On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:05:44AM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Tony Breeds wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:35:34AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote: > > > > > I agree, we should care about not repeating this Pike trend. It looks > > > like Queens is better in terms of turnout (see the amazing positive > > > delta!). However, I can't help but noticing that the trend for > > > turnouts is slowly reducing (excluding some outliers) since the > > > beginning of these stats. > > > > Yup, the table makes that pretty visible. > > I think we can't really make much in the way of conclusions about > the turnout data without comparing it with contributor engagement in > general. If many of the eligible voters have only barely crossed the > eligibility threshold (e.g., one commit) it's probably not > reasonable to expect them to care much about TC elections. We've > talked quite a bit lately that "casual contribution" is a growth > area.
So this is clearly bogus because we don't have any way of knowing who voted and therefore can't adjust the number of votes cast: +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------+-----------------------+ | Election | Electorate (delta %) | Voted (delta %) | Turnout % (delta %) | +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------+-----------------------+ | 10/2017 | 2430 ( -23.85) | 420 ( -1.64) | 17.28 ( 29.16) | | 1 change | 2373 ( -2.35) | 420 ( 0.00) | 17.70 ( 2.40) | | 5 changes | 1162 ( -51.03) | 420 ( 0.00) | 36.14 ( 104.22) | | 10 changes | 829 ( -28.66) | 420 ( 0.00) | 50.66 ( 40.17) | | 100 changes | 153 ( -81.54) | 420 ( 0.00) | 274.51 ( 441.83) | +-------------+-----------------------+-------------------+-----------------------+ However it gives you some idea of the electorate size at the various thresholds. This is public data I just happen to have it quick access to it. > A possibly meaningful correlation may be eligible voters to PTG > attendance to turnout, or before the PTG, number of people who got a > free pass to summit, chose to use it, and voters. Sure, that'd be closer but we still don't really have anyway to know who from that set is voting. > Dunno. Obviously it would be great if more people voted. :) > > Me? No ;P I do think we need to work out *why* turnout is attending > > before determining how to correct it. I don't really think that we can > > get that information though. Community member that aren't engaged > > enough to participate in the election(s) are also unlikely to > > participate in a survey askign why they didn't participate ;P > > This is a really critical failing in the way we typical gather data. > We have huge survivorship bias. Sure. I have no idea how to fix that though Yours Tony.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev