How we decide that we have decided (was: Re: Sampling)

Brian E Carpenter brc at zurich.ibm.com
Thu Jul 31 12:05:01 CEST 2003


In technical WGs we generally assume that the people who show
up and hum/raise hands/send email are by definition the set of
people with an active interest in the topic, and (modulo IESG
review and Last Call) that is considered the appropriate
constituency. It's essentially self-selected, and we seem to
be fine with that.

In non-technical topics (such as ipr) we have had to deal with
non-technical people self-selecting themselves for the WG. And
in some political topics (RFC 1984, RFC 2804) we have been happy
to accept a hum from the people who self-select themselves to
attend the Thursday plenary.

For process topics, there's a built in self-reference in any
consensus mechanism. But personally, I think the self-selection
for the Thursday plenary is much less suspect than the self-selection
for this WG. The people (including me of course) who have strong
feelings about process issues are not automatically the people
who should decide.

Self-selection for the Thursday plenary is probably indicative of 
interest in general IETF issues, given that the alternatives are 
going out for a leisurely dinner or leaving early for home. So there 
are good reasons to listen to the Thursday night hum for general issues.
After that, the ball is clearly in the IESG's court.

   Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc at zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK


Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Spencer,
> 
> SD>   Dave was asking about bias between a sample and a population
> SD>   when I didn't have a good definition of the "population" (since
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It is the fluidity and informality of the *real* population's boundary
> that should make us particularly diligent about whether we are being
> adequately inclusive and whether our samples are adequately
> representative.
> 
> We used to do that.
> 
> Now, apparently, we just say "we have no good way to interpret the
> results other than taking them on face value".
> 
> SD>   we have no formal membership, etc. - it's almost like our
> SD>   population is a sample of a larger population).
> 
> yup!
> 
> 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>


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list