Re: Fwd: FYI: Site Local

[Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>]

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > 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)

Right. Well, if we take seriously the claim that the consensus is
defined by the ML, then we ought to discard the room count entirely.
Now, the question just becomes how to execute the sample on
the mailing list. I'm not concerned with having debate on the mailing
list actually DoS the list, so the issue just becomes how to
take votes. The obvious solution to that is to have some
separate automated system that collects those votes and just post
the call for votes on the ML.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr@rtfm.com]
                http://www.rtfm.com/