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

Bret Jordan <> Tue, 28 July 2020 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11173A0B2C for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r_ItkK9YUlYs for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53BC73A0B3E for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f14so3295437ejb.2 for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r7wXcu4StAhco/r/lkn7Fxq97DJOwe1+RwKiha1o1Gs=; b=nSY1PprGxoHZqiPoCpHwqveXsnJnlzSe+XK4lJ0q9fYXUsNR6sqmImVt1tst8LNfGh dSRypF379vsF44EqYtiVohRH0zY1zXow5oPoiJJBjvUi/bS6b/SizerBNvf6VGzFc2/o TNKGY+3GWxcGJnVldqnjI9Q8TbbN9JOFAqJ1IgfP9/sJM64EZoKQ2CiHMtJTihxIHAza gy65ROu+q4/8IIQv2UYKfV8fM9lzep5b4zu5xHzY+wfW1TyjmBHNf0pt0KD2OKwODhTJ Sei2k+aukWWswTADndt41bjyLLkRcrpOiLfnVCZM4rB3UQwwWYB+16QrbL9WkpWy9t/Y +1WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r7wXcu4StAhco/r/lkn7Fxq97DJOwe1+RwKiha1o1Gs=; b=jki5wlezpDG5vB9pgimlbkh7hX+vDQP0R4h3L7W7v/qy3niR7dhIjGSh8etIY+4dS4 Ha48qxc9nv5S0pCakLC683JqnzK+dMVYdGKlF/pgpZ0TVgXW1XpB6Lm5pDb4vjy0dAzZ aePVJtrpLNB+FQIaPalXOIt30t4J/czc00aODgIxDOm6hjoMXOUAfp3pJpKwf0DOYgrH UYOt7ta1AQ1zdsyP0cSOejX/WXz25F63+Rux/Bq6qLUrrP/jNxdJ4naYp+RdfGaK5uEc NlRnKfXQdNVRvNqWBAHONI1FYUO9rvkFbV1LPGxT8xc/5NFojHIiYTdqRGcvJWtR/bAp l8EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zhVPifTYpRA4IBr7tgG1ymOOxpzFKF14BNUOB3eIXNveJioRZ K+APw4U6B4qD9736idNrIrfyr3Cwx9oZBtGoKHg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSKJRU0i2TZpWfSuxO91ZqZOqo83OCEYxBAdyfEJjVy+7lbrTQIu6qengi3r7lBZBlWPl7GVKhdhdoqavsctY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cc4a:: with SMTP id mm10mr21460354ejb.451.1595906605691; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Bret Jordan <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:23:14 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, John Levine <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000053b61805ab77f67b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Fwd: Introducing the Meetecho Virtual Hum tool
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 03:23:30 -0000

I have yet to see a WG meeting that hasn't used the hum like a vote.  We
just need to accept the fact that the hum is a pseudo anonymous voting
mechanism. Yes we want to believe we are not voting, but in reality we are.
Sorry. Maybe you do not see it, because you want it to be something it is


Sent from my TI-99/4A
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 7:57 PM Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> You should really read As should
> anyone who is confused about this. The chairs call consensus. If they are
> treating humming like a vote, they are doing it wrong. This is fairly
> common, so I don’t blame you for being confused.
> On Jul 27, 2020, at 21:53, Bret Jordan <> wrote:
> 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 <> wrote:
> --On Monday, July 27, 2020 13:03 -0600 Bret Jordan
> <> 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".
> --
> 108attendees mailing list