Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

cse.umn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 332 posts

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#311

Post by bluGill »

munk-a wrote: post #182
simlevesque wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and that's some heavy shade on a university. They'll lose good students if this is not fixed.

I don't think that's the case (due to how fame works) and I don't even think it's particularly productive to bring up that point. Their actions should be rectified since they did wrong - not out of fear of a punishment. When we bring only a specific punishment in as a consequence then the question of how to respond can be shifted over to a "which is worse" proposition which means that the punishment needs to be prope…

There are enough of us here that have heard about this as to make a UMN degree worth less because we will trash a resume with that name on it.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#312

Post by bluGill »

alisonkisk wrote: post #240
boomboomsubban wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The focus is rescinding the ban, but they acknowledge that the way to do so is review their actions and set up safeguards to prevent similar things from happening. There's too much bureaucracy involved for them to already publicly review their actions.

The entire statement has only 2 paragraphs, and says absolutely nothing at all about rescinding the ban.

Of course, no PR person with anything would allow such a thing into their statements. The UMN is far too big to allow someone without some competency in PR.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#313

Post by bluGill »

vzaliva wrote: post #69

Here is some background for those who are not familiar with the rules of academic research in the US. Usually, any experiments involving human subjects are subject to Univesity Institutional Review Board (IRB) [1] approval. IRB should evaluate both ethical and safety concerns. I recall having to jump through quite a few hoops just to do a simple touch screen gesture recognition test of a dozen willing fellow students…

This wasn't a direct test on the maintainers, so it is easy to see how the IRB would miss that. Still not excusable to miss that there are humans involved.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#314

Post by bluGill »

elliekelly wrote: post #56
readingnews wrote: post #46

Eh, I work at a uni. This came from a dept head. The university is taking it seriously?? Doubt it. Now, when a Dean puts up a webpage... things just got serious.

I wonder if there’s anyone higher up in the administration even aware this is happening.

There should be at least a minute at the regular deans meeting about this. Which means the head of the other departments know. When I was there CS was both an engineering degree and a liberal arts degree, so that probably means heads of departments like Mechanical Engineering, and Music have heard of it.

For now it can be a "something CS is taking care of, but you need to be aware of it in case they don't".

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#315

Post by 0x0 »

quenix wrote: post #303
0x0 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you underestimate the shade this puts on the UMN name. I've never even heard of UMN before, but I doubt I'll ever forget hearing about this university fraudulently trying to sabotage the Linux project, and will probably treat anything and anyone with an UMN background with great suspicion in the future.

You will treat anyone educated at the same university with `great suspicion`? Really? That is hardly rational or appropriate.

If this was just one patch and it was caught early, it could be excused as a rogue solo stunt. But papers have been published. IRB board granted exemptions. A whole team worked on it. Too many people conspiring on pissing in the pool and wasting kernel maintainers time and casting doubt on 190+ commits indicates a complete institutional failure. No colleagues, co-students or supervisors stopped to ask if this behavior was appropriate? It taints the entire UMN.

What if a car or medical device running linux turns out to have buggy mutex locking either due to a malicious commit or a now-hastily reverted commit? As a Linux user of both computers, appliances and vehicles, I am not impressed.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#316

Post by mumblemumble »

mike_d wrote: post #285
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement rings true because it is the wordsmith'd version of exactly what the department head probably said when he first heard, which probably went something like "what the f*k did you do, who the f*k thought this was a good idea, and who the f*k told you you could do this?"

I'm pretty sure the biggest program at UMN is Social Sciences. Conducting research experiments on unwitting subjects (the kernel maintainers) is a huge ethics violation. I can only imagine the other department heads screaming at the head of the, relatively speaking, small CS department.

When I was in grad school for a branch of social sciences, we had a whole class on how to conduct research experiments on unwitting subjects. It's something that social scientists do all the time.

(Tangentially, it's something that computer people do even more often, and probably with fewer ethics controls. A/B testing, for one prominent example.)

But it's typically only allowed when it's clear that the risk of harm to the participants is pretty much negligible. Which is clearly not the case here. As others have said, it's probably the case that the reason this got past the IRB is not because the research was clandestine, but because the team lied about how it might affect people. And probably also, I'm guessing, the IRB had their guard down because they weren't expecting that particular department to be conducting social science field experiments.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#317

Post by seoaeu »

notyourday wrote: post #254
alisonkisk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not an adjunct. https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/ Adjuncts don't have Ph.D students.

He is not tenured and until he is he is basically an adjunct.

No, that's not how this works. Tenure track faculty have way more job security

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#318

Post by ghoward »

bluGill wrote: post #310
quenix wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will treat anyone educated at the same university with `great suspicion`? Really? That is hardly rational or appropriate.

Very appropriate. Until yesterday I was happy to have a CS degree from the UMN. Now that is tainted and I want to hide who gave me the degree. I have to wonder if they taught me some things that were unethical that I'm not doing without knowing better. I wouldn't hire a UMN grad because of their reputation. For now I'm assuming that my degree was more than 20 years ago, and things change in that time (most of the pro…

Ouch.

I'm not the GP. I agree with you, but I feel for you.

The fact that you are worried is a good sign, though!

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#319

Post by stjohnswarts »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #106
agf wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a good statement, and I believe they'll follow through, but it's missing something important that is often missing from otherwise professional communication. The last line is "We will report our findings back to the community as soon as practical." It should be followed by "and we will provide an update in no more than 30 days". Without any explicit time frame, holding them publicly accountable becomes trickier…

> 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.

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"

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#320

Post by kodah »

bscphil wrote: post #281
kodah wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last line is "We will report our findings back to the community as soon as practical." It should be followed by "and we will provide an update in no more than 30 days". I don't really think this is a worthwhile distinction. Personally, it comes off as trying to nanny a process that involves the Linux kernel maintainers and UMN Admins. There's a ban on UMN, probably until they show they can head off ethical issu…

I disagree. The associate department head named in the statement linked it on Twitter, immediately following up his comments with > I very much welcome feedback from the participants who brought this to our attention: that's why I tagged @gregkh . Obviously, we would appreciate any guidance as to how we can get the Univ. of Minnesota contribution ban lifted. This is pretty clearly one of their main interests in movin…

What's your interest in "fast" here?
Post reply on HN