Governance Reform

[fluffmonster]

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.

[Grand Fromage]

tl;dr, fluff's a communist, ban plz

[Rotku]

I completely agree with what youa re saying there, fluff, up to the last couple of paragraphs. I really don't think such a council format would work here, however. Is it influenced at all by what Exodus has working?

Currently we have twenty or so DMs, add in core scripters, admission folk and other such staffers and you're probably looking at the mid thirties. Add another year or so, and we might see three (maybe even four or even five if we're very lucky) NWN2 servers more formed - that's a large number of extra DMs (even given the likely overlap). I feel that will be a case of too many chefs spoil the broth. While the council format might work great in a world like Exodus (where they have 1 server), and may even work alright in today's ALFA, I don't think it is very foward looking, and will likely require another big reform in the not so far off future.

A change is certainly needed. I do feel that the current system is too weighed down and not overly effective. However, I don't think the council format is suited for ALFA.

[Inaubryn]

Let me preface this by sayin' a coupla things. A.) I'm hardly around ALFA anymore and as such, don't have much room to speak on current conditions. B.) I've spoken on this topic many, many, many,many, many, many, many, times before.

That being said. You could dump the whole domain business, stick 5-13 people, who are single representatives of however many servers ALFA winds up with, on a council. These people could be HDMs, ADMs, or whatever. They would simply serve to represent that server in the greater ALFA whole. In effect, they'd be liaisons between the general membership and the decision-makers as well as decision-makers themselves. These people would have equal say on all ALFA matters and anything affecting ALFA would be decided by a vote amongst these people with the majority ruling. This is akin to what I was promoting when I was lead. You guys weren't quite ready for that. But.. your kids are gonna love it. Sorry. Anyway.. citing all of the things that've transpired since those times so long ago, it's time ALFA thinks forward and evolves or perish in the flames of hell. Or.. uh.. my bad.

Where was I? Oh. The truth is, ALFA in NWN2 will have nowhere near the number of servers it did in NWN1 and an ever expanding council is most certainly a viable idea. You could set a min and a max number on council members at say, 5 and 13. And each time a new server came online, it would have a representative join the council. This wouldn't get outta hand numbers-wise like Rotku believes, because I seriously doubt, and I could be wrong, ALFA will ever see 13 servers in the NWN2 format.

The old way worked for a long while and stopped working and it's time the old way of doin' things is wiped away. ALFA has certainly grown stagnant with only a moderate amount of progress from what I can see. And dissolving the current form of "government" as it stands, would be one less obstacle to bringin' the fun back to this place. It's certainly a much more streamlined approach to governance and can work if people want it to. I realize there are those who will remain stuck and refuse to open their eyes to something new, but that is what it is.

Despite all my railing against the system, and let's be real, that's all I railed against, I want to see ALFA succeed. I love the people here, even the one's that try their damndest to be ass-persons over these here internets. The system doesn't work anymore and it hasn't for a long time. It's "Let's try some new shite time". Contrary to popular belief, simply getting servers live won't fix everything. But, those who think that's all it will take can see here and wait until that doesn't work either. Ooops. There I go all doom and gloom again.

Anyway, just a suggestion from a long time member and somebody who wants to see ALFA flourish once more.

[Wynna]

Hmmm, and here I was thinking just the other day that we'd worked all the kinks out of the system and were able now to focus on the building. I cogitated over this post while wrapping up the coding and building for Silvy Uni, which I target to deliver to Rick & AL on Monday.

I suppose I proceed from a similar but in the end different bias than this proposal assumes. To crib shamelessly from Churchill, I think the structure of ALFA that we've hammered out over the last few years is the worst possible form of governance...except for all the other possible forms of governance. Because of that bias, I can't imagine another form of governance working any better and several of them working significantly worse. If we chucked the Admin and went to a Council, does that body adhere to the current standards of the Charter or to some other document or to no formal ruleset at all? How do we ensure decisions get made if they belong to every member in general and none specifically? On the other hand entirely, how do we ensure that power blocks don't form? There are a dozen or so questions that could be listed, but I suppose my point it that this proposal would be a fundamental restructuring that erases (some or all?) of the current governmental infrastructure. If it's some...how much? If it's all, well, we stood there in front of an empty slate some years ago and thought about all those questions...and the ALFA we have was the answer to those questions writ large across that slate, the answer at which a lot of passionate, intelligent people arrived as a joint effort. While the rules were written with the collapse of the former oligarchy freshly in mind, I reject the assumption that ALFA today is merely a reactionary result of history. I believe that given the opportunity to reform, we put a lot of thought into how it should be and worked out the best system.

To close, I'd rather hear the specific instances that have triggered this call for streamlining and address them individually than to start over from scratch at this juncture, so close to launching ALFA NWN2 Live.

[indio]

Under the Ancien Régime the only way to bring about change of the order fluff suggests was by revolution. Now, such change is possibe by a democratic vote.

I'm all for change, but only when it is the representative will of the people. If the current admin see this as a good thing, then let them implement it.

Wth any luck we'll see their contributions steer the discussion from here on.

[indio]

I guess I should also say that under current admin I have never felt so supported in all my time here. This was especially true while Mikayla was in admin.

Thinkng on that, if people like Mikayla never decided to DM, build or host, but only play, would that then mean we would never get the benefits of her leadership? There are no doubt downsides to the current system, but from my perspective as one of the word-builders of ALFA currently, I like not having to handle the administration.

[Rick7475]

See, now, why don't we wait until we have something up and running for a NWN2 server before we go around and suggest changes to the system that has been working relatively well for 4 years or so.

I'll tell you from personal experience on both platforms now, the days of a single HDM calling the shots on a server are over. There is no way in the 9 hells I can realistically build, maintain, and supervise the technical specifications and scripting without major assistance. NWN2 is far too complex and unforgiving trying the patience of the most even tempered builder. While Indio is an expert at the exteriors and AL with the scripting, folks like these two are few and far between, and we need em around. It is a collective project now. I am working Silverymoon and I am loving it, but it is taking a loooooong time due to many technical issues. But it will come. And if there are 5 people left in ALFA to play on it, they'll have the time of their life.

[Mulu]

how do we ensure that power blocks don't form?

This was the first issue that jumped to my mind. The power blocks that do start to form in ALFA tend to get smashed in elections. At least that's my perception from the outside.

The second issue is that bureaucracy has the benefit of doling out specific work to specific persons, thus helping to ensure that things, eventually, get done. The circle jerk of a council would ensure that occasionally some things never got done.

The third issue is that a council approach with fewer rules requires a lot more inherent cooperation to function. Get a feud started and the whole thing would gridlock. Besides, Democracy rules!

[FanaticusIncendi]

I suppose I proceed from a similar but in the end different bias than this proposal assumes. To crib shamelessly from Churchill, I think the structure of ALFA that we've hammered out over the last few years is the worst possible form of governance...except for all the other possible forms of governance. Because of that bias, I can't imagine another form of governance working any better and several of them working significantly worse. If we chucked the Admin and went to a Council, does that body adhere to the current standards of the Charter or to some other document or to no formal ruleset at all? How do we ensure decisions get made if they belong to every member in general and none specifically? On the other hand entirely, how do we ensure that power blocks don't form? There are a dozen or so questions that could be listed, but I suppose my point it that this proposal would be a fundamental restructuring that erases (some or all?) of the current governmental infrastructure. If it's some...how much? If it's all, well, we stood there in front of an empty slate some years ago and thought about all those questions...and the ALFA we have was the answer to those questions writ large across that slate, the answer at which a lot of passionate, intelligent people arrived as a joint effort. While the rules were written with the collapse of the former oligarchy freshly in mind, I reject the assumption that ALFA today is merely a reactionary result of history. I believe that given the opportunity to reform, we put a lot of thought into how it should be and worked out the best system.

To close, I'd rather hear the specific instances that have triggered this call for streamlining and address them individually than to start over from scratch at this juncture, so close to launching ALFA NWN2 Live.

Wynna saves me getting a cramp in my typing fingers.

[danielmn]

*wipes the dust from the eyes of all involved.* *Thanks Inaub for that reference*

The system functions. It may not function as everyone wants it to function, but it functions.

Would it be better for us to have a council mandate? I don't know, to be honest. Like socialism, Council looks nice on paper, but.....

Questions arise. Wynna has some very good ones, so does Mulu. You think politics plays a part now? How will a "council" change that? My immediate thought is...it won't. Granted, it will be conformed of major contributors to the project...but it seems to me that politics/"party lines" would be a major factor in a council as well.

I can also honestly tell you that the departamentalization you see is often necessary. As a Staff Head, I can tell you straight off the bat that there is a lot to keep up with and a lot to do for an admin. I imagine switching to a "council" won't change these matters, so departamentalization is irrelevant unless your talking about decisions to be made involving certain aspects of ALFA. And if you are...all I can tell you is I as a Staff Head do not decide departmental decisions and procedures, I let my team decide. And I think that is the best way to approach thing, having spent years in the military. Let the people on the ground give all the feedback that they are able to, and have the foresight to do WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM AND WHAT WORKS FOR THEM, not some detached council who has nothing to do with what is decided. I think, on the flipside, that a council approach would give us a better veiw of what is happening on the ground from major contributors, and what really needs to get done.

I have served in ALFA in a lot of different roles, from two staff heads to dm in oas and live. I can tell you that no matter what happens, I am dedicated to this project, I have always been, am, and will for the near future always be active in some role to make this community a better place to be in, and I will never shun the project for some other game or some other PW. Loyalty to the project is my standard for myself, no matter if things outside my sphere go south. I respect Each member, especially fluff for voicing his veiw! With his concept, there is a lot to be answered.. as in how will this work better? What other ways are there to fix the problems with the current setup? ARE there problems to begin with?

I sincerely hope those involved really mull this over. I am all for making ALFA a better place to be, play, and work, but let's put in some reallllly HARD thought before we start making changes.

For better or worse, I will be here.

Daniel M Noah

[Mord]

Good luck governing the 30 people still active in this community.

[Veilan]

Good luck governing the 30 people still active in this community.

Shut up and be governed.

[ç i p h é r]

I would be curious to know what specifically needs to be addressed as well, or at least what makes the current structure dysfunctional. We seem to be making progress on many fronts. Where we are not, it's more often an issue of resources, rarely processes.

Yes, we have had a few domain disputes, but that has not stalled progress as far as I can tell. We've resolved them and moved on. There are far greater (and lingering) disputes that have had nothing to do with domain oversight frankly (virtually any proposal on what to introduce into the game for instance), and that's simply a function of the number of people we have in this community. Everyone has an opinion.

[dergon darkhelm]

why don't we wait until we have something up and running for a NWN2 server before we go around and suggest changes to the system that has been working relatively well for 4 years or so.

+1

....but I really don't much care about what the structure of ALFA governance looks like so if you all want change ...go for it