On 8/15/25 13:30, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
The email one though is connected with keeping PII though ? (Personally
Identifiable Information) - so I guess that one would require at least some
discussion with the privacy team ?
I think, as a baseline, we should be working with multiple teams prior
to any survey being published:
- privacy team for data privacy sanity checks
- M&P for messaging and promotion if/when needed
- Projects that have a significant interest in whatever survey is being
assembled.
It might make sense for us to have a privacy policy specifically for our
surveys in general, which we can then refer to at the beginning of the
survey - preferably before any data is entered. This policy could also
be a guideline for us on how to handle the data. For instance, we could
-- or rather, I think we should/must -- delete or otherwise obfuscate
any PII in surveys no later than 60 days after the survey has been
closed for submissions.
Let me know what people are thinking with regards to that, and I can
start putting together a privacy policy document for us in our wiki[1].
With regards,
Daniel.
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:25 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
On 8/15/25 13:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
One question - I understand the survey is anonymous, but is there a way
to
distinguish several answers from the same person (or at the very least
browser, due to anonymity). Just thinking of some "gaming" scenarios -
ASF
people are smart and might get the idea to increase chances of their
choice
by responding to the survey several times (I just did with the low rating
for poor pony choices ;) ) .
Great question, and thankfully one that I already asked myself as well,
so I have some answers for you.
For surveys aimed at either a set group of people (like committers,
members, etc), we can make use of closed, individual links. We can
pre-generate these in advance to ensure only one submission per person.
For wider, open audiences, we can use email verification to at least
limit responses to one per email address. This would require anyone
wanting to submit a survey to first verify their email address with the
system through a callback link sent to their email address.
With the latter you could presumably also filter out obvious attempts at
gaming any sort of survey, though I would hope we don't have to do that.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 10:27 AM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>
wrote:
On 8/15/25 09:53, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
This tool is great. Works flawlessly. But I think the choice of ponies
was
very limited, so you should try harder :)
That's why we have the "how did we do?" questions at the end :-D
J.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 9:23 AM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hello again, wonderful D&I folks.
I have been experimenting with a self-hosted tool for conducting
surveys
and collecting feedback/reviews, and things are looking pretty decent.
I'd love to get some feedback from the people on this list, so that we
can perhaps decide on using this tool or not and discuss some basic
premises for conducting surveys in the future.
You can try a survey demo here:
https://surveys.diversity.apache.org/s/wcee4v8ygw8q0pih0nflnxl1
Those of you on the D&I committee[1] who wants to try their hands at
the
behind-the-scenes work with surveys can let me know (private or this
list), and I'll set you up with access to manage surveys yourselves.
This will also allow you to see the results of surveys in various
ways.
I have built a template for our surveys that comes with a standard
introduction and a data consent form at the very end; you should be
able
to see that in the survey demo I linked to. I had the wording in the
template refined by our resident "editor-in-chief", Andrew Wetmore,
but
things can always be improved upon further, so do not hesitate to
suggest changes.
There isn't a whole lot more to say, take the survey for a spin and
see
if this survey tool fits the brief.
With regards,
Daniel.
[1] Access to survey administration is restricted to members of the
D&I
committee for data privacy reasons; this is explained in more detail
in
the survey itself.
