- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:04:36 -0400
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53912FC4.9010204@w3.org>
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/>
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 03:04:45 UTC