Re: [Eligibility-discuss] some numbers

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks so much for doing this. 

> On Apr 21, 2020, at 9:08 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 22/04/2020 01:59, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Stephen, what results do you get if you run this on historical data,
>> say for the past two years?  The problem with this run is that it
>> doesn’t really tell us who this would disenfranchise under normal
>> circumstances, given that circumstances are anything but normal.
>> 
>> IOW, pretend that it’s just after IETF 106, and now run the old
>> algorithm, run the new algorithm (in the second case pretending IETF
>> 106 didn’t happen) and see who loses eligibility.  Do this again for
>> IETF 105, 104 and 103, so that we have more than one test case.
>> 
>> Does that make sense?  Is it hard to do?
> 
> I'm not 100% sure I'm answering the right question but I
> think that'd be the 357 people who are only eligible based
> on f2f meetings and not otherwise. (See the Venn diagram
> near the bottom of [2].)
> 
> Put another way: if we have no f2f meetings before the 2021
> nomcom are selected, and we adopted draft-02, then those
> are the people who'd "lose" (assuming nomcom-eligibility is
> a "win";-).
> 
> It is absolutely a non-trivial, interesting and subtle
> question as to whether we'd be ok with dropping that set
> of 357 people and replacing them with the set of 452 who
> would be eligible without having been at a f2f meeting
> recently.
> 
> Optimistically, if we do have another f2f meeting before
> nomcom2021 are picked, I'd guess many of those 357 people
> might re-gain eligibility, but I'd have to change code
> to put a number on that.
> 
> I guess I could also check how many of the 290 who are
> in the intersection have previously volunteered to be
> on a nomcom. (Another one for tomorrow or the next day:-)

If possible I think a good comparison with what you have would be to look at the 5- and 3-year periods that ended in April 2019 or 2018. I.e., generate the lists using the five meetings prior to that date and the 5- and 3-year periods prior to that date. Then we could see how similar the lists and the venn diagram look at two points in time, rather than one.

If you do that, then also looking at how the list of who actually did volunteer for the nomcom in that particular year and how that group breaks down between those who would be eligible via paths 2/4/5 and those who would not would be revealing. In other words, it would be interesting to see if most of the people who volunteer land at the center of the venn diagram or not.

None of this implies any normative judgment as you say, but at least it could help people understand numerically what the impact could be of the paths you propose.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2020, at 8:50 PM, Stephen Farrell
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hiya,
>>> 
>>> With many thanks to Robert Sparks for writing up some initial code
>>> to query the datatracker DB exploring the results of drafts such as
>>> the one Brian and I wrote, we have some initial numbers to report.
>>> 
>>> If one applied the rules from our -02 draft [1] then if seems we'd
>>> end up with a similarly sized set of nomcom eligible folks without
>>> requiring f2f meeting attendance.
>>> 
>>> Details are at [2].
>>> 
>>> The status quo with only f2f meetings gives 647 people, the
>>> draft-02 scheme gives us 742 eligible people without requiring f2f
>>> attendance. 290 of those are eligible both ways. From eyeballing
>>> the lists, the eligible people who'd not usually be eligible seem
>>> no more crazy than any random subset of IETFers;-)
>>> 
>>> I didn't put the actual lists of names up as I'm allergic to
>>> publishing lists of people's names, but I'd be fine with publishing
>>> hashes of them if that helped, or with answering any on or off list
>>> queries. [2] does have instructions that allow you to replicate
>>> creating the lists yourself if you are willing to do a bit of work.
>>> (Before we could consider ourselves "done" here, I do think we'd
>>> want someone to have independently replicated results like this.)
>>> 
>>> For me, this means that draft-02 seems credible enough to pursue
>>> some more, based on the data and not only based on a hunch, which
>>> is good.
>>> 
>>> Happy to try answer queries or check out alternatives if people
>>> have any to suggest...
>>> 
>>> Cheers, S.
>>> 
>>> PS: I'm sure there'll be some errors in this somewhere. Apologies
>>> in advance for those and they are of course my fault and not
>>> Robert's nor Brian's ;-)
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02 
>>> [2] https://github.com/sftcd/elig/blob/master/queries.md 
>>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>-- Eligibility-discuss mailing list 
>>> [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>> 
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>-- 
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss