Re: Online 'hum'
Christian Hopps <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Joel Halpern <[email protected]> writes: > I don't know that we are inherently bound by any particular slogan. However, > the avoidance of voting still seems to me to be an extremely good idea. Definitely agreed on avoiding voting. The slogan though has always seemed a bit insiderish to me. Most non-ietfers: "'Reject kings', ok, 'reject presidents and voting', hmmm weird" Perhaps a slogan that says what we strive for and sounds positive up front. :) Then again who knows maybe slogans are supposed to be a bit cryptic and cute... Thanks, Chris. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 4/25/2026 12:34 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Are we bound by a 1992 slogan in perpetuity? > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 1:38 PM S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin, Stephen, Brian, > At 09:58 PM 23-03-2026, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >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. > > Brain mentioned anonymity. The tool, or the above suggestion, and the "hum" allows for some form of anonymity. The "hum" was described as emphasizing that "we do not vote. The statement was based on a 1992 belief: "We reject: kings, presidents and voting." The question which comes to my mind is whether the current practice would be viewed by an external bystander as voting or not. > > As Wes pointed out, there were moments of conflict and moments of calm in the past. A newcomer might have found some of the conflicts a bit strong. Nowadays, the stakes are higher. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy