3 ms·

> At any point they can just say "we're still investigating" until enough time has passed people aren't paying attention any more. They need to act to get the

> At any point they can just say "we're still investigating" until enough time has passed people aren't paying attention any more. They need to act to get the ban rescinded, they can't just ignore this issue away.

agf 6y ago
I agree, that's why in this case (as I say in my post) I believe they'll follow through.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  As the pressure is already on them to rectify the situation, there's no need to for an artificial deadline. It adds nothing, but could delay their announcement or force them to publish an incomplete response.
- GauntletWizard 6y ago
  "and we admit that a full accounting for these actions is necessary before our ban is rescinded" is a valid (albeit even less common) form of making sure that they are held accountable. Nonetheless, it is important that the accused admits it. The common case today is that admitting you are due to account for your actions is the same as admitting that you are at fault. I have been denied jobs because I have admitted that to being accountable for my decisions, whereas I got the distinct impression had I simply not accounted for them they wouldn't have cared.
sangnoir 6y ago
> They need to act to get the ban rescinded, they can't just ignore this issue away. I doubt that - in the other thread, someone noted that the last non-hostile kernel contribution from @umn.edu was in 2014. I don't think they are champing at the bit to get legit kernel contributions merged - or at least haven't in the past 7 years. At this point, it is purely a reputation/PR problem with little urgency - the ban is not blocking anyone's work at the university (except for the suspended research project)
- bluGill 6y ago
  The real urgency is they need to protect their reputation. So long as they do a proper investigation and take proper action they can spin this as a rouge professor and be forgiven. We as a community should give them time to investigate and figure out how to handle and prevent this, and then if done correctly forgive them. If they make this statement and then there is no action within a year, then we should assume this is a token attempt to sweep things under the rug and continue with more bans. For now I'll accept their apology, but if there is no action in the future I'll retract that.
  - giardini 6y ago
    bluGill says: "...rouge professor? "
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      It's a common misspelling, and I find it particularly grating (that, and "tounge" *shivers*). However, I've been getting better at reflexively requesting corrections as I also have some words I constantly misspell.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Well ya know you have to find out the details to make a decision, no? Snap decisions are almost always wrong until you know the facts, no just one side, but all sides. This is the same shit that happens in the 24/7 newscycle "now now now"

agf 6y ago

I agree, that's why in this case (as I say in my post) I believe they'll follow through.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
As the pressure is already on them to rectify the situation, there's no need to for an artificial deadline. It adds nothing, but could delay their announcement or force them to publish an incomplete response.
GauntletWizard 6y ago
"and we admit that a full accounting for these actions is necessary before our ban is rescinded" is a valid (albeit even less common) form of making sure that they are held accountable. Nonetheless, it is important that the accused admits it. The common case today is that admitting you are due to account for your actions is the same as admitting that you are at fault. I have been denied jobs because I have admitted that to being accountable for my decisions, whereas I got the distinct impression had I simply not accounted for them they wouldn't have cared.

sangnoir 6y ago

> They need to act to get the ban rescinded, they can't just ignore this issue away. I doubt that - in the other thread, someone noted that the last non-hostile kernel contribution from @umn.edu was in 2014. I don't think they are champing at the bit to get legit kernel contributions merged - or at least haven't in the past 7 years. At this point, it is purely a reputation/PR problem with little urgency - the ban is not blocking anyone's work at the university (except for the suspended research project)

bluGill 6y ago
The real urgency is they need to protect their reputation. So long as they do a proper investigation and take proper action they can spin this as a rouge professor and be forgiven. We as a community should give them time to investigate and figure out how to handle and prevent this, and then if done correctly forgive them. If they make this statement and then there is no action within a year, then we should assume this is a token attempt to sweep things under the rug and continue with more bans. For now I'll accept their apology, but if there is no action in the future I'll retract that.
- giardini 6y ago
  bluGill says: "...rouge professor? "
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    It's a common misspelling, and I find it particularly grating (that, and "tounge" *shivers*). However, I've been getting better at reflexively requesting corrections as I also have some words I constantly misspell.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Well ya know you have to find out the details to make a decision, no? Snap decisions are almost always wrong until you know the facts, no just one side, but all sides. This is the same shit that happens in the 24/7 newscycle "now now now"