Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Thank you for raising your concern.
I'm afraid many of your concerns come from misunderstanding,
let me clarify current Chairs' understanding for the e-consensus system.
1. As same as traditional "showing hands", it is one of factors when
deciding the consensus
As we did in past, Chairs will also consider,
- Discussion on the mailing list
- Discussion in the meeting
Also, Chairs may ask the reason if there are some oppositions, and
consider those reasons
when deciding the consensus.
2. The questions and choices are configurable on demand
It is NOT binary (nor ternary) choice. Normally, we present 5
choices, which are
Strongly support/Support/Neutral/Oppose/Strongly Oppose, but actually
the question and options
are configurable on demand. So, chairs may set additional questions,
like
"if this point is modified, what do you think?", or "which do you
prefer original one or modified one?",
or add more options, like "I can't live with (or without) this".
And these changes can be made during the session as we did in past
"showing hands".
3. It is NOT voting
As mentioned above, it is just one of factors in deciding the
consensus while voting is final result.
Also, the Secretariat and Chairs are trying to find good way to show
the results
since showing the numbers is not good idea apparently.
4. Registration is required
While current chat system doesn't require any registration, this
e-consensus will require registration.
However, we need to consider the level of verification during
registration,
since strict verification may have negative impact for our openness.
5. Next few meetings will be a trial
Chairs will ask the consensus by both ways (showing hands and
e-consensus system),
and compare results to measure its advantage and disadvantage, in
particular following aspects.
- Does the number of participants increase or decrease?
- Does the e-consensus system show same results as traditional
"showing hands" or different?
- Does the anonymousness of e-consensus system have negative impact
for further discussion?
- Is it possible to cheat easily?
Also, please consider that current chat system may not be enough as a tool
asking consensus to remote participants.
When we had remote hubs, we normally saw 20-30 remote participants and
many of them participated in the consensus.
However, now we are seeing just 1 or 2 support or opposition through the
chat in last few meetings.
It is very appreciated if you could share any idea or thoughts to improve
it.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Policy SIG co-chair
On 14/05/15 8:35, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>
>I have a few comments about the idea discussed in Policy SIG at APNIC37
>about replacing show of hands with pressing buttons online.
>
>Consensus Measurement
>https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/community-consultation-on-consensus-m
>easurement_1393475895.pdf
>
>These are the points I discussed with my colleagues in JPNIC and
>would be interested to hear from the Secretariat, Chair/Co-Chair and
>others on this list.
>
>
>* Support the motivation of encouraging more participation from remote
>participants.
>
>* On the other hand, we have some concerns as below:
>
> - Less transparency in the process
> - Consensus is not voting but pressing buttons but may encourage
> misunderstanding
> - Anonymous voting may allow multiple voting per person
>
>* Suggestions:
> - Ensure Chair/Co-Chair will not only make decisions based on button
> pressed results but consider the contents of discussions in making
> consensus decisions. (As it is today)
>
> - Clearly explain the above, and pressing the button is not voting:
> on APNIC's PDP webpage and at Policy SIG by Chair/Co-Chair
>
> - Identity of who pressed what button must be trackable.
> At least, Chair/Co-Chair and the secretariat should be able to
> identify and track who pressued and expressed what opinion.
> This is to reduce the risk of multiple voting by a single person,
> and allow Chair/Co-Chair to clarify the intention with indivisual(s)
> if necessary.
>
>* Question:
>I heard the secretariat is preparing to try this from the next meeting.
>If this is true, how would this work in APNIC38:
>Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including
>those at the venue?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Izumi/JPNIC
>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy