From nobody Thu Sep 11 12:54:41 2025 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DD3C04A6A for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231773AbjHCUXH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:23:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48226 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229959AbjHCUXE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:23:04 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25EFE10CA; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:73::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C071F31A; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:23:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net C071F31A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1691094182; bh=Z6H7ra75b1GD73w6Q6OpzWHRmyhXKkKOs8nQ5RLXIVQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=hjFHyuy6wYcVB18RivK5h6DV5/Y7YbgjJMZcXEPNRJRS+4ayf3uIKYX9d833oI401 jBtZUXp7witT83riwS7a0wgq1eaxfPMObzH/nYeq7RRj6gzTVMRj1W5Qa76XLr3zg/ TeW26vvx/HofPouEtLJY/8QBRLSyM2gGEOQK1x42jsFyvH/PhwzHR0IqBEqQS6KVaS cYFYN77NWHUvtBP6x/v9SZZiZMXboW+2b8bfTmMb8aaocFV4tGdO77/Neid2Zn1es3 gSJ4CCjnYGCFVEFwX/lu5GO32flW8u5V9R38z6rHfNIhizQ5WQmhjBC3i/lw3RJPD/ OHPS/qk607c1w== From: Jonathan Corbet To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dan Williams , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, tech-board@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: [PATCH] docs: Add a section on surveys to the researcher guidelines Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 14:23:02 -0600 Message-ID: <87il9v7u55.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 Signed-off-by: Dan Williams Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman Reviewed-by: Kees Cook --- .../process/researcher-guidelines.rst | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst b/Documentatio= n/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 indiv= idual developers involved. Developers cannot be interacted with/experimented on without consent; this, too, is standard research ethics. =20 +Surveys +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D + +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 +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D + 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 --=20 2.41.0