Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
Anthony -
Interesting question. I'll send it to the elections list and see what the rest of the committee thinks. I'm personally reticent, just because we didn't say we were going to do it in the first place, but we'll see how the rest of the committee feels.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Anthony To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 3:31 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Board votes results
Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Anthony -
Interesting question. I'll send it to the elections list and see what the rest of the committee thinks. I'm personally reticent, just because we didn't say we were going to do it in the first place, but we'll see how the rest of the committee feels.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Anthony
Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
I would find it interesting to see a distribution of the number of votes by ballot, but correlations of votes for canddate A with votes for candidate B is a little more dicey.
Ec
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:31:20PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
Perhaps a compromise?
Perhaps not made public, but attaching a developer/ statistician/ mathematician / wearer of funny hats temporarily to the election committee to do some statistical wrangling should be possible without TOO much trouble, I'd think.
We can then all look at the statistics (s)he's making, and maybe ask them more questions, as necessary, without any of the worries of making the actual result-set public.
read you soon, Kim Bruning
On 7/18/07, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:31:20PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
Perhaps a compromise?
Perhaps not made public, but attaching a developer/ statistician/ mathematician / wearer of funny hats temporarily to the election committee to do some statistical wrangling should be possible without TOO much trouble, I'd think.
For your information Election committee is discussing how to answer Anthony as body, I have a distance from this discussion for spending my time for more wikivacationique activities ;D
However, I would like you to remark that it is not the case. Election Committee per se have no ability to generate such statistics unless they will be granted the access to the results in detail. Right now only our third party partner have an access to detailed data (who voted whom) and temporal joining wouldn't be a solution.
We can then all look at the statistics (s)he's making, and maybe ask them more questions, as necessary, without any of the worries of making the actual result-set public.
read you soon, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:40:08PM +0900, Aphaia wrote:
However, I would like you to remark that it is not the case. Election Committee per se have no ability to generate such statistics unless they will be granted the access to the results in detail. Right now only our third party partner have an access to detailed data (who voted whom) and temporal joining wouldn't be a solution.
Ah, more compartimentalisation, subarashi!
So the dev would need to work with that 3rd party, if at all. Interesting.
read you soon, Kim Bruning
On 7/18/07, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:31:20PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
Is there any chance of getting an anonymized list of all votes in the recent board election made public? I'm especially interested in how many people voted for only one candidate, but it'd also be interesting to see the various groupings of votes. The low percentage "approval" of the winners is probably a symptom of many people voting for only one candidate, but there are other possibilities.
Perhaps a compromise?
Perhaps not made public, but attaching a developer/ statistician/ mathematician / wearer of funny hats temporarily to the election committee to do some statistical wrangling should be possible without TOO much trouble, I'd think.
We can then all look at the statistics (s)he's making, and maybe ask them more questions, as necessary, without any of the worries of making the actual result-set public.
I don't think it's a good idea to give someone such information unless *everyone* gets it.
I can understand not wanting to make the information public, although just releasing a breakdown of the number of votes made seems harmless. For instance, something like:
0 votes: 12 1 vote: 56 2 votes: 23 3 votes: 98 4 votes: 42 5 votes: 33 6 votes: 23 7 votes: 21 8 votes: 44 9 votes: 65
I'm not sure how useful that's going to be, it'd certainly be *more useful* to know the actual correlations, but it'd be somewhat useful to see how many people are voting exactly 1 vote, or exactly 3 candidates, or 0 candidates, or n-1 candidates, or n candidates (where n is the total number of candidates, which I believe was 12).
Next time, we need exit polls :).
Heh, a sample of one to draw generalizations from:
I voted for precisely two candidates.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Anthony wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to give someone such information unless *everyone* gets it.
I can understand not wanting to make the information public, although just releasing a breakdown of the number of votes made seems harmless. For instance, something like:
0 votes: 12 1 vote: 56 2 votes: 23 3 votes: 98 4 votes: 42 5 votes: 33 6 votes: 23 7 votes: 21 8 votes: 44 9 votes: 65
I'm not sure how useful that's going to be, it'd certainly be *more useful* to know the actual correlations, but it'd be somewhat useful to see how many people are voting exactly 1 vote, or exactly 3 candidates, or 0 candidates, or n-1 candidates, or n candidates (where n is the total number of candidates, which I believe was 12).
Next time, we need exit polls :).
It may be interesting to see how many people voted for exactly three candidates. In some discussions in the early days of the votation a few people on it.wp were convinced that they could cast a maximum of three votes.
Cruccone
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org