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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf