User:Henrik/On IRC

On IRC
The Admins IRC channel (Of which I am a fairly regular participant) has attracted a fair share of controversy lately. Here are my thoughts on it.

Thoughts
The admins channel is an interesting problem. In a house with glass walls, it is pretty much the only room with opaque walls - it is not surprising that there are people that find it questionable, given how transparent the decision making process is in other aspects.

Administrator conduct must be open for review. For all the jokes about cabals, we can and should not go down the path where people in the in clique can make decisions without review. The fear alone, whether justified or not, that the admins IRC channel is being used as a base for a clique should give considerable pause. But then again, a place where administrators can consult and contact each other privately for advice unquestionably has many valid uses. A teacher might need to consult with colleagues to discuss how to grade a paper; that does not mean it should be done in front of the student or open for anyone to see the discussion. The same applies to admins wanting feedback on potentially problematic user conduct. Many of these discussions should be kept private; not for the admins sake but for the user's. It serves no purpose for other students to see the discussion on how a fellow student is graded. The same applies to users here; the mere fact that their conduct was discussed, even if no sanction was administrated, still raises the possibility that the discussion will be used against them. But the flip side of that coin is that the same confidentiality can be used to hide problems.

If we entertain the idea that the channel is closed down, ignoring the various juristictional problems, what would be the result? Admins would likely be forced to go to an even smaller group for advice and are even less likely to hear contrary opinions. I would suggest the best way to improve transparancy isn't to attack the channel or the participants, something which is likely to produce a siege mentality, but to embrace it. Make sure as many people as possible are invited and participate.

Ideas for improvements
One solution which I've advocated on channel is that the logs should be opened up, but with a time delay of n months. Long enough to not to cause or prolong endless drama on the issue of the day, but short enough that any misconduct can be addressed and any systematic problems be addressed. It would however not address the right of users to have discussions about them to be not published. Occationally, but rarely, sensitive personal information is also mentioned.

Another, perhaps more promising, option would be to have a review board, separate from arbcom and the admin community, for example of trusted non-admins and grant them read-only access with a mandate to review the content and discussions. The substantiative complaint of Giano is that the review board of the channel is the same as the users - a viewpoint I find valid. Simply put: External review usually works better.

The review board need not have any formal mandate to enforce any decisions, save the right to publish their findings (including any logs they judge necessary) on wiki.

Conclusion
My conclusion so far is that the channel is a net positive, despite the problems. That does not mean it couldn't be improved. One of the best ways to improve it and reduce the risk of groupthink and cabalism is to add more participants. All new admins should be explicitly invited, and a reminder to the old ones be sent out.