[sokoloff]

That's true to a point, but hiding that information is arguably (and in my estimation) worse.

"We better not look for other incidences of this nefarious behavior because it might create a small amount of collateral damage. Better to leave those patches unexamined."

[fluidcruft]

UMN has already said they've opened an investigation?

[sokoloff]

There seems to be transparency value in having a different organization do the investigation than made the original judgment to approve the research.

Maybe there's an "internal affairs" equivalent that we'd trust, but this reads to me like "UMN made an error in approving this research but don't worry because UMN is now going to look into it."

[fluidcruft]

Sure, that's entirely reasonable. But that's not what the Linux Foundation is demanding, apparently.