Results | |
---|---|
Number of records in this query: | 185 |
Total records in survey: | 185 |
Percentage of total: | 100.00% |
Field summary for general01 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Should OSGeo move from the actual elected Charter member model to an (open) regular membership? | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Yes (A1) | 44 | 23.78% | |
No (A2) | 48 | 25.95% | |
Not sure (A3) | 52 | 28.11% | |
No answer | 9 | 4.86% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general09Fee | |||
---|---|---|---|
If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you also agree with a low annual membership fee? | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Yes (A1) | 63 | 34.05% | |
No (A2) | 39 | 21.08% | |
Not sure (A3) | 26 | 14.05% | |
No answer | 25 | 13.51% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general09Charter | |||
---|---|---|---|
If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership for a small fee, do you also agree Charter membership for the ‘guardians’ and as recognition? | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Yes (A1) | 63 | 34.05% | |
No (A2) | 16 | 8.65% | |
Not sure (A3) | 26 | 14.05% | |
No answer | 48 | 25.95% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general08 | |||
---|---|---|---|
OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed (inclusive/exclusive)? | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Open (inclusive) - "make it easy for all passionate people within the OSGeo community to join" (quote from Cameron Shorter) (A1) | 96 | 51.89% | |
Closed (exclusive) - "democracry is not about giving posts to everybody for avoiding "disappointment", but to establish a leadership accepted by a majority" (quote from Peter Baumann) (A2) | 37 | 20.00% | |
No answer | 20 | 10.81% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general02 | |||
---|---|---|---|
The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Increase participation in OSGeo activities (A1) | 57 | 30.81% | |
Recognize substantial OSGeo contributors (A2) | 16 | 8.65% | |
Give members a sense of identity and cohesion (A3) | 61 | 32.97% | |
Other | 10 | 5.41% | |
No answer | 9 | 4.86% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general03 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization is | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
A waste of time and effort (A1) | 25 | 13.51% | |
Worthwhile even if guarding against an unlikely event (A2) | 96 | 51.89% | |
Other | 14 | 7.57% | |
No answer | 18 | 9.73% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general04 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Charter membership should be renamed to | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Keep it as Charter (A1) | 80 | 43.24% | |
Voting members (A2) | 35 | 18.92% | |
Electors (A3) | 3 | 1.62% | |
Other | 10 | 5.41% | |
No answer | 25 | 13.51% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general06 | |||
---|---|---|---|
The number of Charter members should be | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Restricted to some low number (A1) | 25 | 13.51% | |
Only be constrained by the number of good candidates available (A2) | 86 | 46.49% | |
Other | 21 | 11.35% | |
No answer | 21 | 11.35% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for general07 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Charter member term should be limited (instead of a lifetime membership as is now)? | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
No (A1) | 72 | 38.92% | |
Yes (A2) | 49 | 26.49% | |
No answer | 32 | 17.30% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 32 | 17.30% | |
Field summary for electionMethod | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please select the most appropriate charter members selection mechanism. Further explanations are displayed when each option/sub-option is selected. | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Formula using the YES/NO/ABSTAIN votes for each nominee (A1) | 84 | 45.41% | |
The number of PRO votes for each nominee (A2) | 57 | 30.81% | |
No answer | 3 | 1.62% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 41 | 22.16% | |
Field summary for supportFormula | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please select the nominee support calculation formula and the election threshold. | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Formula 1: YES/(YES+NO+ABSTAIN)*100 (2014 formula) (A1) | 33 | 17.84% | |
Formula 2: YES/(YES+NO)*100 (A2) | 25 | 13.51% | |
Formula 3: (YES-NO)/(YES+NO+ABSTAIN)*100 (A3) | 26 | 14.05% | |
No answer | 0 | 0.00% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 101 | 54.59% | |
Field summary for o1Percent | |||
---|---|---|---|
Select the threshold (percent) | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
5% (2014 value) (A1) | 8 | 4.32% | |
50% (2015 proposed value) (A2) | 23 | 12.43% | |
Other percent (A3) | 2 | 1.08% | |
No answer | 0 | 0.00% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 152 | 82.16% | |
Field summary for o1o3SpecifyPercent: | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please specify the threshold (percent) | |||
Calculation | Result | ||
Count | 2 | ||
Sum | 55.0000000000 | ||
Standard deviation | 2.5 | ||
Average | 27.5 | ||
Minimum | 25.0000000000 | ||
2nd quartile (Median) | 27.5 | ||
Maximum | 30.0000000000 | ||
Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method |
|||
Field summary for o2SpecifyPercent: | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please specify the threshold (percent) | |||
Calculation | Result | ||
Count | 25 | ||
Sum | 1407.0000000000 | ||
Standard deviation | 25.82 | ||
Average | 56.28 | ||
Minimum | 0.0000000000 | ||
1st quartile (Q1) | 50 | ||
2nd quartile (Median) | 66 | ||
3rd quartile (Q3) | 75 | ||
Maximum | 90.0000000000 | ||
Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method |
|||
Field summary for o3SpecifyPercent: | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please specify the threshold (percent) | |||
Calculation | Result | ||
Count | 26 | ||
Sum | 1086.0000000000 | ||
Standard deviation | 18.88 | ||
Average | 41.77 | ||
Minimum | 0.0000000000 | ||
1st quartile (Q1) | 30 | ||
2nd quartile (Median) | 50 | ||
3rd quartile (Q3) | 50 | ||
Maximum | 80.0000000000 | ||
Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method |
|||
Field summary for oldSchoolVote | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please choose the selection method | |||
Answer | Count | Percentage | |
Each year the board will open X charter member seats. The first X nominees according with the PRO votes will be elected. The board will make his decision on the number of seats based on the charter member recommendation on the inclusive/exclusive charter membership policy (see previous question in the survey). (A1) | 37 | 20.00% | |
A threshold (similar with the one used in formulas) should be applied to the nominee support (percent given by PRO votes from the total amount of voters). All the nominees above the threshold will be declared elected. (A2) | 20 | 10.81% | |
No answer | 0 | 0.00% | |
Not completed or Not displayed | 128 | 69.19% | |
Field summary for oldSchoolPercent: | |||
---|---|---|---|
Please specify the threshold (percent) | |||
Calculation | Result | ||
Count | 20 | ||
Sum | 959.0000000000 | ||
Standard deviation | 24.53 | ||
Average | 47.95 | ||
Minimum | 5.0000000000 | ||
1st quartile (Q1) | 21.25 | ||
2nd quartile (Median) | 50 | ||
3rd quartile (Q3) | 67.5 | ||
Maximum | 100.0000000000 | ||
Null values are ignored in calculations Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method |
|||