6 ms·

Isn't the idea that bad faith actors will always tell you they're acting in good faith? The researchers should be banned from contributing, but the Linux maint

Isn't the idea that bad faith actors will always tell you they're acting in good faith? The researchers should be banned from contributing, but the Linux maintainers shouldn't be assuming all contributions are in good faith. Both things can be true. Trust but verify.

bronson 5y ago
> the Linux maintainers shouldn't be assuming all contributions are in good faith They don't. The kernel has been under threat for a very long time. Here's an example from 2003: https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/ https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/
wombatpm 5y ago
By banning the University, they bring attention to the proper authorities and light a fire under them to resolve the issue. The IRB should not have allowed this to happen. I've worked in the academic survey industry and there are strict rules you must follow with human subjects. Last I heard, the kernel team was still mostly human. You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects. I believe even the old Folger's commercials where they secretly replaced people's coffee with Folger's Crystals would not pass muster with respect to informed consent.
- benrbray 5y ago
  Oh yes I completely agree UMN deserves the ban. The code review process for Linux kernel commits clearly needs to be improved as well. Hence "both can be true".
  - dcow 5y ago
    Did you read the LWN article and the TAB statement? > The writing of a paper on this research [PDF] was not the immediate cause of the recent events; instead, it was the posting of a buggy patch originating from an experimental static-analysis tool run by another developer at UMN. That led developers in the kernel community to suspect that the effort to submit intentionally malicious patches was still ongoing. Since then, it has become apparent that this is not the case, but by the time the full story became clear, the discussion was already running at full speed. and > The LF Technical Advisory Board is taking a look at the history of UMN's contributions and their associated research projects. At present, it seems the vast majority of patches have been in good faith, but we're continuing to review the work. Several public conversations have already started around our expectations of contributors. The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN. I still see people in this thread assuming that UMN has some history of submitting malicious patches and the wholesale ban is a justifiable response. That response might be justified if some internal ethical system at UMN is broken, but that is not the case, at least here. This history is clean save the one incident regarding the research paper, which has been withdrawn.
    - nominated1 5y ago
      > The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN This is not true and is explained in the article: > That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans. This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        This is so very frustrating, and why I wish the LWN article more strongly explained how wrong Greg was. > particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit. The researcher was slandered publicly by Greg. Greg repeatedly accuses the maintainer of purposefully submitting malicious patches, which he NEVER did. Greg also does so in an extraordinarily insulting way, diminishing the student's skillset, somewhat ironically as the student's research did in fact find bugs in the kernel. The researcher very rightfully responded the way he did - by calling out the slanderous remarks and removing himself from the Linux Kernel, a project that will no longer benefit from his contributions (which, if you bothered to look into, are far better than Greg gave credit for). Greg is very much in the wrong here. He is the one who made repeated false accusations. Please do not continue the very unfortunate attacks against a student who was only trying to submit good-faith patches to the kernel.
        HarryHirsch 5y ago
        You omitted the fact that Aditya's advisor was Kangjie Lu, who ran the research project with the bogus patches. It would be natural to assume that anything from that general direction would be more of the same.
        5y ago
- jack9 5y ago
  > The IRB should not have allowed this to happen. I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision. "human subjects" qualification -> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... (et al sources) The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.
  - Doxin 5y ago
    The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject. But even so, defining human subjects so as to exclude humans who are subject to your experimentation is absurd on the face of it. Who cares what is codified by whom? Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical. I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.
    - jack9 5y ago
      > The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject. Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section. You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so). Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way. The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment. > Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical > I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating. That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.
      - seoaeu 5y ago
        To quote the department [0] as was linked elsewhere: > An IRB evaluates “Human Subjects Research”, which has a precise technical definition according to US federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.102), and this technical definition may not accord with intuitive understanding of concepts like “experiments” or even “experiments on people”. [0]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEiO9cUq/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEi...

bronson 5y ago

> the Linux maintainers shouldn't be assuming all contributions are in good faith They don't. The kernel has been under threat for a very long time. Here's an example from 2003: https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/ https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/

wombatpm 5y ago

By banning the University, they bring attention to the proper authorities and light a fire under them to resolve the issue. The IRB should not have allowed this to happen. I've worked in the academic survey industry and there are strict rules you must follow with human subjects. Last I heard, the kernel team was still mostly human. You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects. I believe even the old Folger's commercials where they secretly replaced people's coffee with Folger's Crystals would not pass muster with respect to informed consent.

benrbray 5y ago
Oh yes I completely agree UMN deserves the ban. The code review process for Linux kernel commits clearly needs to be improved as well. Hence "both can be true".
- dcow 5y ago
  Did you read the LWN article and the TAB statement? > The writing of a paper on this research [PDF] was not the immediate cause of the recent events; instead, it was the posting of a buggy patch originating from an experimental static-analysis tool run by another developer at UMN. That led developers in the kernel community to suspect that the effort to submit intentionally malicious patches was still ongoing. Since then, it has become apparent that this is not the case, but by the time the full story became clear, the discussion was already running at full speed. and > The LF Technical Advisory Board is taking a look at the history of UMN's contributions and their associated research projects. At present, it seems the vast majority of patches have been in good faith, but we're continuing to review the work. Several public conversations have already started around our expectations of contributors. The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN. I still see people in this thread assuming that UMN has some history of submitting malicious patches and the wholesale ban is a justifiable response. That response might be justified if some internal ethical system at UMN is broken, but that is not the case, at least here. This history is clean save the one incident regarding the research paper, which has been withdrawn.
  - nominated1 5y ago
    > The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN This is not true and is explained in the article: > That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans. This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      This is so very frustrating, and why I wish the LWN article more strongly explained how wrong Greg was. > particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit. The researcher was slandered publicly by Greg. Greg repeatedly accuses the maintainer of purposefully submitting malicious patches, which he NEVER did. Greg also does so in an extraordinarily insulting way, diminishing the student's skillset, somewhat ironically as the student's research did in fact find bugs in the kernel. The researcher very rightfully responded the way he did - by calling out the slanderous remarks and removing himself from the Linux Kernel, a project that will no longer benefit from his contributions (which, if you bothered to look into, are far better than Greg gave credit for). Greg is very much in the wrong here. He is the one who made repeated false accusations. Please do not continue the very unfortunate attacks against a student who was only trying to submit good-faith patches to the kernel.
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        You omitted the fact that Aditya's advisor was Kangjie Lu, who ran the research project with the bogus patches. It would be natural to assume that anything from that general direction would be more of the same.
        5y ago
jack9 5y ago
> The IRB should not have allowed this to happen. I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision. "human subjects" qualification -> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... (et al sources) The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.
- Doxin 5y ago
  The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject. But even so, defining human subjects so as to exclude humans who are subject to your experimentation is absurd on the face of it. Who cares what is codified by whom? Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical. I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.
  - jack9 5y ago
    > The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject. Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section. You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so). Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way. The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment. > Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical > I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating. That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.
    - seoaeu 5y ago
      To quote the department [0] as was linked elsewhere: > An IRB evaluates “Human Subjects Research”, which has a precise technical definition according to US federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.102), and this technical definition may not accord with intuitive understanding of concepts like “experiments” or even “experiments on people”. [0]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEiO9cUq/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEi...