On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:45:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 12:42 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Nigel Jones just suggested that we might want to instead provide > > anonymized data from the release name voting, which is probably less > > controversial since no governance was involved. You might even be able > > to make the case that the release name election is more > > contentious. ;-) > > > > -1 to giving out ANY election data in any form other than the final > result. We didn't say we would distribute this information before people > chose to vote, so we don't give it out. I'm with Seth on this one. There are a couple comparisons we could draw: 1) County election officials don't hand out the used paper ballots to the party election offices - they have to get their data through in-person polls. 2) County election officials analyze "butterfly ballots" to deterimine "intent of the voter" and look for patterns when it seems odd they voted mostly by straight party lines but with a few oddballs (votes, not politicians :-) that physical placement might describe. We have no such problem here - it's a straight alphabetical listing. If we make it clear in the future we might publish anonymous data for statistical evaluation, would that discourage any individual from voting their conscience? Would we have to make that opt-out too? :-( I don't think so to either, but let's hear from more people on this point. -Matt _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
