From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A8C9B9 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from galahad.ideasonboard.com (galahad.ideasonboard.com [185.26.127.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C46020C for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:38:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: Chris Mason Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 20:38:44 +0200 Message-ID: <5281625.rbgKeEiQ6A@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20161103164702.GB56112@clm-mbp> References: <20161103113951.5b35d874@grimm.local.home> <1818303.QSFsUEaaJd@avalon> <20161103164702.GB56112@clm-mbp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Results: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Election 2016 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Chris, On Thursday 03 Nov 2016 10:47:03 Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:06:35PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 03 Nov 2016 11:39:51 Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> The TAB elections are now complete. Thank you to all the candidates for > >> putting their names forward, and a big thank you to Grant Likely, Shuah > >> Khan, Jes Sorensen, H. Peter Anvin, Chris Mason and the Linux Foundation > >> staff who helped handle the election logistics. > >> > >> With 108 ballots cast, the top 5 candidates received: > >> > >> The next highest voted candidate received 44 votes. > >> > >> Full results are available on request. > > > >Just curious, is there any particular reason to not publish the full > >results ? > > > >Could you also share feedback on the automated ballot counting process > > Just nominating yourself and going through an election can be > uncomfortable, at least it always is for me. We are lucky to have a > deeply qualified group, and I'd rather focus on encouraging people that > didn't get elected this time to try again next year. > > The ballots were counted by hand. Grant, Steve and Shuah each counted > every ballot and they verified that everyone got the same results. > > We also test drove the optical scanning of the ballots with a tool > called SDAPS (http://sdaps.org). This was Peter's idea, and it ended up > working very nicely. > > Out of 108 ballots, sdaps missed a single vote and didn't have any false > positives. The optical scanning was faster than the hand counting, and > we used the SDAPS gui to verify each ballot, and correct the single > miss. The gui is the major reason I trusted the result, it's minimal > but really fast. We used an off-the-shelf scanner, chosen because it > was the fastest model that fit in my suitcase. > > SDAPS recommends latex to design the ballot, and provides macros to make > it fairly painless. Latex brings its own frustrations, but it worked. If it wasn't clear from my e-mail, I have complete trust in the TAP to hand count the ballots. I was curious about how the SDAPS automated process worked out, thank you for providing feedback about it. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart