Hi,
Based on feedback from the community, the Board made several proposals
to improve the election process for January 2013.
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001246.html
The first three proposals were implemented. That is:
- clear statements from each candidates,
- more information for voters about the individual member election,
- request to organizations to act honourably and guide their staff to
vote in the interest of the community.
One of the goal of these proposals was to encourage and help every voter
to vote for candidates who best represent the Community. This was one of
the answers to the concerns that were raised about the influence of
corporate entities in the individual member election before and after
the August 2012 election.
For the August 2012 election, some statistics were sent to help quantify
the role employers played in the election:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html
To help the community evaluate if the changes in the election process
had a positive impact, the election inspectors have created the same
statistics for the January 2013 election. Like for the statistics from
August 2012, we are not drawing any conclusions in this report, rather
we are attempting to present the information relevant to the
aforementioned concerns.
All credits for this should still go to James, as we used the same
script, and his explanations for each table are used below.
Thanks,
Vincent
========
While each vote is anonymous, the affiliates that each Individual Member
specified when applying for Foundation Membership was recorded with the
vote. That stated affiliation is the basis for the analysis below.
Keep in mind that the affiliation field is free-form and not verified,
and members may have provided incorrect or unusable data. For instance,
it is apparent that some people misinterpreted the field, needlessly
providing multiple affiliations, affiliations that clearly don't match
the criteria specified on the form, or just plain non-sequiturs.
Therefore the numbers below should be close to reality, but may not be
exact.
The following table lists the election results for the top 8 candidates,
including the weighted vote (the sum of all the votes cast for that
candidate), the percent of the total weighted vote which was cast for
that candidate, the number of voters who individually cast at least part
of their vote for that candidate, and the percentage of the total voters
who cast at least part of their vote for that candidate.
Results for top 8 Candidates
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| Name | Weighted | %Weighted | Voters | %Voters |
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| Monty Taylor | 1709.00 | 15.38 % | 413 | 29.73 % |
| Rob Hirschfeld | 1591.00 | 14.32 % | 371 | 26.71 % |
| Troy Toman | 1335.00 | 12.01 % | 342 | 24.62 % |
| Hui Cheng | 1022.00 | 9.20 % | 286 | 20.59 % |
| Tim Bell | 907.00 | 8.16 % | 385 | 27.72 % |
| Lauren Sell | 701.00 | 6.31 % | 303 | 21.81 % |
| Mark McLoughlin | 582.00 | 5.24 % | 242 | 17.42 % |
| Tristan Goode | 498.00 | 4.48 % | 188 | 13.53 % |
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
The following table lists the sources of votes for the top 8 candidates
classified by the employer of the voter. Four categories are listed;
the first, "%Employer", is the percentage of voters for that candidate
with the same employer as the candidate. The second, "%Major", is the
percentage of voters from a "major" employer, which is to say an
employer that was specified by at least 5 voters overall (there are
about 20 "major" employers in the data set by this calculation). The
third, "%Minor", is the percentage from a "minor" employer, i.e., one
specified by less than 5 individuals. The last, "%None", is the
percentage who listed no affiliation.
Source of Votes for Top 8 Candidates
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Name | Employer | %Employer | %Major | %Minor | %None |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Monty Taylor | HP | 57 % | 22 % | 14 % | 7 % |
| Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 59 % | 23 % | 13 % | 5 % |
| Troy Toman | Rackspace | 68 % | 18 % | 10 % | 4 % |
| Hui Cheng | SINA | | | 29 % | 31 % |
| Tim Bell | CERN | | | 23 % | 10 % |
| Lauren Sell | OpenStack Foundation | | | 19 % | 8 % |
| Mark McLoughlin | Red Hat | | | 24 % | 9 % |
| Tristan Goode | Aptira | | | 30 % | 12 % |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
[Some values have been omitted to preserve anonymity.]
The following table shows how voters who identified as affiliates of
"major" employers (see above) voted. Only the "major" employers with at
least 50 affiliated voters and at least 10% of their affiliates voting
for at least one candidate employed by the subject employer are listed
to preserve anonymity.
The first column after the name of the organization indicates the number
of voters claiming affiliation with that organization. Three percentages
are then listed: the first, "%Only Affiliated" is the percentage of
those voters who voted only for candidates employed by their affiliate
organization. The second, "%Including Affiliated", is the percentage who
voted for at least one candidate employed by their affiliate
organization. The third, "%Non Affiliated" is the percentage who did not
vote for any employee of their affiliate organization.
How Affiliates Voted
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| | Number | %Only | %Including | %Non |
| Name | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated |
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Dell | 242 | 52 % | 90 % | 10 % |
| HP | 273 | 40 % | 87 % | 13 % |
| Rackspace | 261 | 32 % | 90 % | 10 % |
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
Based on feedback from the community, the Board made several proposals
to improve the election process for January 2013.
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-November/001246.html
The first three proposals were implemented. That is:
- clear statements from each candidates,
- more information for voters about the individual member election,
- request to organizations to act honourably and guide their staff to
vote in the interest of the community.
One of the goal of these proposals was to encourage and help every voter
to vote for candidates who best represent the Community. This was one of
the answers to the concerns that were raised about the influence of
corporate entities in the individual member election before and after
the August 2012 election.
For the August 2012 election, some statistics were sent to help quantify
the role employers played in the election:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2012-October/001114.html
To help the community evaluate if the changes in the election process
had a positive impact, the election inspectors have created the same
statistics for the January 2013 election. Like for the statistics from
August 2012, we are not drawing any conclusions in this report, rather
we are attempting to present the information relevant to the
aforementioned concerns.
All credits for this should still go to James, as we used the same
script, and his explanations for each table are used below.
Thanks,
Vincent
========
While each vote is anonymous, the affiliates that each Individual Member
specified when applying for Foundation Membership was recorded with the
vote. That stated affiliation is the basis for the analysis below.
Keep in mind that the affiliation field is free-form and not verified,
and members may have provided incorrect or unusable data. For instance,
it is apparent that some people misinterpreted the field, needlessly
providing multiple affiliations, affiliations that clearly don't match
the criteria specified on the form, or just plain non-sequiturs.
Therefore the numbers below should be close to reality, but may not be
exact.
The following table lists the election results for the top 8 candidates,
including the weighted vote (the sum of all the votes cast for that
candidate), the percent of the total weighted vote which was cast for
that candidate, the number of voters who individually cast at least part
of their vote for that candidate, and the percentage of the total voters
who cast at least part of their vote for that candidate.
Results for top 8 Candidates
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| Name | Weighted | %Weighted | Voters | %Voters |
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| Monty Taylor | 1709.00 | 15.38 % | 413 | 29.73 % |
| Rob Hirschfeld | 1591.00 | 14.32 % | 371 | 26.71 % |
| Troy Toman | 1335.00 | 12.01 % | 342 | 24.62 % |
| Hui Cheng | 1022.00 | 9.20 % | 286 | 20.59 % |
| Tim Bell | 907.00 | 8.16 % | 385 | 27.72 % |
| Lauren Sell | 701.00 | 6.31 % | 303 | 21.81 % |
| Mark McLoughlin | 582.00 | 5.24 % | 242 | 17.42 % |
| Tristan Goode | 498.00 | 4.48 % | 188 | 13.53 % |
+------------------+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
The following table lists the sources of votes for the top 8 candidates
classified by the employer of the voter. Four categories are listed;
the first, "%Employer", is the percentage of voters for that candidate
with the same employer as the candidate. The second, "%Major", is the
percentage of voters from a "major" employer, which is to say an
employer that was specified by at least 5 voters overall (there are
about 20 "major" employers in the data set by this calculation). The
third, "%Minor", is the percentage from a "minor" employer, i.e., one
specified by less than 5 individuals. The last, "%None", is the
percentage who listed no affiliation.
Source of Votes for Top 8 Candidates
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Name | Employer | %Employer | %Major | %Minor | %None |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
| Monty Taylor | HP | 57 % | 22 % | 14 % | 7 % |
| Rob Hirschfeld | Dell | 59 % | 23 % | 13 % | 5 % |
| Troy Toman | Rackspace | 68 % | 18 % | 10 % | 4 % |
| Hui Cheng | SINA | | | 29 % | 31 % |
| Tim Bell | CERN | | | 23 % | 10 % |
| Lauren Sell | OpenStack Foundation | | | 19 % | 8 % |
| Mark McLoughlin | Red Hat | | | 24 % | 9 % |
| Tristan Goode | Aptira | | | 30 % | 12 % |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------+-------+
[Some values have been omitted to preserve anonymity.]
The following table shows how voters who identified as affiliates of
"major" employers (see above) voted. Only the "major" employers with at
least 50 affiliated voters and at least 10% of their affiliates voting
for at least one candidate employed by the subject employer are listed
to preserve anonymity.
The first column after the name of the organization indicates the number
of voters claiming affiliation with that organization. Three percentages
are then listed: the first, "%Only Affiliated" is the percentage of
those voters who voted only for candidates employed by their affiliate
organization. The second, "%Including Affiliated", is the percentage who
voted for at least one candidate employed by their affiliate
organization. The third, "%Non Affiliated" is the percentage who did not
vote for any employee of their affiliate organization.
How Affiliates Voted
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| | Number | %Only | %Including | %Non |
| Name | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated | Affiliated |
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Dell | 242 | 52 % | 90 % | 10 % |
| HP | 273 | 40 % | 87 % | 13 % |
| Rackspace | 261 | 32 % | 90 % | 10 % |
+-----------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
