Problem statement draft comments

[Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com]

> 
> <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.

Completely agree. I think the problems or ambiguity about the outcome
of a hum or whether people really understood the question arise from
the questions clarity.

> 
> 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.

But as someone else also mentioned, is humming really the right way to
gauge consensus in a WG since a WG meeting does not truly represent all
interested WG members (being present at the meeting)?
My view is that the really active members of a WG are at a meeting and
hence the hum does gauge consensus. But as you say it is more effective
if WG chairs gauge the number of people who really have read or understand
the issue.

> 
> Thomas
> 

-Basavaraj