Open Stack

On 10/30/2014 04:45 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2014-10-29 18:37:42 -0700:
>> On 2014-10-29 18:27:48 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there
>>> are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other
>>> activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually
>>> be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who
>>> missed the last two elections prior to this one filtered out.
>>
>> Well, the base electorate for the TC are active contributors with
>> patches landed to official projects within the past year, so these
>> are devs getting their code merged but not interested in voting.
>> This is somewhat different from (though potentially related to) the
>> "dead weight" foundation membership on the rolls for board
>> elections.
>>
>> Also, foundation members who have not voted in two board elections
>> are being removed from the membership now, from what I understand
>> (we just needed to get to the point where we had two years worth of
>> board elections in the first place).
> 
> Thanks, I lost my mind here and confused the board with the TC.
> 
> So then my next question is, of those who did not vote, how many are
> from under-represented companies? A higher percentage there might point
> to disenfranchisement.

Different but related question (might be hard to calculate though):

If we remove people who have only ever landed one patch from the
electorate, what do the turnout numbers look like? 2? 5?

Do we have the ability to dig in slightly and find a natural definition
or characterization amongst our currently voting electorate that might
help us understand who the people are who do vote and what it is about
those people who might be or feel different or more enfranchised? I've
personally been thinking that the one-patch rule is, while tractable,
potentially strange for turnout - especially when one-patch also gets
you a free summit pass... but I have no data to say what actually
defined "active" in active technical contributor.