On 02/08/2013 01:30, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman <andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Hums are better as they give greater weight to people who are more vocally
in support (or in opposition) to the assertion.
Please provide some evidence that a loud hum means the person is more
committed to work on an item.
I spotted a number of virtual :-)s in Yoav's message.
The fact is that both methods are broken. A loud hum may indeed
represent strength of feeling, which in judging consensus is
valuable input. Or it may represent chance (some people naturally
hum louder) or a cultural split in opinion. So it's fairly
meaningless. A lot of hands up may indicate that a couple of
employers have loaded the room.
One can make a case that we shouldn't use either method: just
go by the arguments made in the room and on the list.
In the case of a WG-forming BOF, it seems to me that a nucleus
of people willing and competent to do the work, and a good set of
arguments why the work needs to be done and how it will make the
Internet better, are more important than any kind of numbers game.
Brian