Re: limiting our set of cities

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 8:17 AM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2/20/20 7:46 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> 
>> I think that we should pick the top 12-16 locations that participants are from, then for each destination prior to it being considered we calculate the travel PAIN (cost + time) for that set of participants.
> 
> Why favor participants from large cities?   It's not like they're representative of the whole group.

By trying to make it easier for the most people, of course it's going to be helping areas with the most people. The point is to obtain a list of sites to measure travel cost and time from.

> 
> Also, different participants have different ideas of pain.

I think it's reasonable to equate "painful" with travel time and cost. Do we really want people who love to travel and couldn't care less where we go to be diluting the "pain pool" for the measurement? That doesn't work well towards minimizing pain for everyone else that it does impact.

> A fairer method would be to poll every participant about their preferences for future meeting cities, then for each meeting, pick N polled participants at random from those who have attended the last M meetings (locally or remotely), and select from the cities show up in their preference lists.

Ok as long as N is large and M is reasonable. But making N large is just going to skew to large metro areas being heavily represented anyway. *shrug*

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Keith
> 
>