Comments | zhai: What EXACTLY do you want from the IGDA?

zhai

What EXACTLY do you want from the IGDA?

Aug 21, 2009 12:07

Surfacing for a bit to talk about the IGDA, in as coherent a manner as I can -- mainly because I told Darius I would write this post, so now I'm stuck for it. And because I think this kind of thinking is the responsibility of IGDA members. I don't usually like doing this -- I have a laundry list of IGDA initiatives I'd rather be spending more time ( Read more... )

igda, game development, philomath

Comments 15

dariusk August 22 2009, 14:22:07 UTC

I agree completely on the membership thing. We need fewer, more dedicated members. One way of doing that is by getting rid of the concept of "studio memberships." Studio membership just fills the IGDA up with people who literally do not even know they are members. It reduces quorum and it reduces focus ( ... )

dariusk August 22 2009, 14:22:29 UTC

Oh and THANK YOU for posting. Can I link it on Twitter and my blog?

zhai August 22 2009, 18:58:36 UTC

Post Mortem is one of the rare exceptions when it comes to the chapters -- and should be proud of it and what it and you did. To build something out of nothing I think is at the heart of game development core values. But it did, as you say, decide to join the IGDA, and I think once that decision is made it becomes inseparable -- unless it does actually want to "secede" and go back to being independent. But I can certainly see why your top issue is chapter support. Frankly I move so much that it's difficult for me to become so deeply involved with one chapter, so my thing is SIG initiatives ( ... )

dariusk August 29 2009, 10:42:23 UTC

Will Wright is also a member since 1999. Admittedly he doesn't appear to participate much.

zhai August 29 2009, 20:34:18 UTC

Hey Darius. To ping this issue again, after reading Lee's comments... I admit I'm a bit surprised to see, so far, complete agreement on the subject of culling the voting membership down to core developers.

So the question this raises is, given the function of the organization, bylaws, etc, how does a large body of currently empowered voters manage to vote itself into having fewer voting members? How do we actually accomplish condensing the membership down to developers? I really would like to know, and then to make it happen.

Excellent points but still not convinced anonymous August 29 2009, 19:36:15 UTC

Excellent post and I thank you for writing it. I agree with a lot of the points, especially "Why don't we have..." and "We Need Fewer Members" and I think this is one of the failing problems with the IGDA at the moment ( ... )

Re: Excellent points but still not convinced zhai August 29 2009, 20:24:39 UTC

Hi Lee -- I agree with Darius in appreciating this post and your thoughts. I'm going to cross-post a reply to it on my post and yours, so if you wind up receiving notification for this twice, that's why ( ... )

Re: Excellent points but still not convinced zhai August 29 2009, 20:25:34 UTC

<< Whether we like it or not, companies are there to make money. The people leading these companies, on the whole, want to make a profit and they want the company to keep making a profit.... For an organisation that stands up for the industry’s wellbeing (and you would assume this means the people on the shop floor) it needs to be driven, and led, by people who do the work, or who’s only driving goal is the welfare of these developers. Being led by those who also heap-up the companies we work for, or having think tanks and discussions led by those who’s goals may be different to the people it represents will only lead to conflict. This is the reason why 60 hour work weeks are seriously being discussed rather than being instantly shot down by everyone present ( ... )

Re: Excellent points but still not convinced zhai August 29 2009, 20:29:06 UTC

Whew ( ... )

Thread 8

Grrrr. ext_137762 September 5 2009, 23:27:34 UTC

Erin, I have a great deal of respect for you, but your posting doesn't make a single argument in favor of reducing the size of the membership or turning a group of the members into second-class citizens. You complain that not enough members vote, and that's a problem; but not enough Americans vote either, and we don't throw them out of the country. Sure, we could reduce the membership to those who are interested in the politics of the organization, but most people are in professional societies for other reasons and don't really care that much who runs them. Reducing the number of members for this reason alone is cutting off our nose to spite our face. The more members (voting or not), the more money; the more money, the more the organization can offer ( ... )

Re: Grrrr. zhai September 6 2009, 06:23:30 UTC

Hi Ernest -- thanks for stopping by. You know I have great respect for you also and appreciate your thoughts and comments ( ... )