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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Monday, July 27, 2020 13:03 -0600 Bret Jordan
>> <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees