"The foundation accepted patches previously that were false:

...

The fact that linux maintainers are volunteering their time may sound like it's an extra burden that should not be placed on them for having to review patches that were known to be incorrect, but it also highlights an aspect that comes with the job.

That the researchers provided correct patches, except for one they appeared to not know was incorrect, suggests they were acting in good faith.

Whether the Linux Foundation needed to review all submissions by the UMN after the fiasco is debatable. If the researchers submitted a few hundred patches/proposals, but but were honest about which ones they admitted were fake, then the experiment was effectively complete. If the entire university submitted (unaffiliated with that particular lab) submitted several hundred more, not-related to the test, then it's questionable as to why the Linux Foundation would ban the entire university, as their actions sound more like revenge. While the university's review board retroactively gave the researchers an exemption to need for consent and ethical research proposal, it is likewise debatable whether the blanket ban is more of a punitive action since it assumes the IRB is actively supporting/will support future stealth projects by other UMN individuals/labs with an indefinite timeline.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27233729

Some of the ycombinator comments think the research is criminal:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27236393

For that to be the case, it would be almost be like equating the Linux Foundation to the same level of authority as a police department: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/politics/the-onion-novak-supr...

I compare their banning of the university from patches, to the Sippenhaft, or collective punishment.

" “Granting the officers qualified immunity does not mean their actions were justified or should be condoned,” the appeals court wrote. “Indeed, it is cases like these when government officials have particular obligation to act reasonably. Was Novak’s Facebook page worth a criminal prosecution, two appeals, and countless hours of Novak’s and the government’s time? We have our doubts.”

Viewed from the lens of satire (even though the research is trying making a serious point and fix or improve real problems e.g. https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/13848800341465743...), it could be said that with the amount of browser tracking and advertising analytics, it's debatable whether many linux maintainers (except for those using ad-blockers) are not being hypocritical in the idea that their visitors' information is not being experimented on without consent. Visiting linuxfoundation.org, I was presented with a pop-up that says "this website utilizes technologies such as cookies to enable essential site functionality, as well as for analytics, personalization, and targeted advertising purposes" (in other words, no simple way to turn them off). "To learn more, view the following link: Cookie Policy." It's not very clear how much data is being measured, and how much of it is really necessary for the security of their website, but it's clear the experimenting begins before the option to turn it off is displayed. The top maintainers make an income, while the volunteers do not. The university has paid researchers, but at a level probably not any higher than the top maintainers.

My response wasn't so much in response to your comment but in supplement to any other negative downvotes and as to why I selected AteTheOnion for the original post. Thanks!"