[db-wg] Where are we with NWIs?

denis walker wrote on 21/07/2023 06:22:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 16:41, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> the job of a chair is to ensure that the business of the forum is done,
>> in an orderly and efficient way.
> 
> Where is this stated?

Denis,

It's stated in pretty much every formal description of a chair's duties 
ever written. A good reference point would be Robert's Rules:

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm

See the paragraph starting "His duties are generally as follows:".

>>   From this point of view, an "active"
>> chair is good, and to be welcomed.  What isn't ok is when a chair
>> decides to take a specific point of view and actively engages on an
>> issue, on one side or another.
> 
> Where is it stated that a chair can't take a specific point of view
> during a discussion? Maybe a chair takes a point of view in order to
> elicit further details from those involved in a discussion on that
> point.

An online search for "committee chair duties" or "what are the roles and 
responsibilities of a chairperson" will provide plenty of references. 
None of them include getting involved in a discussion, and many of them 
are quite explicit that the chair should not to get involved. RR's are 
diplomatic but firm about this:

> The chairman of a committee usually has the most to say in reference to questions before the committee; but the chairman of an ordinary deliberative assembly, especially a large one, should, of all the members, have the least to say upon the merits of pending questions.

(http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm)

Or Cushing's Manual:

> "It is a general rule in all deliberative assemblies, that the presiding officer shall not participate in the debate or other proceedings, in any other capacity than as such officer. He is only allowed, therefore, to state matters of fact within his knowledge; to inform the assembly on points of order or the course of proceeding when called upon for that purpose, or when he finds it necessary to do so; and, on appeals from his decision on questions of order, to address the assembly in debate.

(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/60757/60757-h/60757-h.htm, section 202)

There are plenty of other references too, and it's not relevant that 
RR's / Cushing's Manual refer to parliament / large assemblies - the 
principle is generally accepted to apply to chairs in general, 
regardless of the context of the forum they serve.

Some of these docs indicate ways of handling situations where a chair 
wants to dive in, for example recusal from chair duty, or resignation in 
situations where that would be more appropriate.

To use current parlance, "active chair": good, "activist chair": not so 
much.

> There are a couple of documents on chairs responsibilities:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-765
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-764
> 
> Please tell me which part of any of these docs I am not complying with.

The "Working Group Specific" section in ripe-692 lists the duties of the 
chair.  By omission, it clarifies that engaging in debate is not a 
RIPE-specific addition to the normal list of duties of a chair, and by 
default, generally accepted chair principles will apply. I don't 
especially see a good reason to update the WG Chair documents to make 
this more explicitly, but if it's not abundantly clear already, maybe 
something should be put in there to acknowledge it?

Nick