Hello Hernán,
First of all, thank you for all the work you've done for this election !
I think you've done more than enough to remind people to vote. So it's
on all of us who didn't, not on you. And thank you to all you accepted
to stand for election !
I can only speak for myself, and that's probably a special perspective,
as I've been quite far from GRASS GIS in the last years, due to changes
in my professional life.
Nevertheless, I continue to follow discussions and was ready to vote,
but the voting period fell into a very bad week for me, and I when I was
in front of the computer I only focused on work, and didn't even go into
my GRASS GIS email folders. I actually was ready to vote when we got the
candidates' statements, and then kind of lost track through the
no-action period to then be, as explained, less receptive when the
voting actually started.
Again, this is very personal, and I might be the only one, but why did
we need a no-action period ? Why not just start voting once all
candidate statements are in, and make the voting period a bit longer ?
That doesn't excuse my non-voting, but it might get you a few more votes in.
Also, in some European countries, the voting week was a week of school
vacation and so some people might have been traveling with family, but
that's probably minor.
Finally, and that might probably explain a bit more: IIUC from the wiki
page, criteria for being eligible to vote are not time-based, i.e.
anyone who ever committed a PR or translated something is eligble, even
if that happened years ago. I have the feeling that some of the names on
the list are people that haven't been active in quite some time, so
maybe part of the non-participation is due just to people feeling too
far from the project. How would that list change if you only took those
who were active in the last, say, three years ?
Anyhow, congratulations to the new PSC members and thanks again, Hernán,
for your great work !
Moritz
On 28/10/24 20:59, Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS election 2024
via grass-psc wrote:
Michael,
I do not understand that part either. Several other elections in
LimeSurvey seem to have that "feature", with comparatively many
incomplete responses. I had explicitly blocked partial responses: voters
had to choose 4 candidates. Yet it happened. I have no explanation for
how. May be it has to do with the system itself.
But it would be a mistake for us to focus on this aspect of the issue,
when the real problem seems to me why so few people felt compelled to
vote. Somehow the engagement wasn't there as it was in 2020 (my
impression).
I sent two reminders in total via LimeSurvey: one on Thursday and
another on Sunday. Only 27 people voted between the opening first
reminder on Thursday. Between then and Sunday, when I sent the second
reminder, only 21 more had voted. After the second reminder and until
the closing only 11 more voted. On Friday I also sent a message through
the lists. Yet few actively voted. Why? I do not know. I insisted enough
I believe. Then there is also a limit on how many reminders you can push
via email before wearing people's patience out.
Hernán
Den 2024-10-28 kl. 18:06, skrev Michael Barton:
While this is a low number, it is better than it seemed from the vote
totals at 40%. Of the remaining 60%, I don't quite understand how 23
incomplete ballots resulted in 3 votes but perhaps I misunderstood
your point.
Michael
_____________________________
C. Michael Barton
Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems (https://
scas.asu.edu <https://scas.asu.edu/>)
Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change (https://
shesc.asu.edu <https://shesc.asu.edu>)
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity (https://
complexity.asu.edu <https://complexity.asu.edu>)
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2701
USA
Executive Director, Open Modeling Foundation (https://
openmodelingfoundation.github.io <https://
openmodelingfoundation.github.io/>)
Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological
Sciences (https://comses.net <https://comses.net>)
personal website: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton <http://
www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>
On Oct 28, 2024, at 7:35 AM, Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS
election 2024 <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael
See the summary in the elction Wiki. I see no anomaly, but I share
the impression that the participation was lower this time than in 2020.
* name and e-mail address for 153 eligible voters were loaded
* 5 e-mail addresses were invalid
* 2 voters explicitly declined to participate
* 59 registered voters submitted complete responses (i.e. chose 4
candidates out of 10)
* 87 registered voters either did not participate or submitted empty
or partial responses
o of these, 23 partial or incomplete votes were registered,
resulting in 3 definite votes for 3 different candidates
https://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/PSC_Election_2024#Details
Den 2024-10-28 kl. 15:29, skrev Michael Barton:
Thanks for all your work in managing the PSC election Hernán.
Can you tell me how many total people were eligible to vote and how
many of them voted? The totals published seem like a very small number.
Thanks
Michael Barton
School of Human Evolution &Social Change
School of Complex Adaptive System Science
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
...Sent from my iPad
--
Hernán De Angelis
Chief Return Officer (CRO)
GRASS GIS election 2024
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
