IRC and Democracy

Guest · Posted: Sep 18, 2005 4:08pm Post subject: IRC and Democracy

Should IRC be democratic? As in users vote on rules and O:lines and links and abuse glines, among other things? (Channel example would be Operator or abuse bans.) Or should the opers take suggestions from the users and simply consider them?

We're starting up a new network, and we're trying to decide how much user input should factor into the hashing out of new rules.

Cogent arguments for either side are welcomed. Inane comments are not.

w00t · Posted: Sep 18, 2005 4:54pm Post subject:

It's a nice idea, but largely doesn't work in practice. Asking for users input on server links and policy changes is a nice idea however. Making sure you listen to them when they have a complaint about a staff member/whatever is also a good thing.

Ashen · Idler Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 284

Quite simply : no, it should not be a democracy.

Why?
1) Most of IRC (and much of the internet in general) is designed to be hierarchial. Hence the system of local ops, global ops, server admins, and network admins in some ircds. Hence server admins, uplink admins, router admins, etc. Hence founders in chanserv, access levels in X, etc etc etc

2) Hierarchial structures WORK. By keeping one person at the top, you ensure there is always someone responsible for the whole who does planning and takes charge of the whole thing. If you left it to democracy, then everyone in the democracy can say "it's not my problem" (tradegy of the commons) and nothing gets fixed because nobody takes responsibility for the whole.

3) Democracy create slow decision making processes which are not suitable for the fast changing internet.

4) Democracy tends to give everyone an equal voice, and this does not reflect the hard truth that people have different talents, intelligence, resources and comittment to the project.

5) Democracy tends to create political problems as different groups vie for power/control, and IRC has so much of this political struggle already that anything which encourages it should be treated with caution.

6) By using hierarchies, you can seperate people into working groups more easily and you can also divide labour by skill much more easily.

7) Hierarchies tend to ensure that the most competent and dedicated individuals rise to the top, but success in democracies is based on popular appeal.

In conclusion : democracies are workable only amongst a small group of individuals who are:
A) well informed and competent
B) in possession of a lot of free time
C) dedicated to the success of the project and not to squabbling
Unfortunately these 3 requirements are frequently not met, especially on small networks, so in these cases I always reccomend a meritocracy.

magpie · Idler Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 453 Location: Essex, UK

Keeping one person in charge of a large network simply does not work.

sharstine · none Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 48

I have two questions similar to the original one, but aimed more toward staff rather than users.

(1.) In a small-medium sized network setting, what is the most effective way for staff to go about decision making?

I partially agree with democracy because I feel every staff member should have an equal say in the network they are developing. On the other hand, everyone has a different technical proficiency and doesn't necessarily understand the implications of approving Project A or Project B. Is it fair to value some input more than others?

(2.) How does one deal with a dedicated staff member who does not agree with the network administrator's politics?

These issues have been on my mind lately. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated.

Safer_Sephiroth · none Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 29

An interesting idea but Democracy doesn't work on an IRC network just as much as communism won't. A set leader is needed, and seems more like a council of sorts as well, to keep things running and head teams.

Users want various things and there are also a variety of IRC networks out there. Many people who run IRC networks to their standards were also users that decided they had put up with enough and wanted to design their own systems and order. Users, in my opinion, should be able to communicate with opers and voice opinions but if in the end the opers are not willing to do what is asked, users have two things to do; move on to some place that fits their bill better or tough it out. In all seriousness, there are some great IRC networks out there of various types and many users can now find places that cater better to their needs than years ago when we all just kind of conglomerated on some of the huge networks where kids who knew the command /autokill and /gline and /kline could have fun.

As for the staff questions, I would say that what my network does seems to work well, and after years of being on other networks, I am very content with how we handle things. We are very relaxed and basically hold votes. If we are all in unison, we go on with the idea. If not, we discuss why not. If someone is adamant against it and it pertains to adding a server or oper to the network, generally we have consideration and will not do so, because it is better to have solid staff than to bring in problems. If it's for other reasons, we vote and majority wins, unless the founder truly wants something and we are all not in agreement against it. It has not failed us yet.

If a network admin doesn't agree with the policies and it was voted on, of course it can be talked out but if progress is decided, he or she sucks it up or moves on. Sometimes it just is as simple as that.

V8d_Org · none Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 7

My 2c/1p:

I've been helping run a network for a while now, the method used is to have a core three who ultimately decide with one who is top of the three. Then there's a council of opers who advise the three core, below that there are server owners and sundrie opers.

My advice is, always make sure there's a backup you, always make sure you can take control if needed, and always atleast apear to be standing by your rules.