Re: Concerns about Singapore

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 12 April 2016 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28D912E428 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 kPO0DQ5zMFB5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77CE412E042 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CBG41F008281 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:16:04 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u3CBG41F008281
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1460459764; bh=oAR8/SIIkRkT48sOneSAFfc9k/Q=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=WSn+YsAIiB7g35KLIn6sYkOk2UdT4kRwiwr7QfcBL0vb7RNEc+UZ52yFaNTxiZa5a 1Mh66ihHafv/uBsZBKv349kKY3SOTNjTp8AUxsf/aCLPKjtEZAZeCWAgj2+7OTh3a7 8Ej/pK8MJU/zivu736YV6vI3SqLmkdcl0MurIDl8=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s3BCG432192060108D ret-id none; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:16:04 +0100
Received: from 20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net (20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:a93e:5914:9e35:ffe3] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CBG0XJ020672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:16:01 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mWjg_-525avYJ4PnSECYQrtpVFJCXPfH=PryJ8q0vy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:15:59 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d5cb2cb80712b3716e1ab4e2a54c9430s3BCG403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|A684A3C4-7161-49F5-919E-A5F948A3F316@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com> <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org> <CAPt1N1nNo0=JSptQdWRZCFy1v-m6Q8NQy4WVGHtnRJuFZFmMig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1KmNcgNwbPHZWB2aJQAuchz4eB7gxJhV2Dsbc1Z50kDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mWjg_-525avYJ4PnSECYQrtpVFJCXPfH=PryJ8q0vy4Q@mail.gmail.com> <A684A3C4-7161-49F5-919E-A5F948A3F316@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s3BCG4321920601000; tid=s3BCG432192060108D; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u3CBG41F008281
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Wt261RB6DfsMHG-l1Pd7nMWCOL8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:16:10 -0000

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 01:50, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Meetecho has a ‘hum’ button, which throws ‘hmmmmmm’ into the jabber room for the WG. I did see it used, once. 

Tim