I would caution overanalyzing the voter data given the method in which voting take place. A vote for a candidate may be given for many reasons. Candidates addressed more than one issue in their wiki.
Moreover, the system is set up so that voters neglect to vote for people they don't want to see seated. (You could vote for everyone, or remove those you don't want from your ballot.) This double negative setup is less familiar than the more common vote for the person or people you do want. But seeing it that way suggests that 256 of the 338 voters (about 75%) did not want an outcome with Coraline getting a seat and 302 voters (about 90%) did not want an outcome where Tobie got a seat. I don't know how to combine those two into a sentiment for the Ethical Source conversation since I don't see data about who voted for either or both, or if a vote for either is the same as a vote for this one issue. Note: the goal was not to get 100% popularity -- even the top candidate had 33% of the voters not vote for him. The goal is to be of the top two such that the most people are ok with you getting a seat. Given that a voter could cast between 0 and 15 names, sentiment is hard to measure. Clearly though, some people want a conversation about this, and others don't. Given this is a conversation list, we're having a conversation. Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:08 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of Rick Moen > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 2:17 PM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower > authors outside license agreements? > > > > In case it's useful, OSI's 2020 election results (with vote counts) were > reported here: https://opensource.org/node/1049 > > > > FWIW, Ms. Ehmke's blog post states that she and Tobie Langel 'did > collectively secure 35% of the votes from the membership', but quick > calculation[1] using the numbers at https://opensource.org/node/1049 > suggests this statistic is 11%. (Perhaps Ms. Ehmke was relying on > preliminary vote counts from elsewhere. I wouldn't know, and just note the > datum.) > > > > If you go just on the cumulative numbers, there were 1,061 votes cast, so > (82+36)/1,061 = 11.1%, as you note. > > If you go to the ballot tracker ( > https://vote.heliosvoting.org/helios/elections/d93efdc8-5c7e-11ea-9fd6-dac1e2b1446f/voters/list), > there were 338 individual voters who cast votes, so 338/1,061 = 31.8%. > That’s more in the ballpark of the quoted 35%. If you use that > calculation, and you combine Ehmke+Langel, percentages are: > > 1. *Josh Simmons: 224 (66%)* > 2. *Megan Byrd-Sanicki: 198 (58%)* > 3. Ashley Wolf: 137 (41%) > 4. Coraline Ada Ehmke: 82+ Tobie Langel: 36 (32%) > 5. McCoy Smith: 92 (27%) > 6. Chris Short: 67 (20%) > 7. Mario Behling: 60 (18%) > 8. Mekki MacAulay: 56 (17%) > 9. George Kraft: 39 (11%) > 10. John Tredennick: 36 (11%) > 11. Travin Keith: 13 (4%) > 12. Michael Cruz: 7 (2%) > 13. Rohit Goswami:7 (2%) > 14. Bob McWhirter : 7 (2%) > > From which, I would conclude, the winners got substantial majorities of > the voters, and no one else did, even if we combine candidates based on > platforms. So they really deserve a seat at the table; everyone else, > probably not. > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
