Re: Online 'hum'

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:05:12 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

George Michaelson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I have been in several WG over the last couple of years where chairs
    > have asked for a sense of feeling and the time has been spent by people
    > trying to work out what is the clearest request for affirmation or
    > disagreement.  "Wait, are you asking me to affirm to this modification
    > of the substantive proposal on the slide or the proposal on the slide
    > or some other thing?"  Dances.

Yes.
Sometimes that discussion is actually useful and eludes additional insight.
At least, it can make people pay more attention.
But, more often, it does not :-)

    > It's pretty hard to word this ad-hoc. I think WG chairs may need more
    > training in how to ask questions capable of being answered in the
    > approach we have because casual wording, it's confusing.

Agreed.  Good examples help.

    > And advantage of preloading what we are trying to adhere to would be
    > forced clarifying but it would also lack nuance.

Yes, in the agenda, in the notes, subject to comment/proposed changed.
The preloading mechanism is just a tool that suggests to the chairs to think
ahead.  Of course, they can just do that in the agenda, then copy and paste.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 487 B)