Sampling

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

>> I believe that both the working group participation and the IETF Vienna
>> plenary presentation represent very, very highly biased samples of the
>> IETF population.

HTA> Yes. In both cases, they consist of the people that show up.
and
RB> all samples are biased.  we just don't like the ones that have
RB> results which disagree with our own perceptions.  funny monkeys
RB> we are.

Two points from this brief thread:


1. Two members of the IESG are clear that we need not be concerned with
the basis on which we interpret a meeting's results.

Literally the only thing that matters is who shows up.

In social research methodology discussions about the topic of sampling
bias, there is a careful distinction between "population" and "sample".
There are some useful decades of experience with this distinction.  The
same useful history concerns biasing aspects of the ways questions are
asked.

From the two postings on this thread, it appears that we are simply to
treat sample and population as the same, and we need not worry about the
particular form of questions to the group.

Originally, the IETF worried quite a bit about being inclusive, in its
formulation of meeting logistics, its assessment and use of consensus
statements at meetings, and its general attention to the preferences of
the general community. All of this is difficult and unpleasant.

I have always felt that that careful attention to real inclusiveness was
a primary source of legitimacy for the IETF. It was in this context, of
bending over backwards to be inclusive, that the focus on those who
showed up and participated rang true.

Apparently things have changed. It appears that we no longer have to
worry whether meeting logistics serve to exclude people or whether IETF
process serves to disenfranchise folks. We just tally who shows up -- or
rather, who speaks up -- and that's that.

I'm guessing that some folks might disagree with my assessment.
Clarifications and corrections would be greatly appreciated.


2. No one else has contributed to this thread.

Hence they have not "shown up". By definition this means that the two
IESG members are correct and that I am wrong about my concerns.

Luckily, we do not need to worry whether folks have, in fact, given up
on this forum or this topic. They haven't contributed, so their views
are not relevant.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>