I answer by email to the head post of the topic, so I hope I do not repeat too much of what has been already said by others. I respond to both this and indirectly to the final post of the preceding topic.
I am very sorry that I have contributed to a development that seems to affect your personal life.
It is two partially-related topics that come together here. First, let me focus on the more important of the two: your health.
If you âdestroyâ yourself, neither you, nor the community have a benefit from it. It is in the interest of the community that you maintain a âhealthy egoismâ about yourself: first, focus on your obligations. I assume that effectively is your contract and your exact role in the Council. This is what you need to get done and that is your obligation to get what we all need, our salaries 
Second, your personal life: you and your family. THEN, third, comes the community. This is in the interest of the community to achieve predictable long term contributions: you do this for yourself but also for the community. Only contribute beyond what you can and what feels balanced and good.
If you have a task that you cannot get rid of, just leave it be, and trust the community: if it is healthy, it will find its way to mitigate. May it be by someone taking over, or by the community to mitigate as a team by other means, adjusting itself etc. Also, see the positive side: while your âhealthy egoismâ can help the community to occasionally re-enforce its dynamics and learn to train its flexibility and to adjust, you can sometimes cause an intuitive streamlining process with this, in which the community gets rid of parts of a process, or a process as a whole, that is currently not the most efficient use of its resources, making the community more efficient and thus more strong on the long term. If the community is healthy, it can mitigate. Trust it 
The highest obligation that can be expected about these tasks in the âthirdâ category is that you allow a handover: IF compatible with the healthy egoism, put it to the applicable channels, let them know, and allow the community to decide itself if and what resources it deploys for this. If you donât have the time for that without risking yourself, trust the community will survive and be able to mitigate if it is critical. And trust that the âdynamics of peopleâ are very competitive and resilient, and will find their way. Thatâs all you can do in such a situation.
If it feels too hard, you might reconsider cases like XZUtils: it shows how resilient this community is and how quick it can respond and adjust if it really is necessary. Maybe that reasoning can help a little to make it easier to make the hard decisions to protect yourself.
Concerning the survey, I think there will be always negative responses if the survey contains effectively the message âyou/your-group doesnât exist and we go ahead in decision-making with this assumption, please confirmâ (I exaggerate to illustrate the point of course) for some users or user groups. The more important the underlying decision is, the more likely is that such user groups will respond negatively. Also, this situation can be very exhaustive, and that is why some maybe not respond in the beginning, especially if they have experienced before that it doesnât help them to respond, but the more the results of such surveys is used, communicated and implemented, the more people might be affected and/or confronted by the data/results, and therefore, the more likely they might respond at some time. But the more the processes are progressed, the more hostile this response might be.
My response was intended to be direct but constructive. In the context, I feared and still fear that later responses of those currently silent can come later, being also direct but maybe also DEstructive (not necessarily only responses by comments, especially if outcomes are strategically impactful).
With this, I want to say, I agree that we should get rid of surveys at all as long as we have not the capability to do them according to scientific standards, as everything else is arbitrary in its outcome: let surveys be the task of the Descriptive Statistics SIG. And as long as we cannot maintain this SIG, letâs stick with the well-understood data at hands.
That said, you seem to look for opportunities to further focus, and in my opinion, you can add the Google Forms surveys too. The situation is the same. I agree with you that the impact of these surveys are far below the current one and unlikely to cause noteworthy issues, and the âannual ranting software developers at Flockâ after the survey can be seen also with a little of humor But what I read already at first glance of what this is going to be, we again remove a group from the beginning, even before we formulate questions, which is a group the survey therefore will âpretendâ to not exist: the privacy-oriented users who reject to use Google services due to its privacy implications, a group mostly existing in Europe AFAIK. In the result, the data will have limited use, many might have already ceased to participate in surveys, plus this privacy group, which means we effectively will not know to âwhat group this data will apply toâ if it is conducted as before. So I donât
see that a survey on Google Forms rather then this LimeSurvey has advantages or does mitigate any of the issues: the impact is unlikely to be critical, it likely will not hurt, but it still can alienate user groups, and the more you use this data, the more likely it gets that users not considered by the survey (who could not submit their preference for whatever reason) will become active with negative feedback, by any means at any time. Not sure if that is the most efficient use of your time.
I hope you know me good enough to know that I write this at first with YOU in mind, rather than just to get some result I prefer 
Just some thoughts. I hope they read as something constructive. You might want to make a coffee break after reading the monster post
Best,
Chris, the essay writer.
. Iâve burned out hard a few times, and induced some serious lifelong personal losses. The natural instinct is to hide it, which (speaking from personal experience) ultimately only intensifies it.