[dpwm]

> 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.

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

[nolok]

Yes that's called the trigger. You have a trigger, that leads you to focus on and review what caused said trigger, and reach conclusions.

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.

[dpwm]

I think we’re mostly in agreement. The ban is clearly the trigger, and it’s pretty transparent.

> 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.