Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
Sorry, I forgot to answer one of your questions.
>Would the next Policy SIG totally be based on button pressing including
>those at the venue?
Yes, we plan to ask by e-consensus system for both of physical
participants and remote participants.
However, we also use traditional way (showing hands for physical
participants and chat for remote participants)
as I mentioned in previous e-mail.
Also, it is not just "pressing button".
It will have more flexible questions and choices as we are doing in
traditional way.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Policy SIG co-chair
On 14/05/19 19:52, "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
>Izumi,
>
>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
>
>