If they really care about being banned, they'll have no choice but to follow thorough
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 properly proportioned.
At any rate - I doubt admissions would be appreciably impacted even if they handled this incident extremely poorly - some potential grad students might look elsewhere while most would likely be ignorant of the whole incident.
"Ability to commit to the Linux kernel with my school email" isn't likely to be a major issue for many. It's a non-issue for undergrad work, and even most grad students are unlikely to be affected. Other than this research, only one other person associated with UMN has committed code to the kernel.
This impacts any direct school-sponsored research work, but if some random student wants to write a patch, they'll just do it from a personal address - no kernel committer is going to go do social media stalking of every contributor.
I don't think anyone would notice this ban - it'd just be an odd curiosity and impediment to any student that tried to submit a patch... that is assuming it doesn't hit the main news circuit.... But, if I hear about this on Colbert tonight I'll be amazed.
The fact that the FBI raided Steve Jackson Games[1] over GURPS: Cyberpunk is, I think, completely absent from general public knowledge at this point - even though that incident[2] led to the creation of the EFF which most folks on HN will certainly be familiar with. Notoriety is a fickle thing and no matter how negative the incident is it'll usually either fade into nothingness or give a positive boost to the organization - this is where the concept of "there's no such thing as bad press" comes from. I, at least, am far more aware of UMN now than I was this morning.
2. There's some disagreement over how central this incident was to the EFF's foundation, but from what I've read it was pretty darn central.
You are not looking at it the right way. This is an issue for the President and the Provost because of alumni donations.
When the choice is between firing an adjunct/assistant and not getting a 100k from alumni the adjunct/assistant has no chance.
The CS department care the ability to publish paper about the Linux kernel.
For now I'm assuming that my degree was more than 20 years ago, and things change in that time (most of the professors I remember best are dead...). However this is doubt in my mind.
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!
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.
I get that they may not know anything, but there are other ways to word that without admitting liability, making it seem less like the focus is on the ban and more on the allegedly shady stuff.
This seems like an entirely appropriate balance of text and emphasis for a statement that is short and to the point. Which is also appropriate and laudable. Typically when an organization says any more, it's to try and do some spin doctoring.
> We take this situation extremely seriously.
I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation.
Once you’ve had the two linked, it’s like one of those ambiguous optical illusions, where you just can’t see the other.
If I were writing that statement, I’d be concerned it looked that had there been no ban, there would be no situation. Said statement doesn’t do that for me.
So, as long as you ignore the formatting they presented it with and decide to read it without it, you can come to a different conclusion?
I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.
No. It reads that way with the formatting they provided. You can’t take that paragraph break out without putting one back exactly there. It’s refreshingly transparent, and perfect if you expect them not to care about the underlying cause as much as they care about the ban.
> I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.
It’s not a contortion, it’s just how it reads to me. I’m not taking some deliberately contrarian stance – I was really quite shocked at the multiple comments saying how great the statement was when it inadvertently or otherwise conveyed the very message I believe they should have avoided – the one where they simply do the least they need to do to get unbanned, which may well be closer to the real objective. It’s the difference between being shamed into action and recognising why action is necessary.
I would not want to be the person to have to write such a statement
Exactly. And paragraphs are used to separate concepts and statements into conceptual units. That you're letting a concept and interpretation from one apply to and influence the reading of another as if there is no break is the problem.
> It’s not a contortion, it’s just how it reads to me.
I think you have some interesting ideas of how to read. I don't think that follows necessarily for the majority of other people, and I don't think that's what was intended by the writer.
At he same time, I'm not entirely surprised. This is why writing is hard, and sometimes thankless. Regardless of intention and how clear you think you're being, someone will always read it otherwise. It's just the nature of the medium, to some degree. It can happen through something like this, where you're inferring intent across boundaries where I think that boundary is intended to clearly separate it, and it can happen if they are absolutely literally clear and denounce other stances, because people will read those denouncements as indicators of the opposite, as crazy as that sounds ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").
I think you're better off taking a separate paragraph for what it usually meant to be. A way to separate statements so they are clearly distinct.
Their second paragraph says they "take the situation very seriously".
What "situation", exactly?
Not once do they talk about getting the ban removed, instead they talk about figuring out why it happened and how to be better at having research done being ethical.
Was the ban the trigger to them (the heads) looking into it ? Of course since they do already have safeguards and review processes in place, this happened despite those, so they're saying they will investigate them to figure out how this project was validated and make sure to strengthen these processes as needed.
The end goal they give themselves in that message is not a ban removal but "safeguard against future [such] issues".
I feel as if we’re discussing two different statements.
> The research method used raised serious concerns in the Linux Kernel community and, as of today, this has resulted in the University being banned from contributing to the Linux Kernel.
Here the cause is that "the research method used raised serious concerns in the Linux Kernel community"
Not that it was unethical, or potentially how it was. It’s not that something clearly went wrong. The cause can be read as the response, rather than the action.
> safeguard against future issues, if needed
The ban is the trigger. The review is about to happen, so they really can't talk about its result yet. For all you and me know, said review will say their processes are just fine which I would personally disagree with but it could happen. Then, if there was an issue, they will update their processes, which is the end goal stated.
So your quote:
> the ban is the focus – not what led to the ban
The ban is the trigger that starts it, but the focus, the thing on which they will work, is their process. "Something important happened so we will spend lots of time figuring it out how it could have happened despite our processes made to protect against it" makes it pretty clear the focus, the thing they will spend their time on, is the review of their processes.
> For all you and me know, said review will say their processes are just fine which I would personally disagree with but it could happen.
Agreed. For what it’s worth, I don’t actually think there’s much they can really do besides acknowledge it and make sure their ethics board is competent and consulted.
> the ban is the focus – not what led to the ban
I was talking about the ban being the focus of the statement, as it’s the point at which there’s a clear shift from the situation to the fix. This is unfortunate, because to me it is placing the emphasis on the trigger, rather than the cause.
I believe it could have been written in a way that mentioned the ban, left room to investigate, but made it crystal clear that the community concerns and the ban were not the problem. It makes it feel to me as though their primary motivation to investigate is to get unbanned – which, to be fair, it probably is – rather than to be committed to root out alleged unethical practices. Even if the short-term consequences are the same, it’s a subtle but important distinction.
I suppose it’s a form of honesty, and I could instead embrace its transparency.