[something765478]

I think they should have gotten permission from IRB ahead of time, but this doesn't sound like they were researching human subjects? They were studying the community behind the Linux kernel, and specifically the process for gatekeeping bad changes from making it to the kernel; they weren't experimenting on specific community members. Would you consider it human experimentation if I was running an experiment to see if I could get crappy products listed on Amazon, for example?

[nearlyepic]

> they weren't experimenting on specific community members.

Yes, they were. What kind of argument is this? If you submit a PR to the kernel you are explicitly engaging with the maintainer(s) of that part of the kernel. That's usually not more than half a dozen people. Seems pretty specific to me.

[firefax]

>I think they should have gotten permission from IRB ahead of time, but this doesn't sound like they were researching human subjects?

I assure you that it falls under IRB's purview -- I came into the thread intending to make grandparent's comment. When using deception in a human subjects experiment, there is an additional level of rigor -- you usually need to debrief the participant about said deception, not wait for them to read about it in the press.

(And if a human is reviewing these patches, then yes, it is human subjects research.)

[dessimus]

> Would you consider it human experimentation if I was running an experiment to see if I could get crappy products listed on Amazon, for example?

Yes, if in the course of that experimentation, you also shipped potentially harmful products to buyers of those products "to see if Amazon actually let me".

[fwip]

A community is made out of humans.