> 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.
This all sounds great. > 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. Yes I'd love to check it out, thanks! > I guess we can also export responses for further analysis offline ? Definitely, although it's often much more tedious to build pivot tables vs it being provided natively in a survey system. On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 1:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > 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. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >
