I guess we can also export responses for further analysis offline ? On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 7:53 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 8/19/25 19:48, Melissa Logan wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, we can can filter/funnel in many ways. The most intuitive for a > birds eye view is done by simply clicking on the answers we want to dig > into, and the survey results will automatically filter to only show > respondents that picked that option (one can apply multiple filters). > > We can also add business logic to the survey, meaning if someone for > instance ticked the "I am a professional developer" box in a survey, we > can route them to a special set of questions about OSS employers, > whereas if they ticked "I only work on Open Source as a hobby", we could > have them automatically skip that part. > > If you'd like to look at the interactive view for survey results, I can > set up an account for you in the system, so you can take a look behind > the scenes. > > > > > 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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >
