Yamanishi-san, > 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
