Re: Concerns about Singapore

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

The only thing you mentioned that can't be done with existing conferencing
software is hums, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to make that
work.  It's not rocket science.   Chairs who judge consensus by looking at
the room aren't following IETF process--consensus is judged on the mailing
list.  Hums are useful for figuring out why we _don't_ have consensus, and
for _getting_ to consensus, but if you were to judge consensus by hums or a
show of hands, then you'd be taking a vote, wouldn't you?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:18 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without
> doing
> > in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at doing
> > remote meetings.   Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive us
> to
> > make the attempt.
> >
> > If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?
> >
>
> We'd need tighter chairing. We'd need microphone floor control, and
> queues and reservations and we'd adopt meeting formalisms to get the
> poll of the room.
>
> Consensus hums would be next to impossible. We'd find pressure to head
> to votes. Which of course is a huge no-go for a lot of people.
>
> Van Jacobsen talked to me 15+ years ago about the ways you might have
> to police the MBONE and it was interesting to think he was looking
> forward then to large attendee, widely distributed, delay-bound
> interactions online which is where we're kind-of heading.
>
> The RIR have been doing break-out meetings for a while, and training
> the chairs to respect a 30 second lag for feedback from the room is
> very hard. Chairs like to judge consensus with eyes in the room, not
> on the screen.
>
> -G
>