Re: public info

> On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:00 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 2015-01-09 11:49 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
>> On Friday 2015-01-09 14:31 -0500, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>> I'm sure that there would be hesitance (I think it's been officially said
>>> no) to disclose anything about the voting experiements, but is there -any-
>>> kind of info?  Like, what % of people who voted voted in experiments?  I'm
>>> not sure how it was arranged - was it possible that someone voted in
>>> experiments without voting in the real thing?  Is it possible to say
>>> something that doesn't give it away or undermine but still says something
>>> useful - like, the numeric order of "most votes to least votes" differed
>>> from the same kind of preferential sort?
>> 
>> One thing about the voting experiments that I just noticed:  the
>> response email from WBS for the ranked-choice voting doesn't match
>> what I actually filled out; it shows "Don't want" next to the
>> candidate I ranked as #1, 1 next to the candidate I ranked as #2, 2
>> next to the candidate I ranked as #3, etc., down to 6 next to the
>> candidate I ranked as #7.  (I think; assuming I'm remembering what I
>> did correctly.)
> 
> To clarify here:  I see the correct ballot online when I view it in
> WBS; it's only the email response that I got (which also went to an
> archived team-only list, I believe) that is wrong.

Hi David,

Thanks for that heads-up. I agree; the email looks wrong. I will look into that.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Friday, 9 January 2015 20:08:04 UTC