Re: Online 'hum'

On 3/23/2026 9:58 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Stephen, others,
>
> On 2026-03-24 10:25, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24/03/2026 01:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Could the "hums" has fallen in disuse have the
>>>> unintended effect of reinforcing the idea that we do vote?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I do think so.
>>
>> I don't know how to fix that whilst aiming for equality between
>> in-person and remote participants though. But maybe there's a
>> way?
>
> I don't know how difficult it would be to implement, but what about 
> replacing the yes/no choice with a slider, say from 0 to 10 (or even 
> continuous). Also, let people change their settings while the poll is 
> underway.
>
> This would get us closer to humming, where volume can be variable and 
> adjusted to surroundings. It would still produce a number, rather than 
> just an impression of strength (or weakness) of approval.

As Brian noted, we don't have tools that would allow remote 
participation in an actual "humming". And yes, the support for remote 
participation is way more important now than it was 30 years ago. That 
may be one of the big difference with yesterday's IETF.

The polling tool may not be perfect, but it is simple and can be used 
reasonably. First, they do preserve important aspects of humming. They 
report a count, without telling who pushed what button. They also have 
an no opinion button, which does provide information kinda similar to 
the "sound level" of humming. And then, at least in the working group to 
which I participate, the chairs use them judiciously, taking the tally 
as only an indication of broad consensus or not, and even if there are 
only few opponents, inviting the (up to now anonymous) opponents to make 
their case at the microphone.

  -- Christian Huitema