Leave them banned.
Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
61–70 of 384 posts
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does not come across as apologetic. The words are there. It's not up to us to decide if they're "genuine". No one's a mindreader. The tendency to view apologies as fake seems more often to reflect how harshly we view the one making it.
Their opening statement has the most classic of all non-apology tactics: "We're sorry for any harm we caused". Maybe this wasn't their intent, but this is one of the oldest "say the words without having to mean anything" tactics in the book. It's like telling your partner "I'm sorry if I hurt you". No, you hurt them. Apologize for hurting them.
An apology should be for actions taken, not for how the other party felt about it. Acknowledging those feelings is important, but taking credit for those feelings takes agency away from the other person.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#63I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
>They behaved like jerks and they still cannot see that.
They just come off as disconnected academics. Samething with the experiments with algorithms from Facebook. They are so wrapped up in what they are doing, they no longer see the "users" as human beings. There are some times this is almost required to survive like being an ER doctor. If you lose that many people, it could be debilitating unless you were able to disconnect. That's far and away much different than these robots.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what of the merits? If the previous 190 patches were indeed legitimate it strikes me as overly vengeful to pull them in a "punish the son for the sins of the father and the father for the sins of the son" kind of way.
The patches are pulled so they can be reviewed carefully before being re-applied, not as a punishment.
Ah that makes more sense, thanks.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#65I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
I think there is something to be applauded about people who genuinely apologize even though they can't see things from the other person's point of view.
They didn't decide to conduct this research on a whim. They had full approval of their university ethics board as well. They published a paper and had it peer reviewed without (as far as I know) anyone immediately calling for their heads.
They can't immediately turn heel face and believe their actions are wrong, always were wrong, and the wrongness should have been obvious to them.
Yet, despite this they recognize the hurt they've caused and are genuinely apologetic and will never do it again. Asking them to dismantle their world view in a week is a bit much, even criminals are given a few years of quiet contemplation before being asked to tell a parole board they have changed their hearts and minds.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#66I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
Going further, "with" seems like the wrong preposition. "On" seems more accurate.
It would make sense if they were talking about mice, in which case "on" is still more accurate but "with" is probably correctly assumed to be equivalent. Research with humans involves them being on the author list...
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#67Contrarian thought:
Linux Kernel Community, forever above board, pure, pristine and virtuous, is perhaps eager to cast the first stone against these researcher / activists in order to clean their own clothes by dirtying others, or deflect attention from their own failings?
Quick search through the Lore for "problematic" phrases:
- site:lkml.org intext:moronic ~ 46 results
- site:lkml.org intext:idiotic ~ 278 results
- site:lkml.org intext:fucking (or f*cking) ~ 350 results
In future, all communities, and all participants, should only be headed by the most ethical, upstanding, righteous, virtuous, pure, pristine, moral, kind, fair, balanced, unbiased, and wise humans, and these traits must be established through rigorous vetting and investigations.
Any violations should require extensive and genuine apologies, the genuineness of which must be assessed through committees convened for that purpose, and apologies must be examined from every possible angle to determine if they do really feel genuine contrition or are just faking it. In all circumstances the omniscience of the LKML in knowing the true feelings of apologizers is final, perfect and can never be questioned. /S
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#68I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
Is it now not P.C. to discuss what they revealed? Or "nothing" has been revealed?
Are we not allowed to discuss the possibility of someone hacked an university email address and then submit a patch?
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#69we believe we have much to contribute in the future
Please, you've contributed enough already, really.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#70I really appreciate the apology and as they stated, its unconditional nature. Good. However, I find something very problematic. This quote shows it: "We have learned some important lessons about research with the open source community from this incident." This is something I don't like. This is not something about "research with the open source community". If anything, they should have learned something about treatin…
Several parts read strangely to me
> we are very sorry that the method used in the “hypocrite commits” paper was inappropriate
This reads more as "sorry you were offended" than "It was inappropriate and we are sorry".
> As many observers have pointed out to us, we made a mistake by not finding a way to consult with the community and obtain permission before running this study; we did that because we knew we could not ask the maintainers of Linux for permission, or they would be on the lookout for the hypocrite patches.
Bringing up why you did something in an apology is very shaky. Like in this case, it can sound more like justifying / excusing.