Transparency of the IGDA Board
One issue that has reared its head something like eight times today on various forums and email threads is the lack of communication within the IGDA — specifically a lack of transparency on the part of the IGDA Board. In this post I’m going to discuss communication about the Board’s activities — the communication we have right now, why that communication is problematic, my proposed solutions for our transparency issues, and what I will do as a Board member regardless of whether my solutions are enacted.
The Communcation We Have
The Board publishes its meeting minutes online, which is a nice start, but if you actually read those meeting minutes they look like this:
Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes
2) Proposed Bylaws Changes for the IGDA Foundation
3) Executive Director Transition
4) 2009 Budget
5) AdjournMotion Summary
Motion to approve minutes of November 15, 2008 (Unanimously Approved)
Motion to approve IGDA Foundation Bylaws Changes. (Unanimously Approved)
Motion to adjourn meeting at 1:02 p.m. (Unanimously Approved)
That is literally the entire meat of the Jan 22 2009 Board meeting minutes, aside from a list of who attended the meeting. There is not a whole lot to go on there. We know that they were going to talk about some stuff, and it looks like they hit (1) and (2) seeing as related motions were approved. Did they get to (3) and (4)? Who knows? We don’t even know what the bylaw changes for (2) were.
I’m not saying that Coray, the IGDA Secretary, is doing a bad job. He’s doing his job — this is more or less what meeting minutes are supposed to look like for any organization. Meeting minutes are not, however, a tool of transparency or of communication. (Though searching Google for “meeting minutes,” the second hit shows a much more verbose example than what we see above.)
We need more than meeting minutes if we are going to be engaged members of the IGDA.
What else does the IGDA provide its members in terms of what the Board is doing? We have the Annual Report, which is nice but awfully thin on information. Take a look at last year’s report: it’s great that the Board publishes simplified financials for the IGDA. We’re able to look and see that even though the IGDA’s income grew in 2008, its expenses grew even faster and as a result we are $91,000 in the hole for 2009. On the other hand, it looks like our administrative costs have actually gone down. It’s a matter of something called “Member Programs & Meetings” increasing by about $300,000 since last year. What is this? We don’t know. Is this because the Leadership Forum cost more this year? Is it due to costs associated with developing the new igda.org website? It’s hard to say. The note from the Chair at the beginning of the report doesn’t even mention the $91,000 deficit — to read that note you’d think everything was just fine.
Finally, we have the monthly newsletter. This is great, but is only effective as an email blast — the newsletter format is really only good as a once-a-month email thing. It does not fit into most people’s standard routine of catching up on news. Having a plain-text format where you have to copy/paste all the links into a web browser to go visit them is not exactly a great way of highlighting things going on in the IGDA. You can’t even take metrics to see which initiatives people are clicking on to check out. And, more to the point, the IGDA newsletter functions mostly as a way of highlighting initiatives that are happening throughout the IGDA — which is fantastic, but is not really a vehicle for transparency for the way the Board functions.
Why This is a Serious Problem
I will use an example to illustrate why this lack of transparency is a problem.
The search for the new Executive Director is possibly the single most important task the IGDA faces for 2009. Yet the search task force for the executive director is shrouded in mystery. Its only mention *anywhere* on the main IGDA website, and this includes the monthly newsletter and the Board meeting minutes, is the press release that went out in early February. This press release mentioned, briefly, that “[t]he IGDA Board will appoint a task force to coordinate the search for a new executive director.”
That’s all I heard until the Annual Meeting last week at GDC, where it was mentioned that Tobi Saulnier is heading up the task force with a number of other IGDA members, and the task force has recently completed writing a job description to be posted “in the near future.” What’s the job description? Where is it being posted? How did one get a position on that committee? Why didn’t we hear about it for six weeks? Are they giving consideration for the job to IGDA members first, or do they have a policy of looking for professional association managers from any industry?
We don’t know the answer to any of these questions. More disturbingly, it looks like the Board itself doesn’t know the answer to any of these questions.
This is the most important task for the IGDA in 2009 and not even the Board of Directors knows exactly what’s going on.
This is a problem. (EDIT: I have created a petition to ask for greater transparency in the matter of the search for the Executive Director. I encourage you to sign it if you are an IGDA member.)
My Proposals
I propose that the full accounting of the IGDA finances be disclosed to the organization’s membership to the extent that such disclosure is legal.
I propose that the Board of Directors appoint a Board member or an IGDA member to a role dedicated to communicating the Board’s activities to the membership. This will benefit everyone — as activity on the forums has shown, communicating what the board is working on quells the claims that the Board is sitting around and doing nothing and enables IGDA volunteers to come forward and help with initiatives they are interested in.
I propose that the above communications should be in blog format, with a functioning RSS feed, as that best fits the way that most game developers daily read their news.
What I Will Do If Elected to the Board
Regardless of whether my proposals are accepted, as an individual on the IGDA Board I will be certain to use this blog at dariusforigda.org as a place for members to come and see not only what I’m working on as a Board member, but also my updates on what other Board members are doing. So even if there is no systemic transparency, I will use my position as a Board member to shed light as best I can on what is happening on the Board of Directors.
Petition for Transparency in the Search for IGDA Executive Director Said,
April 2, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
[...] light of the issues I highlighted in my previous post, namely that not even the Board of Directors knows what’s going on with the search for the [...]
Tobi Saulnier Said,
April 3, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Hi Darius,
I am happy someone is interested enough to read the financials, which I personally find quite interesting but which tends to bore many to tears.
I am surprised you didn’t reach out and ask me directly about any of these financial questions, as it is certainly no secret that I am currently Treasurer. I am very happy to answer any and all questions about them, since as you note the top line summary and five minutes in an annual meeting never can do justice to them. I serously could see having an entire hour devoted to Q&A and additional details on financials. I would love to share what I know about them.
So, shoot!
Ernest Adams Said,
April 3, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
This is muckraking, pure and simple, from someone who hopes to get himself elected to the Board. We already went through all this in 1995. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
The meeting minutes of a corporate board are not intended to, and should not, reflect the discussions of that board. They are not the Congressional Record. Rather, their purpose is to document formally adopted policy. Writing down every idle remark a director makes in the course of a meeting is a sure recipe for disaster — the directors will become conservative and avoid vigorous participation.
A search for an executive director must be conducted with discretion, as potential candidates may need to keep the fact of their candidacy secret from their current employers. It is not a matter for public debate. People are welcome to write to the board with their concerns, but they should not expect open discussion. That is simply not the way hiring is done. If you don’t trust the board, vote in people you trust. But whoever you vote in will not be able to discuss hiring matters publicly either.
A director who took it upon himself to breach the confidentiality that candidates are entitled to would be guilty of misconduct.
admin Said,
April 3, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Ernest: did I ever say that the meeting minutes should be more than they are? I specifically said, “this is more or less what meeting minutes are supposed to look like for any organization” — I pointed to a resource for what Board minutes look like in other organizations and they seemed to be a little more verbose than what we get, but as I said myself, meeting minutes are not *supposed* to be a tool of transparency.
This is not a tactic to get myself elected to the board. The timeline is this: (1) I learned about the outcry over Capps’ comments. (2) I made some comments on the IGDA Forums giving my perspective on things as a chapter organizer. (3) It was Coray who actually got me thinking about running for the Board via this forum post. (4) I decided to run, launched this website. (5) I was involved in many dozens of discussions at GDC with everyone from board members on down to rank-and-file developers who don’t see the point of joining the IGDA. From this I learned that dissatisfaction with the IGDA is a very real and legitimate thing. (6) I posted my opinions on here.
How, might I ask, is this article muck-raking? I am giving my opinion on *facts* about the IGDA (its communication channels). I list the ways the IGDA communicates with members, and I explain why I think it isn’t enough. The closest I come to muck-raking is linking to a public forum post made by an IGDA Board member!
Now, the whole “vote in people you trust” is the entire reason I am running for the Board. IGDA Board elections are completely screwed up. We almost never reach quorum, and as you say yourself, it’s disappointing that the heads of big studios almost always end up on Board seats. I don’t think it’s the membership’s fault, though. It’s the process. This is why I started this blog. So that when voting time comes, people will have an extremely thorough record of where I stand on all sorts of IGDA-related issues.
Ernest, I’ve known you for seven years. You were the first game developer I met at my first Game Developers Conference, back when I was just a wide-eyed student. I looked up to you then, and I respect you now for everything you have done for the development community. But I respectfully disagree with your stance on these latest controversies hitting the IGDA. The organization, an organization I believe in, is in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant in the next few years. This is my attempt to resolve it. I was, sadly, expecting exactly this kind of response from the IGDA “old guard.”
Dave Weinstein Said,
April 4, 2009 @ 12:05 am
The overwhelming majority of professional game developers are not members of the IGDA. From this we can assume that they don’t know about it, don’t care about it, or don’t think it serves a purpose worth their money.
For that matter, given the memberships that come with affiliate studios, and the people who buy a membership because they get a same-price discount to GDC, and given the low voting rates during elections, I think we can come to the uncomfortable conclusion that most of the actual IGDA members don’t care.
So I think the last thing we should do is have a bunch of old-hands come crashing down on a very active IGDA volunteer for the crime of caring too much.
Ian Schreiber Said,
April 4, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Perhaps “muckraking” is a strong word, but I see Ernest’s point. This article is extremely critical of the current IGDA board, general process, and specific search process for a new ED. While there is certainly some constructive criticism here (i.e. how to improve things), the general tone of it is framed more as “this is what’s wrong and here’s how I would fix it” rather than a focus on “these are the positive aspects of the organization, and here is how I would like to improve them further”.
A small distinction perhaps, boiling down to perception and framing more than actual content. But I think it’s important to tread carefully when dealing with such explosive issues, lest you cause more harm (driving people away from the IGDA out of frustration with current practices) than good (by being a force for positive change within the organization). I know your heart is in the right place (you clearly see the potential in the IGDA, else you wouldn’t be running for the board) so I’d encourage you to think carefully about the repercussions of your posts.
The most telling difference here is the sudden launch of a petition for change. Petitions are a very vocal and public way of forcing change, by calling attention to people’s dissatisfactions with the status quo. Before you took this extreme measure, one is forced to wonder, did you contact any members of the Board privately to discuss your concerns? If so, what were the results — were you blown off, was there no response, did someone actually suggest that you start a petition, or what? Perhaps you could have accomplished your aims in a more discreet manner. I don’t know. How about some transparency in your own process?
Dave Weinstein Said,
April 4, 2009 @ 10:53 am
For what it’s worth, I think the IGDA needs a lot more of the “here is what is wrong, and here is how I would fix it” than it has historically gotten.
For a 15 year old professional organization to be either ignored or derided by the bulk of the professionals in the field is somewhat damning.
Moreover, it’s not like this is a negative broadside coming from the outside. Nor is it a purely negative list of grievances. The combination of a call to action with specific calls for change coming from someone with first hand experience as a core volunteer within the organization is something that I think the IGDA really needs to listen to carefully.
Darius Kazemi Said,
April 4, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Ian, thanks for the critique. You ask if I privately emailed the Board members first. I did not. My stance is this: people have been trying to quietly change things behind the scenes in the IGDA for many, many years. I have witnessed this firsthand in my seven years as an IGDA member and volunteer.
It doesn’t work.
Usually what happens is a concerned volunteer contacts a Board member or two, or perhaps the ED. What we get is the runaround: yes we’re looking into the problem, yes we’ll tackle that once we get the website out of the way, let’s talk about this next week (and you never hear from them), or worse, just a completely contentless “We value your passion and your time.”
In my experience, if you go to the board with something REALLY important and you press them, you get comments like the ones on this blog from Ernest and Noah, or like Jen’s memo. “The IGDA can not and must not (be a union / advocate on labor issues / take sides on any issue unless one party is participating in clearly illegal activity).” That is highly demoralizing and usually causes the person trying to make a change to just give up.
The petition is in some sense an experiment to see what kind of response, both from the membership and the org leadership, an alternative method of asking for change can accomplish.
BUT — you are right. I have lots of positive things I want to say about the IGDA. I planned to write those up after GDC, but this whole controversy got in the way. Keep your eyes open for an unambiguously constructive post soon
Ernest Adams Said,
April 4, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Darius, my feelings about this are so strong because I’ve been through all this before, and the tone of your language is nearly identical to what I heard in 1995. You’re accusing the directors of bad faith, and using innuendo (”they’re keeping things secret from us”) to hint that they may be doing something wrong. I lived through two and a half years of that kind of innuendo from a small but vociferous group of malcontents. It was extremely tiresome and demoralizing, as I was sweating my guts out for the organization and sacrificing my own career into the bargain. In the end I realized that my duty was to the organization as a whole, and given that my time was limited, I began to ignore them in favor of working for the greater good instead. Eventually they went away in a huff. I’m very disappointed to see the same kind of thing arising again.
If you want to change the way the IGDA is run, and to help it to grow, what you’re doing is the very worst way to go about it. Your accusations can only cast the IGDA in a negative light; from what I’ve heard, you’ve already done a fair bit of damage. By all means, run for the board, and explain your hopes, dreams, and plans for the organization. But drop the hostile, aggressive, I’m-here-to-clean-house hectoring. Remember, if you are elected, you’ll have to work with the other sitting directors. You won’t have a very good working relationship with them if you have loudly called them all lazy, incompetent, or worse during your election campaign, and you will probably find yourself marginalized and ineffective.
You’re young, and being a revolutionary firebrand is the privilege of the young; besides which, righteous indignation is such a lovely emotion to wallow in. But you’ll find that the most effective politicians are the ones who cultivate constructive personal relationships *even with their opponents* and do most of their work behind the scenes.
To put it in a nutshell: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
[End of Politics 101]
Not So Random Links: 8/4/09 : Mersey Remakes Said,
April 7, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
[...] Glaze over comments sections as it descends into a Digipen fest. Further further note to self, this. Published: April 7, 2009 Filed Under: Oddbob Speaks Tags: Links Leave a Comment Name: [...]
Brandon J. Van Every Said,
April 23, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
What intriguing issues of governance! Gosh if only I could remember why I quit the IGDA back in 2002 or so. It had something to do with feeling like the organization was being run “top down” instead of from the grassroots. I can’t remember the specific issues or what was at stake at the time. I think it had to do with forum creation and resources not being allocated to it or something like that. Also, that with grassroots effort somewhat obstructed and difficult, the organization had no value for me and wasn’t worth paying for. I have popped back in to see what the IGDA State Of The Art is nowadays. I am curious what if anything has changed.
I don’t have any problem with contention in political processes. That’s my personality type. I imagine Darius is similar. I like his message and don’t really care if some people take offense at the delivery. Often in politics, you do indeed have to “vote the bums out” and get new blood in there. Gosh didn’t the last US election demonstrate that, although it remains to be seen what the new bums can do, LOL! Who says a Board has to be consensus oriented? Congress isn’t, City Councils aren’t. People vote.
Paul Sinnett Said,
May 3, 2009 @ 4:49 am
I think we have Ernest to thank for the state of the IGDA today. The fact that he’s been through this before just shows that the problems we are having now are problems that have been festering since the beginning. I think if we had a well oiled machine then shaking everything up would be counter productive. But we don’t. The organisation is broken. And by the sounds of it, it was broken by design. The last thing we need to do is continue on this path.
We either fix this organisation from the bottom up or we abandon it and start fresh. I prefer the first but I’m not opposed to the second either.