On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > Debian also makes their election data public, though they use a worse > > > and much more complex Condorcet method, called "Shulze". > > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/leader2003_tally.txt > > > > I don't see a huge problem with this as long as the ballots are > > anonymized. Vote data is often analyzed for trends and other purposes, > > and with Fedora being an open, transparent project overall, I think this > > request doesn't go counter to our goals. But I think the Board should > > probably make this decision. > > Considering that we didn't actually state before the election that > we would collect, anonymize, and mine the data, I don't think it's > a good idea to do that now. I'm not sure we stated beforehand that we'd publish the totals as we do at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/results/fescof10 either -- does that make it bad? I think we, as a society, spend far too much time pandering to the tinfoil hat brigade who like to whine about their 'privacy' without actually being able to present any realistic situation in which the release of certain data actually causes them even a _theoretical_ problem. I'd be very disappointed if we refused to release _anonymised_ vote data purely on the basis that we think there might be some nutter out there who wouldn't come out from under his table for a few days if we did so. I'd prefer to make a concrete proposal about _how_ the data are anonymised and precisely what would be released, and then see if anyone can actually come up with a _real_ reason not to do that. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
