Hummmm..... [ was Re: Problem statement draft comments ]

[graham.travers at bt.com]

IMHO, humming is somewhat irrelevant, anyhow.

It may be useful to gauge the feeling in a room, but it can't help gauge
consensus on a mailing list, which is ( or should be ) the ultimate
indicator.  The same is true of voting in a room, so that's not much of an
improvement.

Questions for humming or voting should be clear.  I've been in several
meetings where the chair has had trouble in phrasing a single, closed
question that can be answered "yes" or "no".

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   graham.travers at bt.com
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.
	      




-----Original Message-----
From: 
Sent: None
To: Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
Subject: 


Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:18:04 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Cc: pekkas at netcore.fi
Subject: Re: Problem statement draft comments 


<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