[throwawaybbq1]

Holy cow!! I'm a researcher and don't understand how they thought it would be okay to not do an IRB, and how an IRB would not catch this. The linked PDF by the parent post is quite illustrative. The first few paras seem to be downplaying the severity of what they did (did not introduce actual bugs into the kernel) but that is not the bloody problem. They experimented on people (maintainers) without consent and wasted their time (maybe other effects too .. e.g. making them vary of future commits from universities)! I'm appalled.

[ORioN63]

It's not _the_ problem, but it's an actual problem. If you follow the thread, it seems they did manage to get a few approved:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2F8jcoC1ffuksrf@kroah.c...

I agree this whole thing paints a really ugly picture, but it seems to validate the original concerns?

[varjag]

Even if those they did get approved were actual security holes (not benign decoys), all that it validates is no human is infallible. Well CONGRATULATIONS.

[Tempest1981]

Right. And you would need a larger sample size to determine what % of the time that occurs, on average. But even then, is that useful and valid information? And is it actionable? (And if so, what is the cost of the action, and the opportunity cost of lost fixes in other areas?)

[Throwaway951200]

Open Source is not water proof if known committer, from well known faculty (in this case University of Minnesota) decides to send buggy patches. However, this was catched relatively quickly, but the behavior even after being caught is reprehensible:

> You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them, and published a paper based on that work. > > Now you submit a new series of obviously-incorrect patches again, so what am I supposed to think of such a thing?

If they kept doing it even after being caught, is beyond understandable.

[chromatin]

They did go to the UMN IRB per their paper and received a human subjects exempt waiver.

Edit: I am not defending the researchers who may have misled the IRB, or the IRB who likely have little understanding of what is actually happening

[bokchoi]

The irony is that the IRB process failed in the same way that the commit review process did. We're just missing the part where the researchers tell the IRB board they were wrong immediately after submitting their proposal for review.

[Waterluvian]

IRB review: "Looks good!"

[yorwba]

Maybe they should conduct a meta-experiment where they submit unethical experiments for IRB review. Immediately when the IRB approves the proposal, they withdraw, pointing out the ways in which it would be unethical.

Meta-meta-experiment: submit the proposal above for IRB review and see what happens.

[makotoNagano]

Absolutely incredible

[fao_]

If you actually read the PDF linked in this thread:

* Is this human research? This is not considered human research. This project studies some issues with the patching process instead of individual behaviors, and we did not collect any personal information. We send the emails to the Linux community and seek community feedback. The study does not blame any maintainers but reveals issues in the process. The IRB of UMN reviewed the study and determined that this is not human research (a formal IRB exempt letter was obtained).

[nerdponx]

Do IRBs typically have a process by which you can file a complaint from outside the university? Maybe they never thought they would need to even check up on computer science faculty...