I had originally written a long post about this, but I believe I will simply say the following:

For those members who have asked me to say something on the EDGE Games issue, I do think that I have made my position clear by supporting the petition to call a member vote on the removal of Tim Langdell from the IGDA Board of Directors. I believe that the actions of EDGE Games are not consistent with the IGDA’s mission, and I believe that Tim Langdell’s association with EDGE causes damage to the IGDA as an organization, if only because of the member dissatisfaction that it has provoked. I support the right of members to vote on this issue, and again I encourage you to consider signing the petition.

This whole issue has caused me to think more deeply about important related IGDA issues which I’ll be addressing in forthcoming posts.

About an hour ago, the IGDA posted its job description for a new Executive Director to relace the seat vacated by Jason Della Rocca. (I believe that it had been available via some links from a post on the IGDA Forums as early as last week, but it was just posted to the official site newsfeed this morning.) I’m happy to see it finally posted.

This portion caught my eye:

Minimum of five years executive experience leading an organization or a division of a larger entity, with responsibility for studio management including business development, financial management, administration, budgeting, and/or implementing complex programs.

I’ve been wondering for some time whether the IGDA was looking for someone inside the game industry or someone with professional association administration experience. The wording is interesting. “Studio management” would lead me to believe they’re looking for people inside the game industry, which I think is the right direction to go. On the other hand, it could be a PR problem for the IGDA to have a studio head as the new Executive Director. Before Jason signed on to be ED, he was a kind of evangelist and sales guy for Matrox, but not a studio head. I think someone like that would be a more politically neutral choice for the position, but then again, when Jason joined the IGDA it was a much smaller organization.

So the way I see it, there are three kinds of people who can be chosen for the next ED.

1. Someone from outside the industry, with association management experience. I wouldn’t be too happy if our new ED fell into this category. The ED needs to be plugged in to the game industry and understand our needs. Then again, if this candidate had a strong interest in video games I could see them learning on the job, provided they had strong guidance from the Board and others.
2. Someone from inside the industry, with large-scale management experience. This kind of candidate has the advantage of probably-relevant experience. On the other hand, it could be a PR nightmare for the IGDA, particularly if the manager came from a studio known for QoL problems.
3. Someone from inside the industry, but a rank-and-file developer. This could possibly be a low-level manager who has budgeted projects or departments, but not entire studios. Or perhaps a manager from a small studio. There might be an experience gap but I don’t think there’d be a public backlash.

I’d be in favor of (2) or (3), provided it were the right person for the job. What makes a person right for the job? For starters I would love it to be someone with a lot of experience working with the IGDA already. It would need to be someone very high-energy, and almost inhumanly responsive to emails. Jason was absolutely buried in emails but he always got back to me within 24 hours, usually within one or two hours. And it would need to be someone friendly. We can’t have a super abrasive person as our ED, for many reasons.

It’s going to be a tough search. I hope we get a good selection of candidates.