Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia,

On 7/18/17 1:07 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on
> the order of 60 people in the past.  I recall the Honolulu meeting
> being particularly problematic.  
>
> Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on
> historical issues.  I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute
> number of people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails.

This is indeed the problem with actually using a number or percentage. 
Now we have to validate that we have the right number.  Yes, I've been
outed.  This # is a finger in the wind.  I was hoping I was measuring
the breeze correctly, but perhaps not.  For this I ask for input,
because I don't have a good feel for what that right number is.

Eliot


>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Jul 18, 2017 11:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37:36AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>     > >    o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are
>     > >       unlikely to impede attendance by an overwhelming majority of
>     > >       participants.
>     >
>     >
>     > This wording seems to fail the "document running code" test,
>     because it
>     > is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people would have
>     problems
>     > getting to San Francisco.
>
>     I agree.
>
>     > However, it seems likely that a significant
>     > number of people would, and that seems to me what we meant in
>     the first
>     > place.  To avoid arguments over what "significant" means, I
>     propose to
>     > change the text to the following:
>     >
>     > o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are
>     unlikely to
>     > impede attendance by more than 5% of expected participants.
>
>     I like the 5% (or some other number) being in the criterion.  I feel
>     uncomfortable with "significant" because my inner social science nerd
>     immediately wants to start looking for 2 standard deviations, and I
>     think that would create a shifting window over time related to
>     changing immigration policies around the world.  Of course, if it
>     turns out that 5% of potential expected participants are always
>     excluded in some possible future world where immigration restriction
>     becomes the norm, that might mean we can never meet.
>
>
>     For this case, are we reasonably sure that it would have been 60ish
>     people?  If not, that appears to tell us that 5% is the wrong value
>     (unless we think it is an indication the IAOC is making a mistake, and
>     I don't get the impression that we collectively feel that way but I'm
>     not in a position to declare consensus).
>
>     > It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate.
>
>     I agree.
>
>     This is a nice test, by the way, and I'm glad we have the opportunity
>     to try this.
>
>     A
>
>     --
>     Andrew Sullivan
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mtgvenue mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>
>
>