Open Stack

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20171026/d46d6c19/attachment.sig>