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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 CB4633A0AB5 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 t8WN7P-4FgNI for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 00EAC3A0B55 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id b25so13833745qto.2 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=cazcPSS2hQctMJ0mjcpb3gerjiJ7hsJb9iuT6ajaqTY=; b=PnTDZKxkIWPsT6k4ZDKl7VUdNwS6I2hL+dxYM5f5t2FGlLR2HsRpHCwI+RG2QOoCma CTcRY6IGr61khQ7uFmPFtoW9FXZ328Fl1K/Fq6kQwDkl0+Ic8HKRMKgVAVZ0sc4/00tv 9eV4ECUhziJgwQ0/p0nTiJQyX7eIJV6zfRYpPRTyVU5zLsjnqGzPAaEaBMfJrEdIC8hS G2Yat/UbmH2YzwBDj+AzxRc+p+h/VmTaADnDquxCVKGcrsJsHRsd9Chf6G8wwYiz/tCU uVJ+Ev3UuWlxzUyxP6JiEb/xCGP2yZJGQFPVwmPyeXAHYpAyP0MyENd5ZtAWo9jBcRdc mAXg==
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=cazcPSS2hQctMJ0mjcpb3gerjiJ7hsJb9iuT6ajaqTY=; b=IFIwbUDSHjQQNjM7xItHraZbpcGevOfzDL0HmckfyI9Uni9NS4YB+FEV2oSMEWi7X1 eVKUJT7KJxAZvh+1fEJDhpSNXEyF3Faj9v7BhEpSOknSEwFrBbBQsd8tMVNpLoel7py6 SDoG0h38cjJs0q7NvNWqI/pYuVSUFgSsKixdO852ViLaIffl2SWwi2eGF9LgnSBxo1Ym gEm2yDtVJ+CdJe25uiyGQ37WJuinnwBWSUoPfco4M7/MlSVM3oroMymKYBSeP4yC3oXx BrfEpOD0+i+xcw/BBlKKpj4HtifbpDp82CEkAKeEqSWMHhnlKCGLJutcAbeDw2mwvpnx lYvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SCarSKqvhiM3lDv2UKHlecCzGkDZydcqZlEWixBO3ak4KIlde UWHCEw7jTDTSmsZYS2w6VWxY5UpE6Q0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBNNEj5GRAKbxpuc21VQ9BAl5fynAoskeD+UAUNDvxtujf1XB9N1KZ5siertctSFheB50t2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2a82:: with SMTP id t2mr5145278qtd.280.1595901423706; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2601:18b:300:36ee:646e:f8f:4b6b:c5d3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t83sm20583653qke.133.2020.07.27.18.57.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-EFDF29EC-6B0B-4602-818A-04325504BB1D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:57:01 -0400
Message-Id: <DAD7BBEB-4A79-4D0C-8F62-E7BFEB320E0B@fugue.com>
References: <C992207C-96DF-47B5-8927-C150E4380D94@gmail.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, 108attendees@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C992207C-96DF-47B5-8927-C150E4380D94@gmail.com>
To: Bret Jordan <jordan2175@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A339)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/wLqGSiOVh0m_VZ803A6_W-MxeI4>
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 01:57:14 -0000

You should really read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282. 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 <jordan2175@gmail.com> 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 <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".
> -- 
> 108attendees mailing list
> 108attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees