Re: [sig-policy] Consensus Measurement
> 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.
Understood.
If we try both, my current assupmtion is the Chair/Co-Chair will
consider inputs from both formats instead of favoring one format over
the other - please let me know if this is different from your idea.
> Also, it is not just "pressing button".
> It will have more flexible questions and choices as we are doing in
> traditional way.
Great.
Izumi
(2014/05/20 12:01), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Izumi,
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> * 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
>