And if this escalate to MSM Media it might also damage future employment status from UMN CS students.
Edit: Looks like they made a statement. https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-cse-linux-kernel-research-a...
- Signed by “Loren Terveen, Associate Department Head”, who was a co-author on numerous papers about experimenting on Wikipedia, as pointed out by: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26895969
Edit: Parent comment originally referenced the paper that caused this mess.
As far as I'm concerned this university and all of its alumni are radioactive.
It's not about guilt, it's about trust. They were trained for years in an institution that violates trust as a matter of course. That makes them suspect and the judgement completely fair.
"As a matter of course" is a big leap here.
you think students believe in everything that profs do/say?
Your logic doesn't make ANY sense.
When someone graduates from the university, that is the same as the university saying "This person is up to our standards in terms of knowledge, ethics and experience."
If those standards for ethics are very low, then it naturally taints that reputation they sold.
It is unfair to judge a whole university for the behavior of a professor or a department. Although I'm far from having all the details, it looks to me like the university is taking the right measures to solve the problem, which they acknowledge. I would understand your position if they tried to hide this or negated it, but as far as I understood that's not the case at all. Did I miss something?
It doesn't block patch submissions from students of professors using their private email, since that assumes they are contributing as individuals, and not as employees or students.
It's as close as practically possible to blocking an institution and not the individuals.
> As far as I'm concerned this university and all of its alumni are radioactive.
That is not a practical issue, but a too broad generalization (although, I repeat, I may have missed something).
It's the same as with employees. If I get a patch request from [email protected] I'll assume that it comes from IBM, and that person is submitting a patch on behalf of IBM, while for a patch coming from [email protected] I would not assume any IBM affiliation or bias, but assume person contributing as an individual.
That's not what the comment I was responding to said. It was very clear: "As far as I'm concerned this university and all of its alumni are radioactive". It does not say every kernel patch coming from this domain is radioactive, it clearly says "all of its alumni are radioactive".
You said before that alumni from the university could submit patches with their private emails, but according to what djbebs said, he would not. Do we agree that this would be wrong?
And as unfortunate as it sound it look like all victim of such generalization, the alumni would have to fight the prejudice associated to their choice of university.
And any piss I find, i will blame on amazon
That is exact opposite of how rot in literal bunch of apples behave. Spoil spreads throughout the whole lot very, very quickly.
The chief problem here is not that it bruises the egos of the Linux developers for being psyched, but that it was a dick move whereby people now have to spend time sorting this shit out.
Prof Liu miscalculated. The Linux developers are not some randos off the street where you can pay them a few bucks for a day in the lab, and then they go away and get on with whatever they were doing beforehand. It's a whole community. And he just pissed them off.
It is right that Linux developers impose a social sanction on the perpetrators.
It has quite possibly ruined the student's chances of ever getting a PhD, and earned Liu a rocket up the arse.
I disagree. I think it's easier to excuse bad judgment, in part because we all sometimes make mistakes in complicated situations.
But this is an example of experimenting on humans without their consent. Greg KH specifically noted that the developers did not appreciate being experimented on. That is a huge chasm of a line to cross. You are generally required to get consent before experimenting on humans, and that did not happen. That's not just bad judgment. The whole point of the IRB system is to prevent stuff like that.
What? That's exactly how it works. A bad apple gives off a lot of ethylene which ripens (spoils) the whole bunch.
Being a public university, I hope at some point they address this publicly as well as list the steps they are (hopefully) taking to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. I'm also not sure how they can continue to employ the prof in question and expect the open source community to ever trust them to act in good faith going forward.
Source:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Lor...
This is quite literally the first point of the Nuremberg code research ethics are based on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_...
This isn't an individual failing. This is an institutional failing. This is the sort of thing which someone ought to raise with OMB.
He literally points to how Wikipedia needed to respond when he broke the rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...
Doesn't mean there aren't ethical issues related to editors being human subjects, but you may want to be more specific.
What did you see that offended you?
https://www.startribune.com/markingson-case-university-of-mi...
The way I've seen Harvard, Stanford, and a few other university researchers dodge IRB review is by doing research in "private" time in collaboration with a private entity.
There is no effective oversight over IRBs, so they really range quite a bit. Some are really stringent and some allow anything.