Dear all, Earlier this month, a request was made to publish "raw data" for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls. During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses. After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results. Noting the WG's desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data. (1) To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls. (2) Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address. Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts. While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps. Best regards, Lisa