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

Fred Baker <> Thu, 09 July 2020 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BD53A0E88; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 GJFPTOE9DRJC; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 917323A0E47; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p3so1380240pgh.3; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=wm6zzvo6qFcAjYNdcGb7TzWiYNpJ9h4f8T5bApzg9R8=; b=NRC9gefssL7lCB9MOdV0vwfpCla8/ioGpu2JrBJ3S+VTXJLzHfVst3uqNMHBefAZP2 PlZglpHK3baKPuSINvQvTwktjnmkcHiqDQhVGzlGUdHi+KPCmvSWwk0/sYoFONa6Z0l0 1hYA/tZGuNvk+2+gzCr3fvTLih/atBIu2/JGObS/SGfgSFjQbPT68+3+nKL8gxFlFyeq PamaA0a411tgZnBXtQ1jQPv7xarayTU0kx5s2rm65pFoqUZjYfblkGdI/8YyZ4G4a0IW 9j1RbYS6iju8OZ/unIY625YwQJdiu0aZ2Zq992G6wUcgwIF7dKL4iHtew/GdwMZCQVWL aNzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=wm6zzvo6qFcAjYNdcGb7TzWiYNpJ9h4f8T5bApzg9R8=; b=ucqsZUuyj9BNL8RQCtMC8K/FnHdT9Toz9jzqk/oscTbVKrsUFqWiELoHekWbFlPSvF zZL8pyzQlC3FeBK5740+l34h0ID70C5Yixr4jw2sY9jO9xdyphms70b6WbnkepLk6Pr/ p9WXcQc0vwV5wfOFvIlO2O6nxpBs/ChKzMCHg3fifRLWg1PmxjgcwMascos2iYGj9x5Y U3qIQeiDBcpEA3obygQhz0gxj+ZKvmk/ZFixqqPp4L0tlGb6eDhAuo4I2NId5stsQDqy Xu2RsOdD56DE4yxYn2SKatlF5XUxY1E5Ae7gBYnz9JHuS1D9ZeibHRLiRWVmt/02Q+Zn 8kZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FpXau36c7RAtglKTwaBAnwkkHINAAaBfxGBv/fGY34UJirsRj yMiOUoWkwsHByN6tg9sbVh4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw999AxEJfkvSyp59NBf9Ejb4S9sSMkzCktZF9HB8gW69vCN7/Mpe4dE6b7/c0gtHJo5TTjcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:125a:: with SMTP id 26mr56769541pgs.340.1594321362025; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5800:652::183f? ([2600:8802:5800:652::183f]) by with ESMTPSA id p9sm3547012pja.4.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 12:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-587DF18F-D9C3-422A-BD19-A0775C7EB66E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:02:40 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc:,, David Olive <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Martin Duke <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G5059c)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] 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: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:03:04 -0000

Thanks for this note. Let me put on my “co-chair RSSAC” hat and get your opinion?

ICANN has been going through the same issues with virtual meetings that IETF has. ICANN 67, 68, and 69 - at least - are virtual, and even after that we expect an increased amount of ICANN attendance to be remote. Historically, that has been listen-only, and we are thinking we may have to rethink our remote access tools. I copy David Olive as he and his group are important in that discussion.

ICANN has been using zoom and its “hand raise” feature. What that has meant is that the chair of a discussion, or his/her deputy, watches the “participants” pane, and invites remote commentary from folks who “raise their hand”. It can also be used as a voting tool - “everyone who <takes a stated position>, raise your hand” - allowing the deputy to count.

That is a little different than the IETF “hum”, which is intentionally inexact - a “sense of the room”. Who in the IETF would you recommend that I encourage David to discuss requirements and tools with?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 9, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Martin Duke <> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Martin Duke <>
> Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:59 PM
> Subject: Introducing the Meetecho Virtual Hum tool
> To: <>
> The IESG and IETF LLC are working with the Meetecho team to add the capability to conduct “virtual hums” in fully remote meetings. A software model model that shows the output for given numbers of people humming is available for experimentation [TEST_SITE].
> Working Group chairs seeking “a sense of the room” are invited to use this tool to help obtain it. As always, consensus ultimately requires confirmation on the email list.
> The current implementation is based on a specification the IESG developed [I-D.duke]. Briefly, the workflow is as follows:
> A chair begins the hum in meetecho
> Participants have 20 seconds to hum loudly, softly, or not all
> At the conclusion of the hum, Meetecho will report the approximate loudness of the hum, on the following increasing scale: niente, pianissimo, piano, forte, fortissimo.
> As there is no IETF consensus that offline hums have specific flaws, the current specification seeks to reproduce the offline version as faithfully as possible. The SHMOO working group [SHMOO] might reach consensus on a different set of requirements in the future, and update or replace this document.
> The community will have an opportunity to try out this tool at participant [PARTICIPANTS] and session chair [CHAIRS] training sessions beginning 15 July. Feedback is welcome on the manycouches mailing list. In particular, practical operational issues (e.g. bug reports, usability concerns, security weaknesses) and strong, unambiguous consensus for feature changes might be actionable prior to IETF 108. More contentious philosophical concerns are best left for long-term consideration by SHMOO.
> Regards,
> Martin Duke
> On behalf of the IESG
> [I-D.duke]