The survey works well IMO - intuitive, simple, fast. Does it allow us to slice and dice the data on the backend in different ways? For example, if we want to understand how a certain cohort (e.g. geography, age, gender) answered a particular question/set of questions, do we have the ability to do this? It can help immensely with interpreting data.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 7:16 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > I think, as a baseline, we should be working with multiple teams prior > to any survey being published: > > Very good idea indeed. Better safe than sorry. > > > It might make sense for us to have a privacy policy specifically for our > surveys in general > > I think that would be a good idea for Niall, Christian and Bolke to chime > in on that one - whether to have a separate policy or whether to fold it in > the general policy. I know Christian, Niall and Bolke are working towards > making our privacy policy "official" and "approved by board" [1] - and one > of the important things raised by Christian in the discussion was that we > need to explicitly list (provide catalogue of) all the tools we are using > to collect potentially private data. We discuss Matomo (and the possibility > of gathering "product usage" information) in this thread but I think this > is fairly relevant as well. I linked directly to the message from > Christian, but the whole thread is interesting to read in this context I > think. > > [1] The "Matomo thread " > https://lists.apache.org/thread/x4kjt81o1kxcy3wn79h25ghvsskgh912 > > I do not want to dominate the discussion here, so I will shut up, but I > thought it's worth mentioning. > > J. > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:43 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
