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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 10 July 2020 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 D3DA63A0AF1; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 KLRktTBwva6Z; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C8533A0AF5; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2wKb0lbWz14Z; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 03:23:31 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1594344211; bh=chpXm+DDQxOxC2Y6SciLTB5iX49QIkpTf9sUDr6xNLc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=UjMVJm9YkoIYFoszYTRsXkeJ0n/+aIPmUbJipWxZPw83NcJJpIgO/u36FUch87wtA 3gEFP2uRcUpNFLs5sr3sPGfv+OiINx2t+l/NDVxHobw6KZmT2CCSnTYvGfB4IzN6tK 9Gbjr8E7DHuYK3HuePi4T7vI5qtzW3OpHN73zlhQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RvUQ8r7zwqOQ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 03:23:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 03:23:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D47E6029A37; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 21:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E04384C6; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 21:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 21:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org, 108attendees@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <360CAAFC-CAB5-436E-A553-8AE6BD33B999@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2007092118130.281462@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAM4esxTnQ1vpuWUvci+EUdPE9+NUpbqe_xma9gWTGHjx_W3TVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxRLAYvHQRLuwRsT3yM-j5mvmiuwEpaLwONbnh_TKeq+kQ@mail.gmail.com> <360CAAFC-CAB5-436E-A553-8AE6BD33B999@sobco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/_29iGU5AgpoDUc1y_30GNUnygng>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] 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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:23:39 -0000

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

> btw - I assume that this, like a hum, is is anonymous - all you get is aggregate volume and not, as Fred asks, vote totals or have any
> way to find out who hummed and who did not  - I also assume that if 1/10th of the people on the call (for lack of a better word)
> hummed loudly and no one else hummed at all the result would be very low volume (i.e. the volume is based on the total
> # of people that could hum rather than on just those that did)

I find humming at times have been wildely differently interpreted than
what I heard. In physical meetings we dont have easy tools to vote
anonymously. But when we are meeting virtually, I would have expected
us to improve the humming system - not implement its real flaws, in this
case potentially literally amplified and send looping back.

Why not a flag or button to set, with the results anonymized and rounded
up/down based on the size of the meeting. So we get answers like "25% of
the room" or "just a few people" or "the vast majority".

Seeing as a lot of the times, the humming questions are confusing, a
place for the WG chair to write down the question and possible answers
would also have added clarification to our current virtualized emulated
humming system.

Paul