At 02:11 PM 2/11/2015, Michael Richardson wrote: >Let me propose one quantitative way in which a larger pool is good: it >reduces the odds of hitting the no-more-than-2 rule, and it also may reduce >the number of 2-from-one-company that occurs. This is something we could >check: compare size of pool each year to how often there was two people from >one entity, or when a person had to be turned away as the third. *sigh* No. The only factor as to whether you hit the no-more-than-2 rule is the proportion of volunteers you have in the volunteer pool, not the size of the volunteer pool. From the binomial distribution, if a company has 30% of the volunteer pool, it has a 2.8% chance of having no members, a 12.1% chance of having 1 member and a 85.1% chance of having 2. (That last number is the sum of the percentages from 2-10 members). So a big pool does not improve the distribution. Later, Mike