From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Results: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Election 2016
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 20:38:44 +0200
Message-ID: <5281625.rbgKeEiQ6A@avalon>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.8.6-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
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"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2205
Lines: 51

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