Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:15:03 -0400

I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight
to the questions that were asked:

>>> 1) If day passes do not count as attendance, how many NomCom  
>>> eligible people do we have?

718

>>> 2) If day passes count as attendance, how many NomCom eligible  
>>> people do we have?

736

Methodology / Results:

A table was created containing the email address, name and  registration
type (day pass or not) for every person who attended IETF  73, 74, 75,
76, and 77.  Members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC were dropped from the
table since they are not eligible to serve as NomCom voting members.
Attendance was determined by the presence of a check-in date.  That is,
the person's registration packet was picked up at the registration desk.

Matches in the table is based email addresses.  If a person used
different email addresses for registration at different meetings, then
we might have missed them in this quick review.

The table was then checked to see how many people had attended three  or
more of these meetings.  This yields 736 people who attended 3 or more
meetings.

Then, those people who had attended either IETF 76 or 77 on a Day Pass
were identified and checked to see how many of the five meetings they
attended.

There were 24 people who had attended at least three of the five
meetings but had had attended IETF 76, IETF 77, or both on a Day Pass.
Of those 24 people, six of them had also attended at least three of the
five meetings on full rate or student registrations.

The remaining 18 people have attended only three of the five meetings
with one or more on a Day Pass.

Hope this provides the insight that people are seeking,
Russ

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 15:17:42 -0700

> to the questions that were asked:
...
> Hope this provides the insight that people are seeking,

Yes, thanks. :)  The only missing data point is the number of people out
of the 18 for whom 2 of the 3 meetings attended were day passes, but
given that we're only talking about 18 people I don't think the extra
work required to determine that is worth it.

With the addition of this information to the previous debate I am
supportive of the IESG's message dated 14 May as a stopgap measure, and
applaud the IESG for arriving at what is (IMO at least) a fair
compromise position that takes into account the concerns expressed by
the community.

Regards,

Doug

- -- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 19:18:21 -0500

Russ,

Thank you/the secretariat for chasing this level of detail down. I suspected 
the numbers would look something like this, and didn't want to ask for it, 
but it's much appreciated that you guys did check.

> compromise position that takes into account the concerns expressed by

What Doug said.