I'm finally getting out from underneath all the emails in my inbox (I won't bore you with all the excitement of my past week), and thought I'd provide just a little additional info on a couple of items. I was provided the list of IETF 107 and 108 "people who checked the volunteer for NomCom box" last Wednesday, and had no time to process them till Sunday. The IETF 107 list I was given didn't include affiliation. Because BCP 10 has a very strict schedule to maintain, and I had initially created for myself a schedule that had me sending out the preliminary list of volunteers this past Friday, I decided to send out a list (on Sunday) that I was confident would need to be modified over the next few days. I'll ask forgiveness now 😉. The reason I noted the "107" people was I didn't have time to confirm with these people whether they were still interested in volunteering. Much has happened since they checked that box. I've asked for all those people (24 people) to please send me a positive confirmation of interest. According to attendance eligibility requirements (using the nomcom.py tool) all the people in that list are attendance-eligible. I assumed that anyone who sent me an email over the past month or checked the box on 108 registration was still interested, without asking for additional confirmation. If a person was in my "emailed me" list AND (108 or 107) lists, I deleted their 108 and 107 entries and kept the info they emailed me. Similarly, if they were in 108 AND 107, I deleted their 107 entry. So the only people with "107" next to them are ones who checked the box in 107 but did not email me AND DID NOT (register for 108 by the Wednesday deadline AND check the NomCom volunteer box). Normally, I could get affiliation from the Attendees listed for an IETF meeting on its past Proceedings page. Unfortunately, no Attendees link exists for IETF 107 on its Proceedings page. I've asked the Secretariat to provide me with the affiliation info for the list of 107 people they gave me. But interested "107" people are also welcome to provide me directly with affiliation (and some have). I did check (on Sunday) the 107 entries against the 108 registered participants -- any affiliations listed for 107 people came from a 108 registration. If they registered for 108 after Wednesday and checked the box in 108, I wouldn't know, since Wednesday was the volunteer cut-off. I hope this is clear? Thx, Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Michael StJohns > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:44 AM > To: Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: List of volunteers for the 2020-2021 NomCom > > On 6/30/2020 12:54 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > 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 ? > > The raw probabilities are the same. E.g. Ptot ~= 1 - ((1-1/160)^10) or about > 6% chance for any individual in the pool being selected. Its approximate > because the pool actually shrinks with each pick changing the probability > upwards for each subsequent pick. For Huawei+Futurewei, let's assume > they end up with two members (as that's a near 100% chance). The Ptot for > each would be ~= 1-((1-1/38)^2) or about 5%. Not really a great > difference. (It's actually %5.19% * 95.6% or 4.96% plus ..6% * 2.6% - call it > 5%). > > Note: Figure the probability of not being selected N times (which is > (1-Psel)^N) and subtract that from 1 to get the probability of being selected > at least once. > > > > > > 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 ? > I saw three I think. One from Cisco, one from Huawei and one from > Cloudflare. I expect those will be filled in. > > > > 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 > >> > >>
