aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstatshomepage
path: root/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst31
1 files changed, 29 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst
index afc944e0e898..beb484c5965d 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
@@ -68,7 +95,7 @@ Before contributing, carefully read the appropriate documentation:
* Documentation/process/development-process.rst
* Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
* Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
-* Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
+* Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
Then send a patch (including a commit log with all the details listed
below) and follow up on any feedback from other developers.
@@ -140,4 +167,4 @@ If no one can be found to internally review patches and you need
help finding such a person, or if you have any other questions
related to this document and the developer community's expectations,
please reach out to the private Technical Advisory Board mailing list:
-<tech-board@lists.linux-foundation.org>.
+<tech-board@groups.linuxfoundation.org>.