Dave and I don't always agree :-) I don't think we've got either the database of "people not attending because of costs" nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who would still not attend because of other issues times some percentage where the location is problematic * etc etc). If you can figure this out, I think you could probably apply the same model to forecasting the US stock market...
We have good data on past attendees. From that we can probably build a pretty good model on what each past attendees Pa (percentage chance of attending the next meeting) is. From that we can probably build a pretty good model of what our probable attendee demographics will look like absent the one-shot and/or local attendees. Let's stick with solid data rather than try and resolve the hypotheticals - I doubt the latter is possible in any meaningful way. Mike At 08:52 AM 9/6/2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: >On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: >> There's already bias in the population >> of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account >> for people who are already not attending because of costs? > >Yes! This is exactly the point I keep raising, about sampling error. We need >to make sure that our analyses are with respect to the population (the full >set of potential attendees) that we have in mind, rather than just a core of >folk who usually attend. > >A theoretical analysis of fair costs doesn't query real people, so sampling is >not an issue. But the second we start surveying, we need to consider folks >not on the ietf@ or ietf-attendees@ lists. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
