Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 06:46:29 -0600
From: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
CC: <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Results: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory
 Board Election 2016
Message-ID: <20161104124627.GA59062@clm-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20161103113951.5b35d874@grimm.local.home>
 <1818303.QSFsUEaaJd@avalon>
 <20161103164702.GB56112@clm-mbp>
 <5281625.rbgKeEiQ6A@avalon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5281625.rbgKeEiQ6A@avalon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2016 12:46:34.6255 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR15MB1247
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-11-04_03:,,
 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2472
Lines: 55

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 08:38:44PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>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.  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.

No problem, I couldn't remember if I'd mentioned the hand counting when 
I talked about the scanner during the election, so I was mostly 
clarifying for the list.

Thanks to everyone who stopped by to vote!

-chris