Re: Update

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On onsdag, januar 22, 2003 23:18:49 -0500 Mark Allman 
<mallman@grc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>   + we think the people fitting in the 3 patterns in the "3 of 5"
>     set and not the "2 of 3" are more useful in nomcom than the set
>     of people fitting in one of the 3 patterns that pass the "2 of
>     3" rule and not the "3 of 5" rule

Just thinking about the last 5 meetings before the selection of the current 
nomcom... Yokohama, Minneapolis(02), Salt Lake City, London, 
Minneapolis(01).

The patterns that fit 2 out of 3, but not 3 out of 5, are:

- Yokohama + Minneapolis
- Yokohama + Salt Lake City
- Minneapolis + Salt Lake City

In all 3 cases, no other attendance since San Diego (if ever).
The patterns that fit 3 out of 5 but not 2 out of 3 are:

- Yokohama + London + Minneapolis(01)
- Minneapolis(02) + London + Minneapolis(01)
- Salt Lake City + London + Minneapolis(01)

> My own opinion is that "3 of 5" is better than "2 of 3" for the two
> above reasons (especially the min).  But, the difference is in 15%
> of the pool -- and, I don't think that matters terribly much in the
> end.  Even if you go to something like "4 of 8" you still see
> significant overlap with the "2 of last 3" group (again roughly
> 70%).
>
> So, maybe we are sweating the small stuff here.  I have said before
> that I think we should do something fairly different.  But, that has
> zero consensus.  That's fine.  So, maybe it is time to Just Pick
> Some "M of N" - with the knowledge that what we're really setting is
> the lower bound (i.e., how many meetings until eligible) rather than
> really gauging one's attendance record over time.

I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal 
improvement, so worth doing.