llvm dev - Aug 2016 - [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review

> On Aug 19, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 19 August 2016 at 19:38, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com>
wrote:
>> Let people name a representative person that maintains the
infrastructure of their group/organisation?
> 
> So, a radio button to choose "me" vs "my
company/project"? Or let them
> signup with just the project/company name, meaning they only speak for
> their company?
> 
> Internally, each company/project can choose whomever and it self organises.
> 
> I'm fine either way.
What I expected is that say everyone in company XXX mentions "Joe
Block" for infrastructure so we know that the "Joe Block" survey
should be taken seriously as he represents the infrastructure behind all the
other guys that named him.

- Matthias

On 19 August 2016 at 22:07, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com>
wrote:
> What I expected is that say everyone in company XXX mentions "Joe
Block" for infrastructure so we know that the "Joe Block" survey
should be taken seriously as he represents the infrastructure behind all the
other guys that named him.
Right, I might have found a way...

I'm changing the survey to have two paths, but with no real change in
between. Personal asks optional affiliation, groups asks group size,
then both go to answer the same questions.

In this way, it will be marked which type it is, so no one gets
confused, and we can separate later.

But I had to delete all the answers... :)

Please try again.

cheers,
--renato

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 2:27 PM
> To: Matthias Braun
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review
> 
> On 19 August 2016 at 22:07, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com>
wrote:
> > What I expected is that say everyone in company XXX mentions "Joe
Block"
> for infrastructure so we know that the "Joe Block" survey should
be taken
> seriously as he represents the infrastructure behind all the other guys
> that named him.
> 
> Right, I might have found a way...
> 
> I'm changing the survey to have two paths, but with no real change in
> between. Personal asks optional affiliation, groups asks group size,
> then both go to answer the same questions.
> 
> In this way, it will be marked which type it is, so no one gets
> confused, and we can separate later.
Seems like a fine approach, although "official response" seems a tad
too formal, like it's supposed to go through some sort of management
review and approval.  I'd remove "official" from that prompt.

Is the idea still that the group-response is actually about the 
organization's infrastructure?  In that case I'd like to see extra 
explanation at the top.  For example where you say:

  If you are answering from your affiliation's perspective, please 
  put the name of your project/company/university and a contact email 
  (can be yours).

You could add something like this:

  By "your affiliation's perspective" we mean that the answers are
  based on how any automation or infrastructure within your affiliation
  make use of the LLVM repositories, rather than how individuals within
  your affiliation use the LLVM repositories.

Thanks!
--paulr
> 
> But I had to delete all the answers... :)
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato