For example, if one asks a large sample of 10-year-olds how old they are, the answers will, predictably, be mostly truthful: there are few incentives to lie and mistakes will tend to be nearly randomly distributed (slightly fatter tail to the "younger" side because of forgetting birthdays). If one asks the same question of 60 year olds, the answer pattern would probably be different, and it is important, if one is trying to interpret validity, to understand those differences and their likely impact, rather than assuming either that all population groups are the same or that all self-report answers are invalid.
Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people whether they would have accepted nominations if their names would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did, then which way would the report be biased. I would think that people who are inclined to give incorrect answers would be more inclined to answer "no problem" given the community's biases about openness and unwillingness to admit that they require secrecy. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but, if I'm not, the results Danny reported would, if anything, underestimate the number of people who would not be willing to be considered if their names were public.
We now return you to the regularly-scheduled religious arguments on the subject.
john
--On Monday, May 16, 2005 10:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them.
fwiw I responded "Yes" to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation.
Brian
Dave Crocker wrote:Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics.
Sam,
Sorry, no.
As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey researchers call "self-report".
It is very good for assessing attitudes and very bad for assessing actual behavior.
For example, what you are likely to get are responses that indicate whether the people would like to have nominations be public.
It does not guarantee -- and well might not even correlate with -- whether they really would run or not run, depending on the public-ness of the nomination.
It is one thing to ask simple questions about simple issues. As soon as we get into something more "political" the psychodynamics get messy.
d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf