> We are not voting. > We are expressing agreement with a specific assertion. > That is true whether the agreement is expressed via vocalization > or motion of limbs. Absolutely so. > The chairs can pick however they want to measure agreement. > Many chairs ask for a show of hands. I prefer that method. > There is still a judgement call when the numbers for and against > are not significantly different. Just some somewhat arbitrary notes here: There are times when I want to count hands, but it's not for a "vote". If I ask who will commit to working on something, I'm looking for a critical mass that doesn't require counting... but I'm often *also* looking for commitments, which requires both counting and identification. There are also times when I just want to see the relative balance. As Andy says, listening to hums can be dicey, even if we don't try to second guess whether people who hum loudly have stronger opinions and/or more enthusiasm, or are just demonstrating a cultural difference. But if I get a show of hands and do *not* count, I see that relative balance better. On the other hand, in perhaps the same situation, if it turns out that I see only a few hands on one side of the question, I can see whom to ask to stand up and tell us *why*, and that's often the real value of the hums: we have a few people who object to X, and we need them to tell us what their issues are so they can be discussed and addressed. It drives me nuts [1] when chairs ask for a hum, hear a loud hum for A and a weak hum for B, and then say, "OK, we have rough consensus," without pursuing the issue: What are the objections to A? Do the B people just *prefer* B, but they can live with A? Or is A fundamentally flawed, but only a few people understand that? Barry [1] Admittedly, a short drive.