Re: [108attendees] Fwd: Introducing the Meetecho Virtual Hum tool

[Bret Jordan <[e-mail]>]

It is voting no mater what we call it. Just give people a really thing to click.

Bret 

Sent from my Commodore 64

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

> On Jul 27, 2020, at 6:16 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, July 27, 2020 13:03 -0600 Bret Jordan
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> It seems like the pseudo anonymous voting aspect of the
>> "hum" could be done in much easier ways using electronic
>> means.   
>> 
>> Some legacy things that were done before better alternatives,
>> just just go away. 
> 
> And some legacy things need more thought than this seems to have
> gotten in switching from one type of environment to another.
> Three examples come to mind from today's experiences:
> 
> (1) One of the problems with a complex hum sequence even when
> most or all people are in the same room is keeping track about
> what is being hummed about.  A hum frame that doesn't identify
> the subject of the hum just doesn't cut it and, even when it is
> over-long (with or without Jeopardy music) [1] can be confusing
> enough to make interpretation of the results dubious.
> 
> (2) If I'm chairing a WG or otherwise leading a hum in a f2f
> environment, I can look at the room and form a judgment of how
> many people are humming, how many are staring at their screens
> and doing email, and how many are sitting there with either
> blank or hostile looks on their faces.  That is important
> information.  I have to wonder whether that simple five-point
> scale would change significantly if it were somehow rated by the
> number of people who bother to respond.  
> 
> (3) The two "hum softly" and "hum loudly" choices make sense for
> a question similar to "do you support..." or, better, "how much
> do you like...", with essentially three choices --loud, soft, or
> silent [2].   If does not make sense for an "agree or disagree"
> question.  For those, we may use two hums in a f2f meeting, but,
> as suggested above, when used f2f, there is much more
> information present.  For an online situation, the choices
> really need to be 
>   agree strongly
>   agree
>   indifferent or neutral
>   disagree
>   disagree strongly
> maybe that means whomever is initiating the hum should have a
> choice between a two-point scale (soft vs loud) versus a
> five-point one (see above), but that obviously makes things more
> complicated.
> 
> best,
>    john
> 
> 
> [1] During the test session I participated in, people had a good
> deal of trouble navigating the new Meetecho UI and, especially
> for those who were trying to watch the Jabber discussion in the
> Meetecho window (and hence not seeing either the
> Participant/Queue/Speaker pane or the hum one very often),
> navigating the UI took several extra seconds.  So, maybe, at
> least for them (including me during the test session but, having
> learned my lesson (again) not today), that long period is not
> actually excessive.   What it does imply is another reason why
> some sort of yes-maybe-no hum, or the suggestion above, is
> important: one 35 second hum may be tolerable, while two or
> three to get a simple "in favor/ opposed" response is much less
> so.
> 
> [2] Noting the difficulty of telling "deliberately silent" from
> "indifferent" and from "tuned out".