Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle • Hacker News Board

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#321

Post by shard » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

Griffinsauce wrote: post #181

thanhhaimai wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think it's both unfair and non-constructive to pick apart a apology letter based on one word like that. Let's assume good faith, especially when the writer's English might not be their first language (based on their name).

> English might not be their first language (based on their name) This is a pretty weak assumption. Someone's name (and physical appearance) don't give you an accurate information about anything.

I don't think it's that weak of an assumption. First, considering all the people with foreign names in relevant groups (multinational corporations, or in this case, a researcher/ student at a university), I would say the chances that their first language is not English is high enough to be a consideration. And even if it is, there are also regional variations regarding what are common and accepted ways of phrasing things. Second, similar to the rule used here at HN, giving the text a more charitable read should be the starting point.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#322

Post by neatze » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

gadf wrote: post #292

neatze wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you have a choice to interact with community or not to interact with an community, difference is that researcher's of “hypocrite commit” did not give such choice to community members, as of today there is overwhelming indication that this researcher's violated basic and fundamental principles of scientific ethical research.

But if I choose to interact with the community, does my choice to present myself, justify any and all abusive actions they may volley at me? Oof coarse not. The point would ordinarily be a good one, but I think you've misused it. The Linux kernel community, by your logic, chose to interact with and be open to patches which were not properly vetted. This framing seems secondary to a seemingly more important point, whi…

Context who does what actions is important, you seem to equate university "professionals" research actions to volunteer community actions, it is false to large degree, like comparing apples to orangeries, additionally, consent to be deceived is critical factor. No one in Linux community promises you to be nice[0], and Linux has stepped aside due to his past behavior[1]. To me main point who initiates actions eg. did you willfully performed some actions or you where manipulated to perform some actions.

[0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-confli...

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-ab...

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#323

Post by ajarmst » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

trop wrote: post #310

ajarmst wrote: post #128

There are some relatively minor issues with this apology that appear to already have ample discussion here, and I'll not repeat it. I want something more: I want to hear from the sponsoring faculty, research ethics board, and editors of the journal that published the article. There appear to be some systemic issues in addition to the investigators' ill-considered project. How was it that this research, which is clear…

Another query about IRB and human subjects: In the case of software which is not only written/maintained by a community of humans, but used by a (vast) community of humans, do the latter also become "human subjects" as well in such an experiment?

Only one of those groups is having their time and effort squandered. To me, it comes down to whether someone is being harmed. Researchers use statistics and anonymized demographic data on large populations all the time. You could argue that the population in question have become research subjects, but (1) they are not being harmed and (2) they are not being actively misled by the investigators. The moment this group started submitting patches in bad faith, they were actively misleading their subjects, and they are harming those subjects by using their time and effort without consent.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#324

Post by rincebrain » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #307

tmp538394722 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fair question about proportionality. I don’t have any special insight into the kernel team, but I think the response is as much about making an example of the university as it is about removing any plausibly contaminated commits, in which case it makes sense to be somewhat extreme. Others are saying the entire research team should be fired. It’s interesting that the former (reverting the commits) is somethin…

Proportionality is one aspect. Punishing the right people is another. If you’re an UMN patch submitter who has just seen your work thrown away because of the actions of some researchers you don’t know and some kernel maintainer you don’t know, you’d be rightly upset. Punishing the entire university for the actions of a few. I think it’s a bad idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

FWIW, there are no patches committed that I can find since 2013 that are not by people who are or were in the relevant lab at UMN.

Maybe my research is flawed, but I don't think the bulk revert is currently hitting anyone but them.

[1] - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#325

Post by kerng » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

I think the apology comes across as insincere because they don't just stop with apologizing but go on attempting to justify their actions and already look beyond the issue at hand.

First, you just apologize for what you did and that's that. Ball is in the other side of the court.

I haven't seen the message from the Linux Foundation to the university- assuming that's private and I didnt miss it somewhere?

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#326

Post by sigstoat » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #313

sigstoat wrote: post #109

to the folks picking this apart word-by-word: all evidence suggests that two of the signatures are natives of china, and the third of india. it is reasonable to credit them with not being native english speakers.

there's no way this didn't go through multiple layers of review

sure there is. this is less important to the university than it is to HN. probably it's been mentioned to the dean of engineering, but i doubt anyone above that knows or would care without half an hour of explanation.

and even the letter was heavily reviewed, the moral thing to do is to give a professor and two grad students leeway in interpretation of their english. (i'll grant that their past leeway in interpretation of their actions, but those aren't the same.)

that doesn't mean it can't be a bad apology, it doesn't mean you have to accept or like it. just, come on, find more substantial issues than their adjectival choices.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#327

Post by neatze » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

ajarmst wrote: post #320

strgcmc wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this happen all the time? Many psychology studies are done by bringing in test subjects, asking for their consent to be interviewed or tested under the guise of studying X, when in fact the researchers are looking to evaluate Y instead? E.g. I the researcher ask if you consent to spending 30min completing a series of tasks to sort objects by their shape, presumably because I want to study your ability to reco…

TLDR: Yes, but deceiving a subject about the details of how they are being studied is different from deceiving them about the fact that they are a research subject. Yes, this happens all the time. But note the salient features: (1) the subjects are aware that they are research subjects and have agreed to participate (albeit without full knowledge of how the collected data will be analyzed). They have agreed to be stu…

Out of curiosity, study where humans are deceived about the fact that they are research subjects can be justified in general ? (to me seems like correct answer no)

Some relevant cases; the Facebook case[0] suggests it is justified because of EULA, and court determination test[1] is complicated for me to comprehend (to be honest), but seems like most relevant to this discussion.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...

[1] https://casetext.com/case/sandvig-v-barr

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#328

Post by shard » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #118

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If anything, they should have learned something about not treating human beings as persons and not as involuntary guinea pigs." Perhaps the entire "tech" industry needs to learn that lesson. Non-technical end users should be entitled to that same level of trust as nerds. I can download free open source code, extract a tarball and build the software without worrying too much about scanning through all the files first…

> Perhaps the entire "tech" industry needs to learn that lesson. Audit studies are conducted all the time where researchers lie to people and waste their time. > Factors Determining Callbacks to Job Applications by the Unemployed: An Audit Study > We use an audit study approach to investigate how unemployment duration, age, and holding a low-level “interim” job affect the likelihood that experienced college- educated…

This is a very good point. I did not find anything objectionable about that experiment when I first read about it. And if the companies experimented upon had complained like the kernel maintainers did, I would have dismissed it as them covering up their bad process. This is actually making me consider that the submitters of the bad patches shouldn't be treated differently than the job application researchers.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#329

Post by Igelau » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

taormina wrote: post #138

Igelau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hallmarks of a non-apology Is that a thing? Like there's some non-apology Bingo card you can fill out? I don't see a connection between the criteria you listed and genuine-vs-false contrition. You may perceive these things one way, but ultimately you can't know the minds of others well enough to tell if they are sincere or not about anything. You don't get to just declare yourself the arbiter of their feelings beca…

There literally are bingo cards, yes! https://www.google.com/search?q=non+apology+bingo

Thanks, I hate it :]

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#330

Post by nuclearnice1 » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

rincebrain wrote: post #324

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportionality is one aspect. Punishing the right people is another. If you’re an UMN patch submitter who has just seen your work thrown away because of the actions of some researchers you don’t know and some kernel maintainer you don’t know, you’d be rightly upset. Punishing the entire university for the actions of a few. I think it’s a bad idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

FWIW, there are no patches committed that I can find since 2013 that are not by people who are or were in the relevant lab at UMN. Maybe my research is flawed, but I don't think the bulk revert is currently hitting anyone but them. [1] - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...

It’s a good observation.

So for example we have a 2019 commit by Wenwen Wang being reverted. Wenwen is now at UGA. The commit is “ALSA: usx2y fix a double free bug” review by Takashi Iwai confirms it’s a good fix. I don’t agree with Greg K-H threatening to trash Wenwen’s work, his reputation, and add bugs to the Linux kernel out of spite toward researchers than Wenwen hasn’t worked with in years.

Note that Aditya Pakki denies being a part of the hypocrite commits on email, maintains his denial in the apology, and has written papers on static analysis.

Also, vast majority of those commits are being re-reviewed and found good.

Greg Kroah-Hartman accused him of intentionally submitting bad commits. That accusation appears false. Greg should apologize to Wenwen and Aditaya.

This is a broad brush. It’s hitting a bunch of good commits and we know the 3 hypocrite commits aren’t there .