denis walker wrote on 21/07/2023 06:22:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 16:41, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <[email protected]> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
