Governance Reform
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:45 pm
A Change in Governance
“This is my Manifesto. There are many like it, but this one is mine.”
Main Points:
**The current governance structure of ALFA has deeply compartmentalized decision-making.
**ALFA no longer has the size to justify so much emphasis on process in decision-making. The process adds more in cost than it saves.
**Compartmentalized decision-making has possibly had several unintended consequences, including an undermining of DM role as the game master and the undermining of the democratic accountability that voting and recalls were meant to instill.
**A Council format is proposed as a reform of governance in ALFA.
About 4 years ago or so, ALFA had just suffered the infamous Quake™. In many ways, the Charter we have now was the spawn of that time. Previous to the Quake, the five admin chose their own membership and were accountable only to themselves. It is not like they completely ignored the rest of the community, but neither was it necessarily inclusive. The situation was of course more complex, but in any case the Charter is an embodiment of the perceived shortcomings of that structure by the ‘Underground’. The perceived shortcomings were (according to my imperfect recollection from sometimes second-hand accounts):
--Lack of HDM input. Some HDMs (and there were many at the time) felt that even though they went through the effort of putting up a server and were responsible for it, they didn’t have a voice in decision-making. Admin at the time were heavily represented by people from a particular server which aggravated the perception that certain fiefdoms had inordinate say in governance, while others had little or none.
--Lack of accountability. If someone had a question or sought a ruling, consulting an admin was frustrating because no single admin had authority to do anything, but had to instead consult the others. This apparently sometimes led to ‘run arounds’ where things didn’t get done because it wasn’t the responsibility of any one admin. Passing the buck, as it were.
These perceptions led directly to certain facets of the current Charter. Admin have domains. An admin can be removed by HDMs and voting constituencies. Admin must be selected by vote.
This made sense once upon a time, when ALFA had 10+ servers. We were a large, diverse community and the current form of governance helped to reconcile many differences in opinion. It gave clear lines of accountability…if somebody wants a certain script in the ACR, you go to the tech admin; if you want to complain about a player’s conduct, you go to the Player Admin. Admin could be (and have been) removed.
It also included some unfortunate compromises. The whole “department head” thing originated purely as a way to let Ulias vote for admin since he was at the time promising to do work on some key things (which never got done) which prevented him from working on his server and thus getting it to a place where he would be given an HDM vote. The department head has since come to be justified on the basis of people doing work for ALFA that isn’t otherwise recognized as DMing or being HDM. This has since bred a department and committee approach to doing things. This, coupled with the domain structure of admin, has deeply compartmentalized decision-making. Some have referred to this as the bureaucratic burden of ALFA.
Bureaucracy is a costly thing because of its emphasis on formal process. However, sometimes that can actually be efficient if its less costly than other methods of decision-making. This can particularly be the case when a group is very large and there are a very large number of different perspectives at the table. We all know that the real government is hardly a model of efficiency, but at the same time government simply couldn’t perform any function without some level of bureaucracy to support it.
Alas, size has not been a strong point of ALFA of late. In fact, it seems we have more people in governance positions than we have actually DMing. At the same time, the process has driven a wedge between DMs and the game. I have many times since the quake seen DMs stop short because they didn’t feel empowered to function as game masters. Allowing HDMs to ban players from their servers is an outgrowth of the problem, but a relatively crude one. This has on some occasions even permitted players to use the stultifying aspects of ALFA governance to their own advantage.
Compartmentalized decision-making has also undermined the democratic accountability that admin elections were meant to bring. On its surface, it looks as if electing admin requires them to explain themselves and be accountable, but the overall effect is that voting on each admin individually introduces a dynamic among the group that takes the process firmly out of the realm of that intended accountability.
In the end, it seems to me the problem we have now is not how admin govern or how they are chosen or how accountable they are. It is having an admin at all that is the shortcoming. We could continue to limp along with admin, it was after all designed in part to endure. I think there is a better way though.
Institute a Council (or perhaps 2…see below). The Council will be the sole governing body outside of DMs in the game. All questions of governance will be decided by majority vote of the Council. All members of the Council sit as equals. Any member of the Council may propose something for a vote. All things that now require an admin decision would be subject to vote. The Council is notionally composed of those who create the world…DMs, scripters, builders. That would be up to the Council to decide though. It would decide its own membership. It could choose to delegate as it saw fit I suppose, permitting functions such as Admissions to go along to continue as is. Perhaps there should be separate Council’s for nwn1 and nwn2 along with a Joint Council. Perhaps not. There will be concern about the player's voices being heard. It is a trivial matter to include Player Representatives to the Council...this was in fact the original function of what are now called ARs. Again though, it is to the Council to decide its own affairs.
I believe this structure suits our present governance needs much better. It puts the world-builders directly into the big chair as community decision-makers. There is no procedure; there is only the will of the Council. All world-builders are given an equal role in creating the game world and the boundaries of ALFA, all one among peers. There are no disputes about domains, there is one vote and one outcome. No one may claim any aspect of governance as their very own. Some may doubt the whim of the majority, but I think that majority vote will prove to be a stabilizing force. The world-builders here are, on the whole, a sensible lot.
I helped design the current system of governance, and generally sensible capable people have held the admin posts. However, I have lost faith in the system. It has become almost as much about serving itself as playing the game. It is a humbling wisdom to perceive the flaws in one’s creation, but they are there nonetheless.
“This is my Manifesto. There are many like it, but this one is mine.”
Main Points:
**The current governance structure of ALFA has deeply compartmentalized decision-making.
**ALFA no longer has the size to justify so much emphasis on process in decision-making. The process adds more in cost than it saves.
**Compartmentalized decision-making has possibly had several unintended consequences, including an undermining of DM role as the game master and the undermining of the democratic accountability that voting and recalls were meant to instill.
**A Council format is proposed as a reform of governance in ALFA.
About 4 years ago or so, ALFA had just suffered the infamous Quake™. In many ways, the Charter we have now was the spawn of that time. Previous to the Quake, the five admin chose their own membership and were accountable only to themselves. It is not like they completely ignored the rest of the community, but neither was it necessarily inclusive. The situation was of course more complex, but in any case the Charter is an embodiment of the perceived shortcomings of that structure by the ‘Underground’. The perceived shortcomings were (according to my imperfect recollection from sometimes second-hand accounts):
--Lack of HDM input. Some HDMs (and there were many at the time) felt that even though they went through the effort of putting up a server and were responsible for it, they didn’t have a voice in decision-making. Admin at the time were heavily represented by people from a particular server which aggravated the perception that certain fiefdoms had inordinate say in governance, while others had little or none.
--Lack of accountability. If someone had a question or sought a ruling, consulting an admin was frustrating because no single admin had authority to do anything, but had to instead consult the others. This apparently sometimes led to ‘run arounds’ where things didn’t get done because it wasn’t the responsibility of any one admin. Passing the buck, as it were.
These perceptions led directly to certain facets of the current Charter. Admin have domains. An admin can be removed by HDMs and voting constituencies. Admin must be selected by vote.
This made sense once upon a time, when ALFA had 10+ servers. We were a large, diverse community and the current form of governance helped to reconcile many differences in opinion. It gave clear lines of accountability…if somebody wants a certain script in the ACR, you go to the tech admin; if you want to complain about a player’s conduct, you go to the Player Admin. Admin could be (and have been) removed.
It also included some unfortunate compromises. The whole “department head” thing originated purely as a way to let Ulias vote for admin since he was at the time promising to do work on some key things (which never got done) which prevented him from working on his server and thus getting it to a place where he would be given an HDM vote. The department head has since come to be justified on the basis of people doing work for ALFA that isn’t otherwise recognized as DMing or being HDM. This has since bred a department and committee approach to doing things. This, coupled with the domain structure of admin, has deeply compartmentalized decision-making. Some have referred to this as the bureaucratic burden of ALFA.
Bureaucracy is a costly thing because of its emphasis on formal process. However, sometimes that can actually be efficient if its less costly than other methods of decision-making. This can particularly be the case when a group is very large and there are a very large number of different perspectives at the table. We all know that the real government is hardly a model of efficiency, but at the same time government simply couldn’t perform any function without some level of bureaucracy to support it.
Alas, size has not been a strong point of ALFA of late. In fact, it seems we have more people in governance positions than we have actually DMing. At the same time, the process has driven a wedge between DMs and the game. I have many times since the quake seen DMs stop short because they didn’t feel empowered to function as game masters. Allowing HDMs to ban players from their servers is an outgrowth of the problem, but a relatively crude one. This has on some occasions even permitted players to use the stultifying aspects of ALFA governance to their own advantage.
Compartmentalized decision-making has also undermined the democratic accountability that admin elections were meant to bring. On its surface, it looks as if electing admin requires them to explain themselves and be accountable, but the overall effect is that voting on each admin individually introduces a dynamic among the group that takes the process firmly out of the realm of that intended accountability.
In the end, it seems to me the problem we have now is not how admin govern or how they are chosen or how accountable they are. It is having an admin at all that is the shortcoming. We could continue to limp along with admin, it was after all designed in part to endure. I think there is a better way though.
Institute a Council (or perhaps 2…see below). The Council will be the sole governing body outside of DMs in the game. All questions of governance will be decided by majority vote of the Council. All members of the Council sit as equals. Any member of the Council may propose something for a vote. All things that now require an admin decision would be subject to vote. The Council is notionally composed of those who create the world…DMs, scripters, builders. That would be up to the Council to decide though. It would decide its own membership. It could choose to delegate as it saw fit I suppose, permitting functions such as Admissions to go along to continue as is. Perhaps there should be separate Council’s for nwn1 and nwn2 along with a Joint Council. Perhaps not. There will be concern about the player's voices being heard. It is a trivial matter to include Player Representatives to the Council...this was in fact the original function of what are now called ARs. Again though, it is to the Council to decide its own affairs.
I believe this structure suits our present governance needs much better. It puts the world-builders directly into the big chair as community decision-makers. There is no procedure; there is only the will of the Council. All world-builders are given an equal role in creating the game world and the boundaries of ALFA, all one among peers. There are no disputes about domains, there is one vote and one outcome. No one may claim any aspect of governance as their very own. Some may doubt the whim of the majority, but I think that majority vote will prove to be a stabilizing force. The world-builders here are, on the whole, a sensible lot.
I helped design the current system of governance, and generally sensible capable people have held the admin posts. However, I have lost faith in the system. It has become almost as much about serving itself as playing the game. It is a humbling wisdom to perceive the flaws in one’s creation, but they are there nonetheless.
