What EXACTLY do you want from the IGDA?
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... )
So those were replies to your other post... in response to this one, and your chapter point, my main beef is that the chapters as they currently exist are inseparable from the organizing principle that is the IGDA. If it was to their benefit to remain independent, they would have. So I have little sympathy for chapters who assert that they owe nothing to the IGDA and aren't being represented, the same way I have little sympathy for Quebec or Texas secessionists. It's not that they couldn't survive on their own, it's that their current existence as part of the whole makes the argument moot until they pick up and leave -- until then it's all theoretical and abstract. Clearly they see some advantage in staying, or they would have split off.
This is not to say that chapters shouldn't be better supported, but what I'd like from that argument is specificity. As in the subject line of this post, what EXACTLY do chapters want? I think if they could articulate it, it wouldn't be hard to achieve -- but from what I remember in my work with the Albany chapter, a well-run chapter doesn't actually NEED much from the parent organization, and there are plenty more initiatives to be achieved internally than there are desires to be pulled from the top. But this doesn't mean that the chapter should begin defining itself as disconnected from the IGDA as a whole.
Reply
I won't discuss the IGDA Japan issues as this isn't something I know enough about to comment on, but the workings of Japan are vastly different from here in the UK and while the support might be the same, the way in which changes can be brought about are different (and I would def. say easier here in the EU than in Asia).
I have to say that I don't believe your points about the board address any of the issues I raised. Having a balance between academia and CEO's (and other similar people) is good, but I don't think it addresses the need for rank and files to be on a board being able to make important and (possible) industry effecting decisions. Ok, so it isn't 'dominated' by CEOs, but it isn't representative of the industry at all and I think this is a serious problem.
I absolutely agree that to make the industry better we should be working with studio managers but does that mean that an organization has to be lead by them to do so? Of course not - and I think it would be more productive and better for both sides if the front line developers were properly represented by those similar to them.
Some company owners are great, are aware of the issues of to much over-time, workload and other pressures on their developers, but some are not. Sometimes these people are able to speak out more loudly and forcefully that others, and unfortunately an organization designed to 'represent' developers shouldn't be a conduit for them. I do think that some of the bad press recently has been taken out of context or blown out of proportion (but then some of it hasn't) but I seriously don't think this should be another part of that story.
I strongly believe unionisation is the right way to go for our industry, but I don't see this as something that will happen anytime soon (and I certainly don't see the IGDA in that role). It's fantastic to hear that some CEO's out there actively think this would be a good thing and that will only help the whole process. But surely they can only see that a unionisation would be a national process.
Briefly regarding the local chapters. I think the reason they stay as IGDA chapters is because they have been for so long. The chapters (or at least the chapters I have experience of) don't gain anything from being IGDA chapters but they wouldn't gain anything from going independent either. If there was a viable organization that benefited them, then I do believe they would change their association.
I'm very glad that these issues can and are being discussed. The industry is changing, as it always will, and to stay with the status quo simply 'because' will help no-one. I'm excited to see where this is going, because I strongly believe that what ever comes out of the other side will be better than what went in.
Reply
Much of the difficulty that I have with these conversations again comes down to lack of specificity. I see all too often that the greater problems of the org are articulated as abstracts ("the board has too many CEOs", "the IGDA should represent developers better") rather than specific action items that have specific answers that the org can undertake. There are so many passionate and smart people in the organization working on initiatives every day that I ultimately do not see even the board itself stopping them from taking specific action if it could be determined what that action should be. To me the discussions that have come up recently are painful distractions because they still don't answer the fundamental questions.
But, that being said, the reason why I think it's important to take apart these abstract assumptions ("the board is dominated by CEOs") is for the purpose of getting to the heart of the problem being expressed.
Some of our discussion does still have a cultural gap. The "devs not CEOs" line I suspect is a kind of shorthand for a much larger and more complex discussion in European terms. When addressed in a practical sense from a US standpoint it seems to not make much sense -- because, for one thing, election to the board is democratic, and by the numbers there are simply thousands more "regular" developers in the organization than there are business leaders, and these regular members are electing their board. To me, what this expresses is that those CEOs who ARE being elected are highly regarded by the "regular" developers as being ethical, strong, organized people we would like as our leaders, who we want to work behind. To me there is also a fundamental contradiction, again from an American standpoint, of saying that we want a "regular" developer but we also assume we want someone who is a strong leader and well-organized -- yet we want them to not have actualized those skills within themselves to start their own company. This to me seems an arbitrary distinction that weeds out a number of effective individuals. Again, I deeply understand where the sentiment originates, but it simply doesn't play out in the elections and I think there are reasons why.
I also want to know who, specifically, should be on the board, and how they should get there if not through the org's democratic process. To pull that apart strikes me as dangerous, but even assuming we could, who exactly should be on that board and what should we be asking of them? To me it's worthy of note that one of the people who has been most vocal and, as far as I can tell, supported by the casual membership for board election -- Darius Kazemi -- as a "for change" candidate -- is himself a CEO and entrepreneur in the business, and so according to your argument here he would not be sufficient and should not be elected. I have a hard time with that.
So this is the problem with theoretical arguments and problem statements about the issues in the organization. They do not present solutions, unless I'm missing something from your statements (and please forgive me if I am) that we can fairly and quickly apply. I do think that condensing the voting membership down to proven evidence-based current game developers would be a major first step toward solving a lot of problems -- but even that undertaking is problematic under the democratic system.
Reply
I want a board that is not made up of people who employ the people they represent. Ideally I would like to see an organisation run by people who used to be in game development and have moved onto running the organisation full time. People with great leadership skills do not automatically found companies and can actualize their abilities in many different ways. This would be run more like a professional organisation rather than the on-the-side role that is there at the moment (on-the-side doesn’t indicate they don't do their job, but a person can only have one 'full time' position in their life by definition).
Below these I would like to see associated board members (personally I think board is the wrong word as it conjures up business and board room dealings imo, but I'm struggling to think of something better that would make their position clear) who work full time in the games industry as developers - and by developers I mean programmers, artists, designers and QA. Musicians that work specifically for a game developer would also be welcome, but if they sub-contract, they have their own associations. The important thing here is that if it is an 'international' organisation then this board and associated board should be made up of developers from around the world, not just people in the organisations 'host' country. Personally I think that is very difficult to do and is why I think national organisations that work together is the better approach.
As for democratic voting to the board, then I would like to see the associated board members voted on every couple of years, with them being responsible for managing and assigning the organisation runners. The reason for this is that the associated board members have more relevant experience and will have more current links to the industry. By giving them the responsibility to appoint the board and being held accountable to them would be a fine approach to me.
Membership would be made up of people actively working in the games industry, working on a title or company either contracted or salaried. The important distinction here is that game development must be their primary source of income. By stating that it does mean that you can include those indie developers who take their work seriously enough to make a living out of it. As someone stated on the IGDA forums "this isn't a hobbyist organization or an "interest group" itself -- it's a professional organization". It would be the responsibility of the person applying to prove their part in the industry (and for active developers that would be amazingly easy) and with a full time group of people working for the board it would be someone’s responsibility to verify this (again easy for 99% of the cases). But again this would be easier on a national level.
Students shouldn't be involved in this organisation. They might one day be part of the games industry (in which they can then join) or they might not. There is a strong distinction there. Students on game development, computer science or art courses are not part of the games industry.
Academia can (and should) be involved through associated programs. Obviously we want to keep the links strong between the industry and academia, but that doesn't mean they need to be fully-fledged members. Work-groups and SIGS can easily create and manage these associated projects to keep things strong. Again this is where an international group is difficult because academic needs and requirements are different per country. In the UK we have SkillSet doing an excellent job, so a UK organisation could work with SkillSet, rather than as associated group, to cover this ground.
Of course this is my opinion and reading the 'IGDA Issue: Voting Rights' tells me that everyone has their own ideas. But I didn’t want you to think I was just spouting hyperbole, I do have ideas of how a professional game developers association should be structured and the IGDA is not, and probably will not, ever match this.
Reply
I travel the world teaching students and everywhere I go, I encourage them to join the IGDA for the learning and networking opportunities it offers. As the founder of the organization, I would be furious to discover that I've been lying to them all this time, and they're not welcome after all.
Reply
Leave a comment