[GRASS-PSC] Notes on the GRASS PSC election 2026
Hernán De Angelis
variablestarlight at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 05:27:04 PST 2026
Hi Linda,
I see. Helmut also told me about this. That's something we will have to
look at. Perhaps nowadays many e-mail servers have very strict policies.
The CRO address is aliased to my email and who knows, may be som e-mail
servers now reject this.
Thanks again
Hernán
Den 2026-11-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Linda Karlovská:
> Hello Hernán, thanks for the organization!
>
> 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.
>
> Seems like technology always fails in one way or another, one always
> has to be on guard :-)
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Původní e‑mail ----------
> Od: Helmut Kudrnovsky via grass-psc <grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> Komu: GRASS-PSC <grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org>, Hernán De Angelis
> <variablestarlight at gmail.com>
> Datum: 9. 11. 2026 13:32:11
> Předmět: Re: [GRASS-PSC] Notes on the GRASS PSC election 2026
>
>
> Thanks for the results, German!
>
> Though I can't remember that I've got an email link for the voting
> system itself.
>
> I'm travelling at the moment, so I could missed something...
>
> Kind regards
> Helmut
>
> .... . .__.. .__.. ..
> helmut kudrnovsky
>
>
> Am 09.11.26, 12:13 schrieb "Hernán De Angelis via grass-psc"
> <grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org <http://lists.osgeo.org>>:
>
> Dear PSC members, old & new
>
> Elections are now finished. I already posted the results. Here
> come some notes I believe are important to remember about this
> election.
>
> Best
>
> Hernán
>
>
>
> Communication
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> List of voters
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Election statistics
>
> 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%).
>
> 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.
>
> Election | Registered voters | Voted (complete) |
> Participation (complete) | Voted (null, incomplete) |
> Participation (null, incomplete) | Voted (total) Participation
> (total) | Did not vote | Rate
> 2026 | 206 | 58 | 28 % | 21 | 10 % | 79 | 38 % | 127 | 62 %
> 2024 | 146 | 59 | 40 % | 23 | 16 % | 82 | 56 % | 64 | 44 %
> 2020 | 245 | 98 | 40 % | 67 | 27 % | 165 | 67 % | 80 | 33 %
>
>
>
>
> Null and incomplete votes
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Everything seemed normal and uncomplicated when I voted. Did
> any of you experience problems? In that case I am happy to
> hear your perspective.
>
>
>
> Closing comments
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ grass-psc
> mailing list grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> <http://lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-psc/attachments/20261109/d9df3c12/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the grass-psc
mailing list