raised serious concerns in the Linux Kernel community and, as of today, this has resulted in the University being banned from contributing to the Linux Kernel. > We take this situation extremely seriously. I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation. Once you’ve had the two linked, it’s like one of those ambiguous optical illusions, where you just can’t see the other. If I were writing that statement, I’d be concerned it looked that had there been no ban, there would be no situation. Said statement doesn’t do that for me.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation. So, as long as you ignore the formatting they presented it with and decide to read it without it, you can come to a different conclusion? I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.

If they really care about being banned, they'll have no choice but to follow thorough

simlevesque 5y ago

Yeah and that's some heavy shade on a university. They'll lose good students if this is not fixed.

munk-a 5y ago
I don't think that's the case (due to how fame works) and I don't even think it's particularly productive to bring up that point. Their actions should be rectified since they did wrong - not out of fear of a punishment. When we bring only a specific punishment in as a consequence then the question of how to respond can be shifted over to a "which is worse" proposition which means that the punishment needs to be properly proportioned. At any rate - I doubt admissions would be appreciably impacted even if they handled this incident extremely poorly - some potential grad students might look elsewhere while most would likely be ignorant of the whole incident.
- bluGill 5y ago
  There are enough of us here that have heard about this as to make a UMN degree worth less because we will trash a resume with that name on it.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I certainly wouldn't do so - this looks like it was a research topic by one professor and one grad student... So nearly no one with a degree from UMN was involved with this. Even the specific grad student was college aged at the time and we all did stupid stuff when we were young. I think this only really rubs off on the professor since they clearly should've known better. Honestly I think the biggest blow to the university will be when it comes to hiring CS professors - those are the only folks likely to do the due diligence on this topic or be passively aware of it.
Arainach 5y ago
>They'll lose good students if this is not fixed. "Ability to commit to the Linux kernel with my school email" isn't likely to be a major issue for many. It's a non-issue for undergrad work, and even most grad students are unlikely to be affected. Other than this research, only one other person associated with UMN has committed code to the kernel. This impacts any direct school-sponsored research work, but if some random student wants to write a patch, they'll just do it from a personal address - no kernel committer is going to go do social media stalking of every contributor.
- oivey 5y ago
  Maybe practically this doesn’t prevent most students or faculty from doing anything, but it is a huge reputation problem. How many universities (or organizations in general) are banned from contributing to the Linux kernel? When people search for why, they’ll find a research group basically screwing over their collaborators and anyone else who uses Linux. That that exists at UMN could be viewed as a serious cultural problem at the university and dissuade prospective students and collaborators from contact with UMN. That in real terms costs the university prestige and money.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I feel you're overvaluing the ability to contribute to the linux kernel - this is definitely a bad thing and the university should work to correct the situation. But when I was looking at colleges and universties (for undergrad - I didn't pursue a grad degree) I didn't ever ask if the university was blacklisted by any open source organizations. I don't think anyone would notice this ban - it'd just be an odd curiosity and impediment to any student that tried to submit a patch... that is assuming it doesn't hit the main news circuit.... But, if I hear about this on Colbert tonight I'll be amazed. The fact that the FBI raided Steve Jackson Games[1] over GURPS: Cyberpunk is, I think, completely absent from general public knowledge at this point - even though that incident[2] led to the creation of the EFF which most folks on HN will certainly be familiar with. Notoriety is a fickle thing and no matter how negative the incident is it'll usually either fade into nothingness or give a positive boost to the organization - this is where the concept of "there's no such thing as bad press" comes from. I, at least, am far more aware of UMN now than I was this morning. 1. http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ 2. There's some disagreement over how central this incident was to the EFF's foundation, but from what I've read it was pretty darn central.

dpwm 5y ago

I’ve read and re-read that statement, and it seems like the ban is the focus – not what led to the ban. I get that they may not know anything, but there are other ways to word that without admitting liability, making it seem less like the focus is on the ban and more on the allegedly shady stuff.

mumblemumble 5y ago
I'm not sure how you get that. The ban is mentioned as part of a single sentence that acknowledges the current state of the situation, which seems obligatory, so of course it's there. Then the whole second paragraph is talking about how they're shutting down the activity that led to that situation while they work on getting to the bottom of it. This seems like an entirely appropriate balance of text and emphasis for a statement that is short and to the point. Which is also appropriate and laudable. Typically when an organization says any more, it's to try and do some spin doctoring.
- dpwm 5y ago
  > The research method used raised serious concerns in the Linux Kernel community and, as of today, this has resulted in the University being banned from contributing to the Linux Kernel. > We take this situation extremely seriously. I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation. Once you’ve had the two linked, it’s like one of those ambiguous optical illusions, where you just can’t see the other. If I were writing that statement, I’d be concerned it looked that had there been no ban, there would be no situation. Said statement doesn’t do that for me.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation. So, as long as you ignore the formatting they presented it with and decide to read it without it, you can come to a different conclusion? I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.