Why do people think Network Merges work.

]Daniel · Idler Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 317 Location: Boise, ID

Ok I am here to put my opinion out on network merges. In almost 99.9% of the case they are all bound to fail. Abusive admins, dislike of ircd's, dislike of services, you name it, something will clash. Do you guys even understand the meaning of the staff of an irc network. They chose what they use because they like it, no they don't want to use what you have, no they don't want to have 10000 servers linked. So I am very curious, why do people think they will work, they may for even a few months, but something will happen, it always does. So ya, give me your opinions. Cause in my own opinion, THEY DONT.

Daniel

lagmaster · Lurker Joined: 06 Nov 2004 Posts: 116

probably 99% of them dont work.

i've had 2 merges iirc on my network. 1 fizzed out and 1 delinked. the only way to build a network is to accept staff and links only!

nenolod · Idler Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 333 Location: A box!

AthemeNet was built pretty much on merges... but before doing anything we all made sure we had a similar mindset.

We have had merges fail though, because the target network was running like, Unreal or something, and was used to the way Anope did things... so when our services used a different presentation they threw a fit and delinked.

So basically, if you DO intend on doing a merge, make sure you are open-minded, and only target those admins who are open-minded.

99% of merges will fail though because people truly do not know what they want with their networks... so, they want to keep the status quo. If people deviate from the status quo post-merge, things get ugly very quickly.

--nenolod

]Daniel · Idler Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 317 Location: Boise, ID

FrostyCoolSlug · none Joined: 03 Jul 2004 Posts: 29

I guess at the end of the day, not only is open mindedness needed, but also a fair merge. Even if your network is smaller, Netadmin Status on your network should mean netadmin status on the new network, with all the priviledges and responsibilities that go with it.. It's a team effort, and there should be no 'dominating' parties.

When i have a proposal, i consult with the rest of my staff, we then make a decision in a democratical (is that even a word?) kinda way, with each oper posting their own views. When merging, i feel the same sorta processes should take effect, and not have someone making the 'final decision' for everyone else. It works for us, and if we ever had a merge, providing that someone can agree to co-operate, i can't see anything ever going wrong Smile

Just my 2c.

lagmaster · Lurker Joined: 06 Nov 2004 Posts: 116

what annoys me is when people come to you asking for a merge, then when you talk about services, they demand they run it even tho it's anope. when they refuse to discuss it in terms of which side will run it, they go into a hissy fit. by then i turn them down.

Rob_ · Idler Joined: 13 Dec 2003 Posts: 309

The reason "who runs services" is an issue for most people, is when (ok if) the merge fails, only the party with services is guarenteed to have the serviecs databases - as such, its the users on _that_ network who dont need to re-register everything.

(obviously there are ways of mitigating this, like both having access to the serviecs shell, and 1 side taking nightly backups, but *shrug*)

JohnB · Posted: Jan 12, 2006 5:12am Post subject:

My network (thequizbox) linked with majestic-liaisons several months ago. We spent almost a month just planning it and for that reason its worked.

]Daniel · Idler Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 317 Location: Boise, ID

JohnB · Posted: Jan 12, 2006 7:07am Post subject:

Compromise the key issue. I already had services and so did the other net....but we worked round each and every single issue before we even linked.

nenolod · Idler Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 333 Location: A box!

marc · Posted: Jan 12, 2006 6:09pm Post subject:

"Programming is a Dark Art, and it will always be. The programmer is fighting against the two most destructive forces in the universe: entropy and human stupidity." -- Damian Conway

Hal9000 · none Joined: 23 Jun 2006 Posts: 4

I had my network merge "partially" about a year ago. With Partially I mean: we got the main hub, all the services, but each one still kept its own domain and web site.
Eventually I decided to kick the network out because of poor quality of their machines and bitchyness of the admins.
In the end we only had a higher user count and more kiddies bitching around in #irchelp, so I saw no benefits at all.
I don't think we will ever try to link to another network again.

SebasMiles · none Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 30

You always hear of the merger´s that failed, very few times about the ones that were successfull. If youre going to merge, there always has to be a big dog and a small dog. One net is merging INTO another. You discuss with them what positions they get for the merger(be very carefull of giving out netadmin, or atleast let it be understood that you have a bit more weight than them) and you decide which ircd and services. More often than not, it is best for the main net to stick with its services and ircd and the other one basically brings links and the dns. Having the main net change for the merger just means that later most likely your people will end up hating the new ircd and services and a fight will break out and separate your net again. The main net has to be the one that remains and the other is dissolved.
Make sure you know who youre merging with, and who all their ircops are. Have clear rules on your net and let them know that they have to follow them when they merge(ie only 2 admins per link, etc). You must know their main guy and have a good relation. Anything that is worth doing takes time, if theyre making you rush, then send them packing because theyre just looking for a quick boost in usercount and problems will show up.

MrBurns · Posted: Jul 05, 2006 9:20am Post subject:

I've been dragged into quite a few merges as a server admin and none of them worked. The reason was always the same: the one who linked with the bigger network wasn't happy about the rules or got into a fight with the other IRCops.

There might be instances where a merge works (like when the 2 networks already know eachother and have worked together in the past) but in most cases I would not recommend it. I for one would never merge because I like being independant, no matter how small and pathetic the network is. If I want a lot of people around, i'll just visit a larger network.

Most of the time people want to merge just to get more users. They lose track of the rest of the issues like "who's gonna make all the decisions" and have no idea who the other IRCops are or what they are like. You might merge and find out it's a scriptkiddie network full of pricks.