<html><body><div></div><div>Hello Hernán, thanks for the organization! </div><div><br></div><div>I actually got only one email from you - the one without the link to the voting. I checked my spam folder and found that the first email with the link had dropped there. </div><div><br></div><div>Seems like technology always fails in one way or another, one always has to be on guard :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Linda</div><div><br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><aside>---------- Původní e‑mail ----------<br>Od: Helmut Kudrnovsky via grass-psc <grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org><br>Komu: GRASS-PSC <grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org>, Hernán De Angelis <variablestarlight@gmail.com><br>Datum: 9. 11. 2026 13:32:11<br>Předmět: Re: [GRASS-PSC] Notes on the GRASS PSC election 2026</aside><br><blockquote data-email="grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org">Thanks for the results, German!<br><br>Though I can't remember that I've got an email link for the voting system itself.<br><br>I'm travelling at the moment, so I could missed something...<br><br>Kind regards <br>Helmut <br><br><div class="-wm-signature">.... . .__.. .__.. ..<br>helmut kudrnovsky</div><div class="-wm-mail_android_quote" style="line-height:1"><br><div class="-wm-mail_android_quote" style="line-height:1"><br>Am 09.11.26, 12:13 schrieb "Hernán De Angelis via grass-psc" <grass-psc@<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org">lists.osgeo.org</a>>:<blockquote class="-wm-gmail_quote" style="margin:0.8ex 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<font face="DejaVu Sans Mono">Dear PSC members, old & new<br>
<br>
Elections are now finished. I already posted the results. Here
come some notes I believe are important to remember about this
election.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Hernán<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Communication<br>
<br>
In this election, communication with the community was primarily
done through Discourse because we do not have general mailing
lists anymore (only one for the PSC). I get the impression that
not many people read these forums, as measured by the read count
(however reliable this might be) and the responses that these
messages and announcements triggered.<br>
<br>
I sent reminders of important actions as direct e-mails to
eligible voters. This was much more effective than posting in the
forums, as measured by the number of responses (nominations,
votes, replies). Another benefit was the detection of invalid
addresses and direct feedback from people who do not wish to
participate. This is important because the voting process relies
on e-mail and from previous experience I know that some people may
get surprised by an invitation to vote. By removing these
addresses early-on we focused our efforts to the group currently
interested in the project.<br>
<br>
I suggest that in the next election, posting in the forums is
complemented with direct e-mails to call the attention of the
community to events that require action, like nominating and
voting.<br>
<br>
The announcement of the start of election was also published in
GitHub Discussions as "Announcement" with the aim of increasing
visibility among active contributors. It is difficult to assess
how effective this was in terms of catalyzing participation.
However, it is a simple action with little cost, so I suggest we
also do this in the next election.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
List of voters<br>
<br>
We started with a raw list of 271 eligible voters. After
completing some entries, removing incomplete ones, invalid
addresses, and people who expressed the wish not to participate
anymore, we were left with a curated list of 206 eligible voters
to start with. As a result of this and similar filtering in
previous elections, I have a list of names and addresses to remove
or change from any new preliminary list of voters in the next
election.<br>
<br>
It has been suggested to limit voter eligibility to people who
have contributed within a given time frame before the election.
This may be a question the PSC may want to discuss.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Election statistics<br>
<br>
A total of 79 out of the 206 eligible voters participated in the
election, a participation of 38%. Of these, 58 were complete
responses (voters chose 5 candidates out of 8), 1 was a partial
response (voter gave 2 definite votes for 2 different candidates),
and 20 were null votes (voters chose 0 candidates out of 8).
Considering only the 58 complete votes, the participation was 28%.
The remaining 127 eligible voters did not to participate (62%).<br>
<br>
We had a higher number of registered voters than in 2024 (206 vs
146), practically the same vote count (58 vs 59 complete votes, 79
vs 82 for all votes), but a lower participation (28% vs 40% for
complete votes, 38% vs 56% for all votes) and a much higher number
of non-participants (127 vs 64, or 62% vs 44%). In both this
election and the previous one, the total number of registered
voters, the vote count, and participation were all lower than in
2020. See table.<br>
<br>
Election | Registered voters | Voted (complete) | Participation
(complete) | Voted (null, incomplete) | Participation (null,
incomplete) | Voted (total) Participation (total) | Did not
vote | Rate<br>
2026 | 206 | 58 | 28 % | 21 | 10 % | 79 | 38 % | 127 | 62 %<br>
2024 | 146 | 59 | 40 % | 23 | 16 % | 82 | 56 % | 64 | 44 %<br>
2020 | 245 | 98 | 40 % | 67 | 27 % | 165 | 67 % | 80 | 33 %<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Null and incomplete votes<br>
<br>
As in previous elections, we had once more a number of null and
incomplete votes and again I do not understand why. We have also
discussed this before.<br>
<br>
The survey was explicitly set to enable both a minimum and a
maximum of 5 responses, meaning that a voter had to select exactly
5 out of 8 candidates. One possible explanation for the null votes
is that the system possibly does not let voters to open the link
more than once. If a voter opened the link, had a quick look, and
then closed the page without sending the vote, then it may
register as null. In order to reduce the impact of this potential
issue I added a note in the e-mail templates encouraging them to
open the link only once when they vote.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, I do not have an explanation for how a person
could submit an incomplete vote for only two candidates when the
system had an explicit minimum of 5.<br>
<br>
Everything seemed normal and uncomplicated when I voted. Did any
of you experience problems? In that case I am happy to hear your
perspective.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Closing comments<br>
<br>
Apart from the minor problem of null and incomplete votes, I
believe we had a fairly smooth process this time, from the initial
production of a list of voters to the announcement of the results.
Thanks to Vero and the PSC members that contributed in various
stages.<br>
<br>
Once more, I had a fun time contributing to the GRASS project as
CRO. Thanks to the PSC and the community for the trust you put on
me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font> _______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org">lists.osgeo.org</a> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc</a></blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________
<br>grass-psc mailing list
<br>grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
<br>https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
<br></blockquote></body></html>