Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Wed, 11 February 2015 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFD61A0371 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:16:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_SUMOF=1, MISSING_MID=0.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y2_XFnfm98xL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35CE01A0AF7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.103]) by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r9Fr1p0022EPM31019GWQx; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:16:30 +0000
Received: from Mike-T530ssd.comcast.net ([69.255.115.150]) by resomta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r9GV1p00V3Em2Kp019GWmS; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:16:30 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:02 -0500
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>,Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two
In-Reply-To: <8234.1423681913@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAL0qLwbGG2=VgmUWEE6W3D+0qennThqnCP85X0Q85i94meu68g@mail.gmail.com> <6409.1423672454@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYobxBDuE0WG2t+kviGm=Wwj3RJqVh7y0yHH0uX7KWVfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEHp7vbniqG9=f6BdLOPZ6AXDjKBwGTeEONJw647Z4L+xg@mail.gmail.com> <8234.1423681913@sandelman.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1423689390; bh=KLHOSBjSSJZHah8tRCEZhTewK8Lhc/0ALFEDf38PgvU=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=roMhihQXPhHrFozAgQZPYj0mDKIMp1DBzMvCARAFHK8lj5rDK6ry7oosp5MvBWrd7 MKGtfYk1HHYhDrhrtepzNvST5CUmWvRMJLV1v3JhXrg6pBa2NwaCMrfPt9fkzzbZXY Ef29L2dgPOiJhmQlNJojlIsMLdFc5tnOV6ebGQ3uRMYw3VPjx1z9EgWTa8CixljY4n Cs18kz2Je9Ig6d2Rbz5FrHjcfmwbJPECbq5Ae1cprfXW5Qh5/n1QP2Z7tsDhiCf3LC vy/ZWUS8fzI8PEMKuWFk0DUOgseakWV2Hol2qQInewYl8+UXHLE478znF1Gdl9ChTN lw7senjin8CWw==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OTJfbbjJh_Ln9buf-XuKlkD_R1E>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:16:37 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20150211211642.14834.30953.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

At 02:11 PM 2/11/2015, Michael Richardson wrote:
>Let me propose one quantitative way in which a larger pool is good: it
>reduces the odds of hitting the no-more-than-2 rule, and it also may reduce
>the number of 2-from-one-company that occurs.  This is something we could
>check: compare size of pool each year to how often there was two people from
>one entity, or when a person had to be turned away as the third.



*sigh* No.

The only factor as to whether you hit the no-more-than-2 rule is the proportion of volunteers you have in the volunteer pool, not the size of the volunteer pool.

 From the binomial distribution, if a company has 30% of the volunteer pool, it has a 2.8% chance of having no members, a 12.1% chance of having 1 member and a 85.1% chance of having 2. (That last number is the sum of the percentages from 2-10 members).

So a big pool does not improve the distribution.

Later, Mike