Pfiuuu. Finished… That was a long run: cumulated over all our participants, filling the whole french census probably took us collegially more or less than 24 hours of research, discussion, existing submissions analysis and finally submissions and comments in the latest minutes before the deadline.
I really believe the interface and nature of the questions make it too time-consuming to fil the census now. I believe the OpenData community supposed to take the time to fill this is mostly volunteer-based and focusing this much time on the census sounds too much to me. At least a quite longer delay to fill it would be greatly appreciated in the future.
Aparts from this, a few critics:
It really is not that complex to implement an internal login at least by default for those who wouldn’t want to register via Google or Facebook on one hand, and Disqus on the other. Even just a simple OpenID as existed in the first versions of CKAN would be enough. It used to be ok, I really do not understand how such a regression can happen in an open community project.
Having only one submission possible can not function anymore since the review is supposed to happen afterwards thematically. It made sense when reviewers had to validate a submission on the fly so others could then update or fix it, having the reviewer to validate it again then. But now it makes the first submitter the only one able to actually fill the form. Others can only struggle to explain in comments possible corrections.
The requirements often include multiple different kind of data for a same set. This makes filling the form quite hard in many cases as some of the data might be fully open while some other may not. Such common cases make it really hard to actually reflect the reality of the data availability.
The requirements often include update-regularity constraints. This comes a bit problematic when open data actually exists but only yearly or so: a strict reading would say the data should then be set as not even existing, whereas a lot of criterions can be met… Hopefully everyone will have deported this on the up-to-date criterion…
Last but not least, the previous census used to let one check some things such as free or machine readable even when the data was not available for free. Now, some No choices block other fields. This might be unfortunate as it gives an undersetimated wrong idea of the real situation in some cases.
PS: I also noticed a bug when submitting a revision from the previous year: when one of the “blocking-other-fields” field is changed to No, aftervalidation, the form will return an error saying the now greyed fields are set to null. One has to reset the first field to Yes, set the blocked ones to something (that will not be kept…) and then reset it to No for the form to actually validate.