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

Bret Jordan <jordan2175@gmail.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jordan2175@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D583A0AAF for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJtgsq5B3Bep for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C5F43A0AAC for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id l2so3740930pff.0 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ezXWdG2sIoOHgcj4K5mPND1PpSH4zrlDwtN73QKZ/e8=; b=fboFUwcLXbundCqEUYFPZFv9Tg9s3qwPYbWINI2xDYb+iixlYmnvECOexZnJuP5/Y0 LWmZ5jc0Vwb/8V64DpoA0uwRqxhTufJrRXSbYOKxu7mEaVA/FVbcV5klp4XuiTozmOSi LFdYx1YZ7vICLIqlWsPrvS9vvSLLyu5Q5a3NeCVVUJgA1HpsK0cpU2ye7O2CZX3Vwu0L e4THbEuvjl9tFRoW2gaCbNpEgeFcBZSDo598U2w0SbUMzM9iXJ5mSJbMbM4W+1Z0NKzu e7YAY8Tb4FgawhOcXoxO/WpGk5FRyrS/XuZrWuxdI0HxnaF2L3q+zpU3h7WFhHG4iREl QU9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ezXWdG2sIoOHgcj4K5mPND1PpSH4zrlDwtN73QKZ/e8=; b=TGabquO1em4Y6ph5WEpYzp27RfFMSYXWKiDGR0GOibrqokIjU8lmua3By368cBCxPB 1eIDqVS5LYctk/A8viSIkw9OiRLMOUlXHMP9qIyf3t08seB/8Bi6KFFqYhitRJO/Cqhu b3ppAAqWEOyLST1umrFaawKhNtt3d6O6zQiVoORBP7hCxpbWEhHRb35CK7n8Ej5YImpU slCBthyoHOeLN48MEnht+YXz2nAWr+QKZbkF/xi/8jMMwvI/afv7aYpU2HrvKV5dVygw BdTODFRvY63CRzKcMl9oUGdsJtJ3UWLgKcCxDQdhDgfPJx+J9XMaVv4fzzn+ai6pJAsM 0Ojw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fnx0aaUYZ4LZEoEDE2KrVAQPUD1ArC/m7Kkrlroe/JVXSsney 4yT3Zf5kQmrykBsiRC+7EnC63o3t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbYghGOIDJjUNU4bgkq68VWrFyeL3k3RtFWeydOENKmlvNGAi+skLN+a3JlFI+bbkcskQ+8Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4bc8:: with SMTP id p8mr15784971pgr.418.1595901211636; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:4a14:dd76:99b5:152a:a1eb:e6e3? ([2600:380:4a14:dd76:99b5:152a:a1eb:e6e3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 17sm16642013pfv.16.2020.07.27.18.53.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-B7C9A411-04DF-496F-ACC3-1A620683E5BD
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bret Jordan <jordan2175@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:53:29 -0600
Message-Id: <C992207C-96DF-47B5-8927-C150E4380D94@gmail.com>
References: <3065DE6AD2B436820EEDA67E@PSB>
Cc: John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, 108attendees@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3065DE6AD2B436820EEDA67E@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/35WzW8k07ijGWV6c5dWMK-CRevk>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Fwd: Introducing the Meetecho Virtual Hum tool
X-BeenThere: 108attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <108attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/108attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 01:53:34 -0000

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 <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, July 27, 2020 13:03 -0600 Bret Jordan
> <jordan2175@gmail.com> 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".