docs: Add a section on surveys to the researcher guidelines
Commit Message
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@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
---
.../process/researcher-guidelines.rst | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
Comments
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 02:23:02PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 02:23:02PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Yeah, I like it. Moar conference presentations! :)
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 02:23:02PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> ---
Looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
@@ -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