4 ms·

No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to prove per se, but it’s supporting evidence.

No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to *prove* per se, but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it *appears* he was acting in good faith. It’s one person reaching the conclusion Aditya’s work was clumsy not malicious. I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? Do you agree with the evidence I listed above?

pritambaral 5y ago
> No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to prove per se But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. > but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it appears he was acting in good faith. To one (1) person in the group of Linux core contributors. There are multiple others that do not agree with him, from among the same group of people, and just as qualified, as your person. > I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. > Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? I do disagree. The evidence that I see (and find myself agreeing with): 1. The work itself. It is so badly broken that I have to suspect foul play. And Greg's right when claiming that, if Pakki did not know the code he was submitting was broken, he had to have been horribly negligent or incompetent. 2. When presenting the patches, he tried to pass them off as his own. When the flaws were pointed out, then he reveals that the work wasn't his but that of a poorly written automated program. This sounds awfully like an excuse, and a poor one at that. 3. His first response to being called out was to play the "innocent victim" card, with barely an attempt to explain why he submitted code so badly broken. I also disagree with his passive-aggressive, subtly-hidden, claim that it was because he was just "a newbie and a non-expert". 4. I do agree that GKH was quite aggressive in labelling Pakki's work, and that he had no direct evidence for it, but he also explained his reasoning and supplied supporting evidence (I have quoted both in my GP comment), and I find it reasonable for a person in his position (i.e., an unwitting subject of an unethical human experiment) to feel that way. For these reasons, and for the close association of Pakki and Prof. Lu (who I believe still does not see or accept any wrongdoing on his part), I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. I am not excusing GKH's rush to conclusion either, though I understand what led him to it. But the matter is still ongoing, though sadly not in public anymore, so I am waiting to see how everyone acts moving forward. > Do you agree with the evidence I listed above? I agree partially with some of them. Not enough to reach a conclusion like you. Some of the rest of it, I think, actually points the other way. For example, the claim that "Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review" begs the question: If Pakki has demonstrated competence enough for some of his commits to survive subsequent close inspections by experts, then how could he have allowed patches as poor as the ones that sparked this whole brouhaha? As for the rest of the "evidence" you listed: I simply cannot accept them as evidence, rather as just unsubstantiated claims and expert opinions. The latter has value, though not enough yet to settle the question.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  > But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. Citation needed. I wrote > That accusation appears to be false > What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false > It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Those aren’t claims of proof. appears, seems, appears. They are weighing evidence and making a conclusion. > I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. Cool we’re close to on the same page, do you think it’s more likely he was participating in a new, similar hypocrite commit experiment or more likely he was submitting buggy patches inadvertently?

No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to *prove* per se, but it’s supporting evidence.

pritambaral 5y ago

> No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to prove per se But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. > but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it appears he was acting in good faith. To one (1) person in the group of Linux core contributors. There are multiple others that do not agree with him, from among the same group of people, and just as qualified, as your person. > I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. > Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? I do disagree. The evidence that I see (and find myself agreeing with): 1. The work itself. It is so badly broken that I have to suspect foul play. And Greg's right when claiming that, if Pakki did not know the code he was submitting was broken, he had to have been horribly negligent or incompetent. 2. When presenting the patches, he tried to pass them off as his own. When the flaws were pointed out, then he reveals that the work wasn't his but that of a poorly written automated program. This sounds awfully like an excuse, and a poor one at that. 3. His first response to being called out was to play the "innocent victim" card, with barely an attempt to explain why he submitted code so badly broken. I also disagree with his passive-aggressive, subtly-hidden, claim that it was because he was just "a newbie and a non-expert". 4. I do agree that GKH was quite aggressive in labelling Pakki's work, and that he had no direct evidence for it, but he also explained his reasoning and supplied supporting evidence (I have quoted both in my GP comment), and I find it reasonable for a person in his position (i.e., an unwitting subject of an unethical human experiment) to feel that way. For these reasons, and for the close association of Pakki and Prof. Lu (who I believe still does not see or accept any wrongdoing on his part), I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. I am not excusing GKH's rush to conclusion either, though I understand what led him to it. But the matter is still ongoing, though sadly not in public anymore, so I am waiting to see how everyone acts moving forward. > Do you agree with the evidence I listed above? I agree partially with some of them. Not enough to reach a conclusion like you. Some of the rest of it, I think, actually points the other way. For example, the claim that "Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review" begs the question: If Pakki has demonstrated competence enough for some of his commits to survive subsequent close inspections by experts, then how could he have allowed patches as poor as the ones that sparked this whole brouhaha? As for the rest of the "evidence" you listed: I simply cannot accept them as evidence, rather as just unsubstantiated claims and expert opinions. The latter has value, though not enough yet to settle the question.

nuclearnice1 5y ago
> But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. Citation needed. I wrote > That accusation appears to be false > What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false > It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Those aren’t claims of proof. appears, seems, appears. They are weighing evidence and making a conclusion. > I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. Cool we’re close to on the same page, do you think it’s more likely he was participating in a new, similar hypocrite commit experiment or more likely he was submitting buggy patches inadvertently?