Re: Disclosure and information proposal

On 6/4/2014 7:13 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> Ok, spawning a new thread.  I am a pragmatist.  I think the best deal 
> is the one you can actually reach and I see no reason to belabor an 
> argument which, at best, has to be put to ACs anyway.
>
> It seems that we've set something of a precedent in getting very basic 
> figures cited.  I'd like to propose (if I may) that AB resolve to ask 
> whether data (or maybe Jeff can just decide and it is so) can be 
> provided with each election going forward.

Given that on some of these threads there have been concerns (Ann and 
others) about releasing more data, I would like an AB consensus before 
releasing more data.  It is on the agenda for the AB F2F next week.

>  It is enlightening to some and spawned some interesting new 
> conversations and efforts to find ways to increase involvement - all 
> good things IMO.  I would also charge that basic information like this 
> for the last 5 years is helpful information.  I know some people were 
> kind of taken aback by Jeff's seeming "I'm pleased" about that - but I 
> think that such information puts it into context.  My own read of this 
> is that participation before Jeff came was something ~ 1/3 to 1/2 of 
> that at best.  While it still seems dismal, this is indeed something 
> to celebrate IMO - we're going in the right direction.
>
> It seems that at least without significant more efforts we're not 
> going to get anything like the details that we see in examples cited 
> (even in countries where cultures are very different, I think).  I 
> think that the unfortunate bit about this has little to do with trust 
> concerns and more about the fact that that information is a valuable 
> cog in any democratic process that allows a number of things that have 
> been discussed in various other threads.  So, let's assume we can't 
> get that for now - is there any other way to get 'mostly there' or 
> 'enough there' in terms of the valuable data.
>
> For a candidate, it seems like they should have access to the AB list 
> for the duration of the campaign.  It seems several people agreed to 
> that.  Does anyone specifically oppose that idea?  Can we AB support 
> or rejection of that?
>
> It also seems that their own numbers should be available them 
> privately upon request, several people voiced support for that.  Can 
> we AB support or rejection of that?
>
> Note: I think that personally it would be nice if basic data 
> (including this) could be available to them throughout the election as 
> well... It might make things more competitive and stimulate 
> participation.
>
> Can we send out a questionare and maybe even actively ask people a few 
> questions about their participation?

Several months ago, the AB decided that we would encourage a CG to get a 
consensus about a new voting procedure.   I think it would be wonderful 
if the CG does it based on survey information - so we understand what 
the Membership wants.  In this and other threads STV has been proposed 
as the antidote to strategic voting.  For all I know, the Membership 
likes strategic voting.  So yes, let's get some information.

>   I can create a google form and this could be completely anonymous 
> data we could use to provide many of the answers we'd be scanning the 
> data for or speculating on. Note that this can literally be done 
> unofficially without the support of the AB by any 'reporter' - but it 
> seems like something AB should support:  Do you vote never, sometimes, 
> always?  If you don't vote - why? Here's some possible answers and a 
> space for you to provide your own.  Even a few questions submitted by 
> a statistically significant number of members would be valuable 
> information that could be used to help AB and the W3C improve.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/>