W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:10:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jehJ29Ycea_FrjN5UNgaO8e4DcsQyHLz8CD6PG3DCqH1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Ann, if the Team kept the raw data confidential but answered *
> *statistical** questions from the AB/AC/Process CG would that raise any
> concerns?
>
>
>
> Brian, I know that’s not what you want, but would it address your most
> important concerns?
>

 If you can ask the right sorts of questions I suppose that would be fine -
but what sorts of questions would we be able to ask?  I mean, wouldn't you
expect me to immediately tend to just ask for the same statistics?  What %
of members voted/what % did each candidate get?  :)  From that you could
derive the suggested anyway, right?  Anything less than 'open' as elections
in <stick just about any country here>' seems like it yields a question of
- why is that necessary?





>  *From:* Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2014 1:32 PM
> *To:* Bassetti, Ann
> *Cc:* Daniel Glazman; Charles McCathie Nevile; L. David Baron;
> public-w3process@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Background information about me:  For the first time since 1999, I was
> not in this election.  I am American, hence familiar with
> one-vote-per-person.  I always vote.  I am quite outgoing and social, and
> not easily embarrassed. I like data. I value openness.
>
>
>
> Given all of that:  If I had been in this election and the votes were made
> public, there are many scenarios I would find embarrassing.  Such as: if I
> was not elected by a wide margin; or, if I was barely elected; or, if I got
> very few votes at all; or, etc.  Any scenario that would indicate I'm 'not
> liked' by the group, would be embarrassing.  Further, I can imagine my
> management would pay attention to that data, and add it to my grade.
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to belittle what you are saying, I appreciate your comments
> - but I think that W3C is the exception rather than the rule here and in a
> bad way - especially because we like to think of ourselves as 'open'... It
> seems hard to see how it can even 'work' (and I would argue it hasn't
> worked nearly as well as it could have) without this sort of information...
> Imagine for example that all these years no one noticed that there is no
> 'minimum number of votes rule' and - because it is dysfunctional - only 3
> or 4 mega-companies even bother voting.  If you can see that data there
> will be a clamor to fix it.  Without that, then what?  Similarly, if 350
> orgs vote overwhelming for a shared position held by numerous elected
> candidates - that _means_ something... People should take notice.  But we
> really have no idea about any of this other than some vague anecdotal
> evidence.  Open is better.
>
>
>
> Plus, this isn't new - this is how elections work in every country I know
> of - even in ones that have elections no one trusts - basic results are
> known - in part for the opposite of the reason you cite (and actually my
> own want to do it is based on this) - we get some kind of indication about
> what members support and don't.  Even votes for elementary school president
> or something provide this level of data in my experience.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how to get past that except to say that if someone is worried
> that not getting votes will define them to that extent, I would suggest
> that running probably isn't a good idea.  Assuming the things you say - it
> seems like either way you'd be likely to have similar feelings if you lose.
>  Personally - I *AM* actually easily embarrassed and not especially
> outgoing, but I recognize that there are any number of factors to an
> election besides being 'liked'.  I like people I wouldn't vote for at this
> juncture in time, I prefer some candidates to others (some by a lot, some
> by a little) - and we all know that, for example, you're more likely to
> vote for someone you are reasonably familiar with than someone you aren't
> regardless of what's said in a single statement.  You could say the same
> about participating in standards in a way - if you post something to a
> list, you might inadvertently illustrate your ignorance - not because you
> are flawed as a person or in a mean spirited way, but it is possible for
> you to build the same sort of "I won't ever speak because it might
> embarrass me" argument, employer and all.   I don't think that this is how
> _most_ people look at it and I've never really seen that to be the case.
>
>
>
>  I suggest to all of you who are pushing hard on this, that you should
> consider people's feelings; consider cultural values other than your own;
> consider people who are quieter than you; consider people's jobs; and so
> on.  While there may be value in honing a better voting system (about which
> you already know I am skeptical), I would not want that value to be at the
> expense of the human 'costs' described above.
>
>
>
>  Much of the tenor of this voting 'push' makes me want to withdraw, not
> participate. If *I* feel that, I can only imagine others may feel the same.
>
>
>
>  For these reasons, if data is released, I strongly urge it be
> anonymized.
>
>
> DEFINITELY everyone is suggesting that it be anonymized in terms of who
> voted for whom - it sounds like you are suggesting further anonymity?  What
> would that data even look like?
>
>
>
>
>    -- Ann
>
>
>
> Ann Bassetti
>
> The Boeing Company
>
> mobile:  +1.206.218.8039
>
> email:  ann.bassetti@boeing.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 12:27 PM
> *To:* Daniel Glazman
> *Cc:* Charles McCathie Nevile; L. David Baron; public-w3process@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Disclosing election results (was Re: Result Re: Call for
> Consensus - "Use 'Schulze STV' for voting")
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Glazman <
> daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>
>  On 02/06/2014 21:06, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy to have the pattern data, but not the candidate names -
> i.e. anonymize them so we can't figure out who romped in, who scraped in,
> and who
> > was beaten out by a single vote - or only got 1.
>
> Then I disagree. Publishing anonymized data is not useful to people
> not drastically involved in W3C Process. I suggest then W3M shares
> *all* election data with the AB, in full confidentiality. I don't
> even know if it's already the case today or not, and that says
> something about the opaqueness of our electoral system...
>
> The AC would get, as I said earlier, number of votes globally and
> per candidate and that would be enough IMHO.
>
> (please note that even if the votes are ballots, the results are
>  counted per person)
>
> </Daniel>
>
>
> I assume that the actual system stores 'ballot' records, I'd like to
> propose that those are exported anonymously - it is possible to glean
> slightly more data that way and certainly no more difficult for a
> reasonably intelligent person to create a 'count' for each candidate even
> in a simple csv which doesn't provide that directly.  I'm reasonably sure
> that within an hour or so of release, someone will re-post with counts if
> not provided.
>
>
>
> Let's not overcomplicate things, just keep it simple :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
>



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 21:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC