On 02/08/2013 01:30, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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