Hum theatre
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 07 November 2013 02:23 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 AF2EB11E81A7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:23:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SXLIFE=1.07, SARE_UNSUB22=0.948]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsB9UZT9sQTY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBB121E818F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.180.121] (dhcp-b479.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA72NNMs029065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:23:27 -0800
Message-ID: <527AF986.4090504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:23:02 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Hum theatre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:23:27 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 02:23:32 -0000
Folks, An IETF hum is a method of surveying a group for its views. Unfortunately the hums that were taken at the end of this week's IAB plenary do not permit any meaningful interpretation. Here's why... Surveys are extremely sensitive to the phrasing of the questions, the phrasing and range of the response choices, the sequencing of the questions, and the context of the asking. Get any of these wrong and you can get the wrong information, or even just the appearance of information -- that is, misunderstandings -- but nothing actually useful. A common response to such a concern is "well, at least we'll get some answers", but that's like saying "well, at least we'll get some noise." The fact that the noise is misunderstood to be signal does not actually make it signal. The different phrasings of a question can produce very different understandings by responders. The challenge is to formulate a question that is likely to be interpreted similarly amongst responders (and the person asking.) It's also a challenge to ask a question that captures something that is actually meaningful (and was intended) rather than merely sounding good. The offered response choices can bias the responses. A set of choices like (Good, Excellent) obviously leaves out (Bad, Don't Care, Don't Know.) Or they can have bias in their phrasing by making some choices more or less appealing (Could be better, Excellent), rather than equivalent vocabulary in tone (Bad, Good). So it's a challenge to make sure that choices cover the proper range and with equanimity to the alternative choices. A sequence of questions also needs to be carefully orchestrated. For example today's questions took as a given that surveillance is an attack. Due diligence might expect establishing that relationship explicitly. And yes, it is possible that some IETF attendees do not see it as an attack. Another example of sequencing is dealing with subtleties and complexities. For example some anti-surveillance mechanisms are certain to defeat popular operational management mechanisms. Do we care about the tradeoffs? Lastly, environmental context can encourage or discourage candor. Examples include the genders of the asker and respondent, any relationship they might have, or the presence of others. Would you really provide candid answers about possible problems with your sex life when being asked with your partner present? Amongst a group of co-workers? Your parents? The hums asked at the plenary were problematic along each of these lines. The first question was theatre, essentially making the context political. By way of example, note the difference between what was asked: The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack? which has loaded language with 'pervasive' and 'attack', versus a more neutral and purely technical question meant to cover the same basic concern: The IETF is willing to improve its specifications to be more resistant to surveillance? But this isn't exactly a balanced question either. By that, I mean that the answer really is already known. A good question is one that has a chance of getting some support for each choice. So perhaps a better example would be: The IETF is willing to require adding resistance to surveillance to all of its protocols? The questions typically also did not offer "don't know" or "don't care" choices. Some folk probably knew that they don't know enough yet, limiting their ability to support the kinds of questions being asked. The IETF's doing anything privacy-related that is useful is going to require considering tradeoffs and some of those tradeoffs might reduce the utility of a service. So the actual choices that will be made might turn out to be quite different from what was implied by the dominant answers to the plenary questions. And lastly, consider carefully the context of the room and ask whether everyone actually felt completely free to give a "no" hum to the initial questions. I suggest that the emotions of the room created a strong bias against no's. Maybe not for you. Maybe not for me. But probably for many of the folk sitting near you. We now find ourselves with a set of hums that appears to establish a direction but which can't survive even basic analysis, as the later postings on the ietf mailing list demonstrate. Here's what I suggest: A single, simple, conceptual question that supplies all of the 'guidance' we can legitimately offer, at this stage: The IETF needs to press for careful attention to privacy concerns in its work, including protection against surveillance. [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] Don't Yet Know [ ] Don't Care d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: Hum theatre Francis Dupont
- Re: Hum theatre Ted Lemon
- Hum theatre Dave Crocker
- Re: Hum theatre Yoav Nir
- Re: Hum theatre Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hum theatre Tim Bray
- Re: Hum theatre Randy Bush
- Hum theatre Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Hum theatre Jorge Amodio
- Re: Hum theatre Larry Masinter
- Re: Hum theatre Ralph Droms
- Re: Hum theatre Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Hum theatre Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Hum theatre Pete Resnick
- Re: Hum theatre Stefan Winter
- Re: Hum theatre Martin J. Dürst
- Re: Hum theatre Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Hum theatre Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Hum theatre Stefan Winter
- Re: Hum theatre Richard Barnes
- Re: Hum theatre Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Hum theatre Arturo Servin
- Re: Hum theatre Dave Crocker
- Re: Hum theatre Scott Brim
- Re: Hum theatre Randy Bush
- Re: Hum theatre Bob Hinden
- Re: Hum theatre Tim Bray
- Re: Hum theatre Randy Bush
- Re: Hum theatre Paul Hoffman
- Re: Hum theatre Scott Brim
- Re: Hum theatre Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
- Re: Hum theatre Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
- Re: Hum theatre Carsten Bormann
- Re: Hum theatre Dave Crocker
- Re: Hum theatre Pete Resnick
- Re: Hum theatre Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hum theatre Jari Arkko
- Re: Hum theatre Jari Arkko
- Re: Hum theatre Richard Barnes
- Re: Hum theatre Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
- Re: Hum theatre Pete Resnick
- Re: Hum theatre Dave Cridland
- Re: Hum theatre Ted Lemon
- Re: Hum theatre Dave Crocker
- Re: Hum theatre Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Hum theatre Jorge Amodio