Subject: RE: Update

From: "Putzolu, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:55:24 -0800

> It would be good for anyone who has an opinion on changing
> the 2 out of 3 rule to a 3 out of 5 rule to let the list
> know their opinion.

Hi Avri.

I am in favor of the 3/5 rule because I think it will result
in a nomcom pool that has on average greater IETF experience.
I also support the rule because it enables consistent contributors
who happen to miss two IETFs in a three IETF period to still be
represented in the nomcom.

I am assuming the secretariat has or the necessary records available
to support a 3/5 rule - has that been verified?

Cheers,
David Putzolu

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:12 -0500 (EST)

I also favor the 3 out of 5 rule.

As the IETF grows larger and more diffuse, the socialization and
learning time it takes for attendees to absorb the Tao of the IETF, on
the average, grows. I believe a 3 out of 5 rules is needed to merely
assure the same level of nomcom committee member we had 9 years ago with
a 2 out of 3 rule then.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Putzolu, David wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:55:24 -0800
> From: "Putzolu, David" <[email-masked]>
> To: 'Avri Doria' <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Update
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:00:08 +1100

On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of 
individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the 
actual numbers are not so very different - or  not.

Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat?

    Geoff

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:59:58 -0500 (EST)

I thought we had already gotten these figures.

Thanks,
Donald

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Geoff Huston wrote:

> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:00:08 +1100
> From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'Avri Doria' <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Update
>

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:41:43 -0500

From an Earlier message from Harald:

> Numbers available for your benefit.
> 
>           Harlad
> 
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: tirsdag, november 26, 2002 10:54:17 -0500
> From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #4341] Estimating size of volunteer pool for nomcom
> 
> Your request #4341 was resolved by scoya:
> 
> Hi Harald,
> 
> Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible
> 
> Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:21:19 +1100

Thank you - the difference of 29 does not strike me as being
a major issue one way or the othjer, but on the side of
inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation.

Geoff

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:47:09 +0100

> Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat?

I asked this of the secretariat during Atlanta week, and here is what they 
answered (dated Nov 26):
----------------------------------------
Hi Harald,

Steve

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Estimating size of volunteer pool for nomcom

Hi,
the secretariat was able to tell us how many people were eligible for
nomcom duty under the "2 out of last 3" rule. (I think it was around 1400).

Can the secretariat work out how many would be eligible if the rule was "3
out of the last 5"?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:38:31 +0100

I concur
   Brian

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:14 -0500

> > inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation.

Well, it looks like going to 3/5 would slightly *decrease*
inclusiveness, at least qualitatively, but I'm not sure it makes that
much difference.  One thing to consider that 3/5 allows is that
someone who has regularly attends meetings, but who has missed the two
most recent, consecutive meetings would still be elible to serve.  On
the other hand, it does mean that someone who just attended two
meetings for the time would not qualify.  Whether someone who had just
attend for two meetings would bother to volunteer is another question.

Anyway, life is filled with tradeoffs.  I'm not entirely convinced
that 3/5 is significantly better, but I'm not convinced its
significantly worse, either.  

						- Ted

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:34 -0500

> > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible

Is it hard for the secratariet to determine these numbers?  It might
be nice to see a wider range of values plugged in... 3 of 6 or 4 of
7 or 5 of 8 or whatever. 

From the above it doesn't seem to me to matter much one way or the
other -- but, I'd go with 3 of 5 just to ensure a little more
experience. 

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:14:28 -0500

Hi,

I am not sure these numbers being close tells us much about who is
on the list.  I.e.  just because the numbers are close, it does not
mean that the same people are on the lists.  I would be curious to
know how many names were common to both lists.

a.

-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:18:49 -0500

> on the list.  I.e.  just because the numbers are close, it does
> not mean that the same people are on the lists.  I would be
> curious to know how many names were common to both lists.

A little exercise...

  * we have a history of the last 5 meetings; from this we can
    determine someone's meeting attendance pattern

  * so, there are 2^5 or 32 different patterns

  * 13 of the patterns yield no eligibility under either the "3 of
    5" or "2 of last 3" criteria 

  * 13 of the patterns yield eligibility for nomcom under either "3
    of 5" or "2 of last 3" 

  * 3 of the patterns yield eligibility if using "2 of 3" but no
    eligibility if using "3 of 5"

  * 3 of the patterns yield eligibility if using "3 of 5" but no
    eligibility if using "2 of 3"

  * that is, 16 patterns yield eligibility for "3 of 5" and 16
    patterns yield eligibility for "2 of 3"; and there is
    significant overlap in those two sets (nearly 70%)

Now assume that attendees fall into the 19 patterns that yield
eligibility under one of the constraints fairly evenly.  We would
expect to see the pool size be roughly equivalent under either "2 of
3" or "3 of 5".  And, that is what Harald showed us.  So, at least
in terms of back-of-the-envelope thinking the above may be roughly
accurate enough as a model to think about.

So, by choosing "3 of 5" what we are really saying is that we like:

  + to ensure that someone has participated in at least a year's
    worth of meetings, as opposed to 2 meetings

  + we think the people fitting in the 3 patterns in the "3 of 5"
    set and not the "2 of 3" are more useful in nomcom than the set
    of people fitting in one of the 3 patterns that pass the "2 of
    3" rule and not the "3 of 5" rule

My own opinion is that "3 of 5" is better than "2 of 3" for the two
above reasons (especially the min).  But, the difference is in 15%
of the pool -- and, I don't think that matters terribly much in the
end.  Even if you go to something like "4 of 8" you still see
significant overlap with the "2 of last 3" group (again roughly
70%).

So, maybe we are sweating the small stuff here.  I have said before
that I think we should do something fairly different.  But, that has
zero consensus.  That's fine.  So, maybe it is time to Just Pick
Some "M of N" - with the knowledge that what we're really setting is
the lower bound (i.e., how many meetings until eligible) rather than
really gauging one's attendance record over time.

allman

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:28:27 +0100

>     3" rule and not the "3 of 5" rule

Just thinking about the last 5 meetings before the selection of the current 
nomcom... Yokohama, Minneapolis(02), Salt Lake City, London, 
Minneapolis(01).

The patterns that fit 2 out of 3, but not 3 out of 5, are:

- Yokohama + Minneapolis
- Yokohama + Salt Lake City
- Minneapolis + Salt Lake City

In all 3 cases, no other attendance since San Diego (if ever).
The patterns that fit 3 out of 5 but not 2 out of 3 are:

- Yokohama + London + Minneapolis(01)
- Minneapolis(02) + London + Minneapolis(01)
- Salt Lake City + London + Minneapolis(01)

> really gauging one's attendance record over time.

I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal 
improvement, so worth doing.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:29:01 -0600

Harald,

Thursday, January 23, 2003, 2:28:27 AM, you wrote:
HTA> I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal
HTA> improvement, so worth doing.

In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we
have been given show no serious difference.

So what, exactly, do you believe the improvement to be, and what is
the basis for the belief?

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:39:15 +0100

> have been given show no serious difference.

No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people.
Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too 
much, but tell us nothing about who those people are.

> the basis for the belief?

as others have said - I believe the people who have attended 3 IETFs are on 
average more qualified to be on the nomcom than people who have attended 2 
IETFs.

                   Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:47:39 -0600

Harald,

>> have been given show no serious difference.

HTA> No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people.
HTA> Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too
HTA> much, but tell us nothing about who those people are.

ok.  at the least that means that we do not have any basis that the
experience base is signficantly different.  hence it means that there
is no basis that the pool of nomcom participants is better (or worse).

>> the basis for the belief?

HTA> as others have said - I believe the people who have attended 3 IETFs are on
HTA> average more qualified to be on the nomcom than people who have attended 2
HTA> IETFs.

others have said many things.  others have said that experience with
ietf process is different from showing up at meetings and *maybe*
attending working group sessions.

d/

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:18 -0500

Actually Dave, we do have one piece of evidence that the experience base is 
different.  The old rule guaranteed that the person had been to two 
meetings.  The new rule guarantees that the person has been to three meetings.
(I don't care whether in the most recent data sample all of the 2 out of 3 
people had actually attended 5 meetings.  The rules change still shifts the 
base assumptions one can make about a nomcom participant.)

Most of us believe that this helps the chances of the nomcom participant 
being better.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:55:45 -0600

Joel,

First, I certainly agree that there is nothing risky about making the
change.  And I share the subjective sense of comfort about it.

My point is that we have no empirical basis for believing that it
makes any real difference.

As an example hypothesis, note that there could rather easily be an
experience cliff after attendance of 1 meeting.  That is, if you
attend more than one meeting within a reasonable short time, them
perhaps you are likely to attend many.

So upping from 2 to 3 would make no real difference.

To repeat:  This is just an example of a pattern that would render the
proposed change utterly meaningless.  Without looking at the data more
carefully, we simply do not know anything about the meaningfulness of
the change, other than that it keeps the pool of nominees roughly the
same size.

And, of course, this all continues to ignore the small matter of validating
the IETF process knowledge base of that pool.

d/

ps.  Given that a few weeks ago, my own use of subjective assessment
for similar analysis was rather thoroughly dismissed, it is odd to see
it being applied here.

Thursday, January 23, 2003, 11:05:18 AM, you wrote:
JMH> Actually Dave, we do have one piece of evidence that the experience base is
JMH> different.  The old rule guaranteed that the person had been to two
JMH> meetings.  The new rule guarantees that the person has been to three meetings.
JMH> (I don't care whether in the most recent data sample all of the 2 out of 3
JMH> people had actually attended 5 meetings.  The rules change still shifts the
JMH> base assumptions one can make about a nomcom participant.)

JMH> Most of us believe that this helps the chances of the nomcom participant
JMH> being better.
JMH> Yours,
JMH> Joel M. Halpern

>>is no basis that the pool of nomcom participants is better (or worse).

JMH> ----------------------------------------------------------------
JMH> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
JMH> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

d/