- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:13:38 -0400
- To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.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>
- Message-ID: <538DD812.7010704@w3.org>
On 6/2/2014 6:24 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > > Forgot to respond to one Brian’s question: > > > what sorts of questions would we be able to ask > > Assuming we collect more data than we use in the current vote counting > algorithm, questions might be: > > - What percentage of members voted? > 98 Members voted which is more than 25% of the Membership. Personally, I am quite pleased that there was this level of interest. While not the 90+% that I would have preferred, the 25% is still larger than some democratic political elections in some locations. They voted for 355 candidates, an average of 3.6 votes per Member. > - What percentage of people voted for the maximum number of candidates? > 51 of the 98 voted for 5 candidates. > How about only 1 candidate? > 22 of the 98 voted for 1 candidate. > - Assuming that voting for one candidate is an indication of strategic > voting, were there obvious patterns in the voting blocs? OK that’s > not a “statistical” question but we could ask the Team whether it was > obvious to them on what was most similar about the people who voted > for the same single candidate – Being in the same geographic region? > Position on a controversial issue? > I don't think that I can provide this information. Voters have a reasonable expectation of anonymity. Providing data about voting patterns jeapordizes anonymity. > - What percentage of voters were willing to go to the trouble to rank > order candidates? For those that did, would an STV system have > changed the outcome? Which STV schemes would have created the most > diversity (geographical, member size, business type)? > I don't think we have this information. > - For those who categorized candidates as acceptable / not acceptable, > what percentage of people listed more acceptable candidates than open > slots? Did a majority of voters find all candidates acceptable or > were they more discriminating? > I don't think that people had the opportunity to categorize in this way. > *From:*Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) > *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2014 2:18 PM > *To:* 'Brian Kardell' > *Cc:* Bassetti, Ann; Daniel Glazman; Charles McCathie Nevile; L. David > Baron; public-w3process@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution > > > Anything less than 'open' as elections in <stick just about any > country here>' seems like it yields a question of - why is that necessary? > > Let’s start with the reasons Ann gave … these are not positions that > offer power or financial rewards to the winners, so why drive the > inevitable losers away by exposing potentially embarrassing > information about how little support they got? > > *From:*Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2014 2:11 PM > *To:* Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) > *Cc:* Bassetti, Ann; Daniel Glazman; Charles McCathie Nevile; L. David > Baron; public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) > <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com > <mailto: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 > <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1.206.218.8039> > > email: ann.bassetti@boeing.com <mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com> > > *From:*Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com > <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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <http://hitchjs.com/> > > > > -- > Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/> > > > > -- > Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 14:13:55 UTC