Open Stack

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Chris Dent                      (⊙＿⊙')         https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent