On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes it > can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not mention > their name, we should give them that opportunity.
"Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough. It would be irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be revealed "sometimes". If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the very least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts discussion that ought to take place in public onto a private list. Furthermore, we should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think no IPMC members will be able to guess who they are. I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of 1 to 10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool of potential respondents. We're going to have to think really hard about what we ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm going to feel really bad. Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed privately is the price of consensus, I'm still on board. It's better than nothing. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
