Problem statement draft comments

[Thomas Narten]

<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com> writes:

> The humming method used for consensus gauging is really ineffective because 
> the number of people who really understand or care what is going on is very
> minimal (as noted above). Hence the expressed views of the tourists/network
> connection seekers in an IETF mtng room, really do not imply true
> consensus.

Humming is a useful tool, but it is only as effective as the questions
being asked.

If one phrases questions in a way that one gets strong and clear
agreement on a particular point, that is useful. When one asks vaguer
questions, or folk don't really have a clear idea of what choices they
are supposed to pick from, humming is problematical (e.g., people
don't think the results mean anything or they don't actually move the
WG forward).

For example, it is often quite useful to ask (as part of the hum) how
many people actually understand the issue, a proposed resolution, and
support it? Or to also ask how many folk don't care what the
resolution is, so long as one is picked and the WG makes progress. Or,
to before the hum, ask whether there is sufficient understanding of
the questions about to be asked and that the questions are phrased
well and are the right questions to ask.

Asking the right questions for hums is not easy. It requires an
ability to hear/sense what people are thinking and articulate the
various views in a way that folk feel like they can support one of the
specific choices being asked about.

Personally, I think humming is a tool that WGs could use more often to
clarify the groups thinking and to try and help figure out where there
is consensus (and where not). But like all tools, humming can be
misused too.

Thomas