Re: Fwd: FYI: Site Local

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Eric,

> We have two samples, both taken with seriously non-random sampling
> methodologies. There's an extensive literature about how to combine
> such studies (the procedure is called meta-analysis) but simple
> addition can't be used unless the two samples were taken with roughly
> commensurate methodologies.


So what constructive suggestion do you have for handling the problem
on the table, namely:

- complex topic, with folks on both sides having strong views
- clear consensus in room
- IETF mantra that consensus is defined by the mailing list, not the
  room
- chairs (and ADs) that really do want to make the process work in an
  open matter.
- don't want the  ML to melt with 1K postings per day (to prevent the
  DOS on the ML problem)

At one level, it's certainly useful to point out flaws in an
approach. But at the end of the day, how can we make this work? Note
that this is an area that has also been discussed on problem statement
as being a problem area with no obvious solution from what I can tell.

Thomas