Not sure how that passage justifies wasting the time of these people working on the kernel. Because the issues they pretend to fix are real issues and once their research is done, they also submit the fixes? What about the patches they submitted (like https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20210407001658.2208535-1-p...) that didn't make any sense and didn't actually change anything?
> And, coming to ethics:
So it seems that they didn't even just mislead the developers of the kernel, but they also misled the IRB board, as they would never approve it without getting consent from the developers since they are experimenting on humans and that requires consent.
Even in the section you put above, they even confess they need to interact with the developers ("this experiment will take certain time of maintainers in reviewing the patches"), so how can they be IRB-exempt?
The closer you look, the more sour this whole thing smells.
I was wondering why he banned the whole university and not just these particular researchers. I think your quote is the answer to that. I'm not sure on what basis this exemption was granted.
Here's what the NIH says about it:
Definition of Human Subjects Research
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm
Decision Tool: Am I Doing Human Subjects Research?
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/hs-decision.htm
And even if they did find some way to justify it under their own rules, some of the research subjects clearly disagree.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-8-gregkh... for the full list
Inasmuch as the IRB marked this as "not human research" they appear to have erred.
> Honoring maintainer efforts. The OSS communities are understaffed, and maintainers are mainly volunteers. We respect OSS volunteers and honor their efforts. Unfortunately, this experiment will take certain time of maintainers in reviewing the patches. To minimize the efforts, (1) we make the minor patches as simple as possible (all of the three patches are less than 5 lines of code changes); (2) we find three real minor issues (i.e., missing an error message, a memory leak, and a refcount bug), and our patches will ultimately contribute to fixing them.
And, coming to ethics:
> The IRB of University of Minnesota reviewed the procedures of the experiment and determined that this is not human research. We obtained a formal IRB-exempt letter.