Thanks for the analysis.
Inline.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:12:59AM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> To put some real numbers behind this I grabbed the list, and did some
> consolidation and sorting. There were basically only a few companies where
> I ended up merging things: Anything with "Huawei" in the name was Huawei.
> (Huawei, Huawei Technologies, Huawei Tech Dusseldorf, Beijing Huawei, Ditto
> for Google (Chrome, Jigsaw). The remainder of the list were slight variants
> (Cisco vs Cisco Systems, etc) and easy to merge. I wasn't sure of whether
> Futurewei should be grouped with Huawei, so I did the calculations both
> ways.
>
> Taking only the groups with 3 or more volunteers you get:
>
> Cisco - 13 - 8.1% of the pool - 24.2% chance of having 1, 65.6% of 2
> Ericsson - 6 - 3.8% of the pool 37.5/26.9
> Futurewei - 10 - 6.3% of pool 31.5/51.5
> Google - 4 2.5% 34.9/14.6
> Huawei - 28 17.5% 3.2/95.9
> Juniper - 10 6.3% 31.5/51.5
> Mozilla - 3 1.9%, 30.9, 9.1
> Nokia - 3 1.9% 30.9/9.1
> ZTE - 6 - 3.8% 37.5/26.9
>
> (Huawei + Future Wei ) 23.8% .6/95.6
>
> Using the current model, Huawei with 17.5% of the pool has only a (100 -
> 95.9 - 3.2) .6% chance of having no volunteers selected, a 3.2% chance of
> having 1, and a 95.9% chance of having 2. If Futurewei and Huawei are
> counted as separate companies, together they have about a 50% chance of
> having 4 members between them (estimate rather than doing the calculations).
>
> Cisco and Juniper each have more than a 50/50 chance of having two members
> and a >80% chance of having at least one each.
>
> The above numbers were calculated using the BINOMDIST function in Excel.
Whats the probability of a single individual from e.g: Huawei+Futurewei
to be elected to NomCom. vs. the probability of an individual from
a company where he/she is the only nomcom volunteer ?
I saw some folks without listed company affiliations that have i think
known company affiliations. Whats the process ? Is NomCom chair
having to try to figure that out, best effort ?
Obvious, and this is the root of what i think is our problem dealing with
candidate bias: There are no simple critera to demonstrate other than
company affiliation clusters of bias that would imact the quality of
the nomcom results. So big companies are the easy pinata.
Cheers
Toerless
> Mike
>
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
