On 11/11/19 1:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:48:00 +1030, Simon Lees wrote:
On 11/10/19 6:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
And non-voting was 224.
That's pretty telling, because at least some of us who didn't vote explicitly didn't vote because our questions about the vote were not addressed.
Given previous history of activity from Board elections since we did the membership cleanup 224 non-voting is around the same or slightly less then board elections. So its not really that telling it seems reasonably consistent with the number of inactive / are members for other reasons such as mail alias's then choose not to vote / forgot / didn't have time.
Hard to say, though, for sure; maybe this would have inspired more to vote than a board election. We don't really know - it's just a guess.
Do we know how many people changed their vote after the wiki page was updated with more information?
As we use a good secure voting system it is impossible to see who voted for what during the progress we can only see the number of people who have voted at any point. But as an indication most of the people who ended up voting had already voted atleast once before we created the wiki page, just before is the only time Ish communicated with the board the number of people who had already voted. Given at that point it was around what I expected I wasn't too concerned about asking for updates.
Obviously we wouldn't know *who* changed their vote. I'm asking if the system tracks numbers of people who changed their vote (or indeed, when they voted during the polling period). I don't know the software.
Do we have any information about why anyone who changed their vote did so (I'm going to guess no, but who knows? Maybe we have some solid information about why people who changed their votes did).
The voting system doesn't ask 'why are you changing your vote' so beyond what is said on mailing lists we have no way of knowing.
Naturally. We might be able to make an educated guess based on when, but I guess the software we use doesn't track that information.
So basically, what I'm hearing, is that we opened a vote, we didn't provide sufficient information before polling opened for everyone to make an informed vote. We tried to address that (not to everyone's satisfaction - a factual assertion because it wasn't addressed to *my* satisfaction), allowed people to change their vote - but don't have any way of knowing if the additional information affected anyone's vote, and we're happy to leave the decision as it stands because our best guess is that the people who didn't vote don't generally care enough to vote anyways in other elections, so who cares?
Not quite, had the result been significantly closer the board likely wouldn't have taken this result as final and likely would have explored ways to get more feedback, but given that 45% of registered members voted to keep the name as is, it is hugely unlikely that any change we made to the process would have resulted in an additional 200 or 80% of people who didn't vote voting for yes without any voting for no or a similar number of people changing there minds from don't change to change. That is in the ball park of what would have been required for the vote to be close. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B