[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now



Hi!

Sorry, late answer:

On 05.06.2009 21:28, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:04:08PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Sorry, was a bit busy over the past few days and didn't get around to
>> answer all mails.
>>
>> On 04.06.2009 00:30, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I'm disappointed this ended up being a more difficult process than you
>>>> intended, but I have no doubt we can improve it for the next cycle.
>>> Leaving a bit more time between the cut-off date for the questionaire and 
>>> the town hall meeting should hopefully fix that.
>> My basic idea is to have the question finished and in the wiki after the
>> first half of the nomination period is over. I'd also suggest the
>> answers should get sent in no later than "end of nomination period" +
>> something like 2 or 3 days.
>>
>> That way the total time of the whole the election business stays roughly
>> the same. People that are late with the nomination then only have
>> something like two or three days to answer the question, but that's
>> their decision -- they could have had 9 or10 days if they had chosen to
>> nominated earlier.
> 
> Thorsten, if you get a chance, would you mind hanging a link off the
> wiki's [[Elections]] page with a brief summary of the procedure you
> used, and/or any suggestions for improvements?  When it comes time for
> the next election we can refer to it.  If you're willing and able then
> to fill that role, you can refer to it; and if not, we'll be able to
> carry on as needed.

I just added below stuff to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections/Questionnaire
Did I forget anything? Does anybody have any other suggestions? Anything
that is disliked?

Cu
knurd

== Notes ==

Workflow:

* aim to collect answers in private and publishing them in one go --
then candidates have no chance to look at the answers from other
candidates; that sounds like a minor detail, but seems to have helped a
lot to encouraged the candidates
* to help with that only add candidates answers to the official answer
documents/pages that were handed in before the deadline
* prepare the questions early and have them ready and public in the wiki
early -- ideally at the beginning of the nomination period or something
like four days or one week before the end of the nomination period; set
a tight deadline for handling in the answers like "end of nomination
plus two days". That should make sure the whole election process doesn't
take to long and give everybody that nominated enough time to sent the
answers -- sure it's tight if people nominate late, but that's their
fault ;-)
* to help with that make sure the deadlines are known before the
nomination period starts
* seems a lot of people liked the OpenOffice table for comparing the
results we had in the past, as it's possible to easily hide candidates
and answers/questions you are not interested in; to reduce copy'n'paste
(and thus reduce error potential) consider to put such a basic table
with the answers (one per row) into the wiki that candidates (one per
column) need to use to hand in the answers; then all that is needed is
to merge the rows with the answers into one table, which is quite easy;
from that table it's easy to export them into many other formats without
too much work

Questions:

* "open ended" questions obviously are highly preferred
* someone needs to review the questions and merge similar questions into
one and remove others to make sure it are not to much questions
(something like 16 to 20 likely should do)
* some of the old question were quite good and universally;
* some people dislike questions like "do you prefer Gnome or KDE" that
are/should be mostly irrelevant for Fedora as whole and the position the
candidate is nominated for, but others people really like the answers as
they give a impression about the person itself. So a few of those
question are good and definitely acceptable, but "few" is likely important


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]