On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency > contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora > users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed > and not easily proven that it wasn't. Relying on the forum for data is > bad science and makes this whole argument more and more farcical. I am Again, when I'm trying to be a scientist, I'll be sure and let you know. =) The poll wasn't intended to be a statistically valid indication of the entire Fedora user base. For the record, I don't think it's sufficiently strong to support the claims Kevin is trying to make it support. I don't think it was stuffed, though, for a couple of reasons. One, it wasn't discussed anywhere outside the forums until over 100 votes were in (and the percentages then were about the same as they are now). Two, when a poll's being stuffed, you usually see a large amount of votes arrive in a lump; I've been watching the vote counts for the poll, and that hasn't happened, they've mostly dribbled in a few at a time. BTW, it would be very difficult to take up your suggestion, as we don't *have* a big list of All Fedora Users for the external polling agency to generate a random list from. All the usable lists of Fedora-related people we have probably suffer from some kind of selection bias. The best would be the Smolt data, but of course that's not identifiable in any way you could use to contact people. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
