Ahh, that rules out my second point as a factor, participation was indeed 
notably lower.


> On 30 Oct 2024, at 11:18, Hernán De Angelis via grass-psc 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Nicklas,
> 
> Thanks for your e-mail.
> 
> You are correct that the nature of the 2020 was different than this one and 
> that might have prompted more participation.
> 
> Those numbers that you ask can be retrieved from the records still in 
> LimeSurvey:
> 
> - 245 registered voters (we had problems with duplicated names and emails, so 
> this number is not exact)
> - 98 voters left complete respones (10 out of 10)
>     - 30 voted at the start with no need to be reminded
>     - 51 voted after first reminder
>     - 7 voted after 2nd reminder
>     - 10 voted after 3rd reminder
> - 78 voters either did not vote or left incomplete responses, resulting in 15 
> definite votes
> 
> 
> As far as I understand, it is the OSGeo position that LimeSurvey is going to 
> be used long term. I have no problems with this. Perhaps what is needed is if 
> OSGeo could help with a good introduction to LimeSurvey by some knowledgeable 
> expert.
> 
> 
> Hernán
> 
> 
> Den 2024-10-30 kl. 11:03, skrev Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc:
>> Hernán,
>> 
>> I think you did an excellent job, thank you!
>> 
>> There are some differences between this election and the 2020 election, that 
>> might have played a role in the seemingly low participation. Firstly, at the 
>> 2020 election the whole board was put out on nomination, with a wide range 
>> of long-time familiar persons in the Community as nominees, whereas now 
>> “only” empty seats were to be refilled (with perhaps partly less familiar 
>> nominees for the wider Community). This could in part explain some of the 
>> incomplete votes.
>> Secondly, I can’t remember, and the records [1] don't tell, if there were 
>> any partial or incomplete votes in 2020. But if we add the complete with the 
>> partial votes of this election we come up with 82 voters, which is much 
>> closer to the 98 voter participation in 2020. This indicates at least 
>> similar level of intent to vote.
>> 
>> For next time, maybe the use of LimeSurvey should be revised, at least 
>> tested.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Nicklas
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC/Election2020
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28 Oct 2024, at 20:59, Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS election 
>>> 2024 via grass-psc <[email protected]> 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]> 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 <http://scas.asu.edu/> <https://scas.asu.edu/>)
>>>> Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change (https:// 
>>>> shesc.asu.edu <http://shesc.asu.edu/> <https://shesc.asu.edu 
>>>> <https://shesc.asu.edu/>>)
>>>> Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity (https:// 
>>>> complexity.asu.edu <http://complexity.asu.edu/> 
>>>> <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 
>>>> <http://openmodelingfoundation.github.io/> <https:// 
>>>> openmodelingfoundation.github.io/ 
>>>> <http://openmodelingfoundation.github.io/>>)
>>>> Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological 
>>>> Sciences (https://comses.net <https://comses.net/> <https://comses.net 
>>>> <https://comses.net/>>)
>>>> personal website: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton <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] 
>>>>> <mailto:[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
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Hernán De Angelis
>>> 
>>> Chief Return Officer (CRO)
>>> GRASS GIS election 2024
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
  • [GRASS-... Michael Barton via grass-psc
    • Re... Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS election 2024 via grass-psc
      • ... Michael Barton via grass-psc
        • ... Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS election 2024 via grass-psc
          • ... Moritz Lennert via grass-psc
            • ... Chief Return Officer (CRO) - GRASS GIS election 2024 via grass-psc
              • ... Anna Petrášová via grass-psc
          • ... Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc
            • ... Hernán De Angelis via grass-psc
              • ... Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc

Reply via email to