All,
Here's a quick summary of what happened in our election
Server error 1 user reported
Wrong Email in Squeak People 5 users New email added ballots resent
Ineligible voters requesting ballot 2 users
Couldn't find Email 3 users 2 resent (1 found by user)
Bounces 12 emails bounced
Issues: 0-10 emails were not on squeakPeople export Numbers on front page are wrong Should be: Observer 96 Apprentice 245 Journeyer 118 Master 34
Total 493
I'd say it went pretty well,
Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Elections Team Member
To stay for a moment on the technical sides:
Yes, I agree - not bad overall. Many of these problems could have been solved, however, by some of the following precautions:
1. Telling people in advance to check that their SqP account is certified, has a current email address, and a full name (the last should be a requirement to voting). 2. Getting the SqP list from Ken with full names and certifications as well as emails. Makes dealing with missing emails more likely. 3. Sending mails to all SqP accounts mentioning the elections - both to awaken observers that may have done more since, and to get the bounces earlier.
While sending people ballots manually was critical this time, we should try to avoid it in general, since malicious voters might use it to vote twice.
On other fronts, I was happy we had lots of candidates and less than thrilled about the level of conversation that developed between candidates and voters. I think that while it isn't our role to guide the discussion, we do need to do something to have more meaningful platform statements. I think we should probably have this part of the discussion on squeak-dev, though.
Daniel Vainsencher
Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
All,
Here's a quick summary of what happened in our election
Server error 1 user reported
Wrong Email in Squeak People 5 users New email added ballots resent
Ineligible voters requesting ballot 2 users
Couldn't find Email 3 users 2 resent (1 found by user)
Bounces 12 emails bounced
Issues: 0-10 emails were not on squeakPeople export Numbers on front page are wrong Should be:
Observer 96 Apprentice 245 Journeyer 118 Master 34
Total 493
I'd say it went pretty well,
Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Elections Team Member
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
I totally agree with your assessment about the level of conversation and the discussions of the direction that the board should be moving. It would have been a great time to get the community engaged on what the board should be doing and then let candidates say if they support that platform. It is interesting that Stef seems to support a direction that wasn't even discussed.
I really don't know what to do about it, since the community is really so small, and the participation level, people that asked questions and made comments, was only in the 10's of people.
It is definitely something to think about.
Ron
From: Daniel Vainsencher
To stay for a moment on the technical sides:
Yes, I agree - not bad overall. Many of these problems could have been solved, however, by some of the following precautions:
- Telling people in advance to check that their SqP account is
certified, has a current email address, and a full name (the last should be a requirement to voting). 2. Getting the SqP list from Ken with full names and certifications as well as emails. Makes dealing with missing emails more likely. 3. Sending mails to all SqP accounts mentioning the elections - both to awaken observers that may have done more since, and to get the bounces earlier.
While sending people ballots manually was critical this time, we should try to avoid it in general, since malicious voters might use it to vote twice.
On other fronts, I was happy we had lots of candidates and less than thrilled about the level of conversation that developed between candidates and voters. I think that while it isn't our role to guide the discussion, we do need to do something to have more meaningful platform statements. I think we should probably have this part of the discussion on squeak-dev, though.
Daniel Vainsencher
Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
All,
Here's a quick summary of what happened in our election
Server error 1 user reported
Wrong Email in Squeak People 5 users New email added ballots resent
Ineligible voters requesting ballot 2 users
Couldn't find Email 3 users 2 resent (1 found by user)
Bounces 12 emails bounced
Issues: 0-10 emails were not on squeakPeople export Numbers on front page are wrong Should be:
Observer 96 Apprentice 245 Journeyer 118 Master 34
Total 493
I'd say it went pretty well,
Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Elections Team Member
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
To stay for a moment on the technical sides:
Yes, I agree - not bad overall. Many of these problems could have been solved, however, by some of the following precautions:
- Telling people in advance to check that their SqP account is
certified, has a current email address, and a full name (the last should be a requirement to voting). 2. Getting the SqP list from Ken with full names and certifications as well as emails. Makes dealing with missing emails more likely.
And I would be happy to help there. Again I need to get with Cees to figure out how he has been doing this in the past.
- Sending mails to all SqP accounts mentioning the elections - both to
awaken observers that may have done more since, and to get the bounces earlier.
While sending people ballots manually was critical this time, we should try to avoid it in general, since malicious voters might use it to vote twice.
Is there no mechanism for sending them the same exact email again with the same exact ID number? If so then it doesn't matter how many copies they get, they only get one vote per ID. If not, that's very unfortunate, lost emails are a nearly unavoidable situation, particularly as the size of the voter pool increases which I both expect and look forward to.
On other fronts, I was happy we had lots of candidates and less than thrilled about the level of conversation that developed between candidates and voters. I think that while it isn't our role to guide the discussion, we do need to do something to have more meaningful platform statements. I think we should probably have this part of the discussion on squeak-dev, though.
I agree with having a discussion about this, if any, on squeak-dev. I don't have a problem with how things went. I feel that it is the voters responsibility to make themselves familiar with the candidates and the candidates responsibility to make themselves known if they wish to be elected. I have no problem with the Election team making more extensive facilities available for this sort of communication but I personally would not be comfortable forcing the candidates to participate any more than each wishes to.
Ken
It is a bit late to say, but... Ron and Daniel and everybody, thank you so much for administrating the election! It was run smoothly and I saw timely notifications and support for individual queries.
Thanks again!
-- Yoshiki
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org