linux-kernel - [PATCH] docs: Add a section on surveys to the researcher guidelines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87il9v7u55.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Thu, 03 Aug 2023 14:23:02 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        tech-board@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [PATCH] docs: Add a section on surveys to the researcher guidelines

It is common for university researchers to want to poll the community with
online surveys, but that approach distracts developers while yielding
little in the way of useful data.  Encourage alternatives instead.

Co-developed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
---
 .../process/researcher-guidelines.rst         | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst
index 9fcfed3c350b..d159cd4f5e5b 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst
@@ -44,6 +44,33 @@ explicit agreement of, and full disclosure to, the individual developers
 involved. Developers cannot be interacted with/experimented on without
 consent; this, too, is standard research ethics.
 
+Surveys
+=======
+
+Research often takes the form of surveys sent to maintainers or
+contributors.  As a general rule, though, the kernel community derives
+little value from these surveys.  The kernel development process works
+because every developer benefits from their participation, even working
+with others who have different goals.  Responding to a survey, though, is a
+one-way demand placed on busy developers with no corresponding benefit to
+themselves or to the kernel community as a whole.  For this reason, this
+method of research is discouraged.
+
+Kernel community members already receive far too much email and are likely
+to perceive survey requests as just another demand on their time.  Sending
+such requests deprives the community of valuable contributor time and is
+unlikely to yield a statistically useful response.
+
+As an alternative, researchers should consider attending developer events,
+hosting sessions where the research project and its benefits to the
+participants can be explained, and interacting directly with the community
+there.  The information received will be far richer than that obtained from
+an email survey, and the community will gain from the ability to learn from
+your insights as well.
+
+Patches
+=======
+
 To help clarify: sending patches to developers *is* interacting
 with them, but they have already consented to receiving *good faith
 contributions*. Sending intentionally flawed/vulnerable patches or
-- 
2.41.0