Comment by mintplant
4 years ago
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say I don't think this is a continuation of the original research. It'd be a strange change in methodology. The first paper used temporary email addresses, why switch to a single real one? The first paper alerted maintainers as soon as patches were approved, why switch to allowing them to make it through to stable? The first paper focused on a few subtle changes, why switch to random scattershot patches? Sure, this person's advisor is listed as a co-author of the first paper, but that really doesn't imply the level of coordination that people are assuming here.
It doesn't really matter that he/they changed MO, because they've already shown to be untrustworthy. You can only get the benefit of the doubt once.
I'm not saying people or institutions cant change. But the burden of proof is on them now to show that they did. A good first step would be to acknowledge that there IS a good reason for doubt, and certainly not whine about 'preconceived bias'.
They had already done it once without asking for consent. At least in my eye, that makes them—everyone in the team—lose their credibility. Notifying the kernel maintainers afterwards is irrelevant.
It is not the job of the kernel maintainers to justify the teams new nonsense patches. If the team has stopped being bullshit, they should defend the merit of their own patches. They have failed to do so, and instead tried to deflect with recriminations, and now they are banned.