Last night at Boston Post Mortem I got up on stage and strongly encouraged everyone to vote in the upcoming elections for the open IGDA board positions. The elections start this Sunday February 14th and continue through Sunday the 28th. The candidate statements are online now.
The jist of my plea at Post Mortem was — the IGDA has had its share of wounds in the last two years. Many of these are self-inflicted. But we, the members of the IGDA, bear ultimate responsibility for the people we elect. Especially if they later turn out to be asshats.
So, it behooves us to elect non-asshats.
The point I keep hammering any time I get to talk to someone higher-up in the IGDA is that we need a more thorough and transparent election process. The IGDA has taken a big step in this regard – instead of just a short statement with each candidate’s headshot, they now also have a series of questions and answers as well.
This is a great start – but now, we the members of the IGDA need to take it a step further. We need to read these statements, come up with questions, and get the candidates to answer them.
So. I’m chronically short on time (no pun intended). This may not be the most thorough examination of every candidate in there, but my hope is that it is picked up as a starting point.
It is my hope that people will repost this series in various places to help get the discussion going. If you see more info from the candidates in other places, let me know about it at IGDACandidates@macguffingames.com and I’ll link it myself as well. I feel that if we crowd-source this election scrutiny, we can get some awesome coverage on these candidates pretty quickly. Help me out here.
The one thing I ask is that people not make this scrutiny personal. These people are all our peers and deserve our respect for running. Let’s keep it professional. I realize that my assessments could be considered tough on the candidates, but I think that we simply must have a conversation about this stuff, and that we need to set a high bar. I apologize for any personal discomfort it might cause to the candidates.
Disclaimer: I’m a good friend of Darius Kazemi, one of the candidates running for the board. I support him in his campaign. I’m not worried about conflict of interest in my overall effort here, mostly because I still need to vote for 4 other candidates. But I do think that I won’t be the best person to critically analyze him as a candidate - so others should ask what questions they can. I’ll do my best, but you should take what I say about him with a grain of salt.
So, without further ado, here are my thoughts on the candidates, starting with the first three. I’m going to try to do 3-4 more each day until done. Done!
- Eric Francksen (updated Q&A)
- John Hight (updated Q&A answers)
- Michelle Hinn
- Chris Hood (updated Q&A answers)
- Chuck Hoover (updated Q&A answers)
- Sean Kane (updated Q&A answers)
- Darius Kazemi (Mr. Kazemi posted his answers on his campaign blog. Link inside his profile post as well.)
- Genevieve Lord
- Michael Lubker
- Ed Magnin (updated Q&A answers)
- Jane Pinckard (updated Q&A answers)
- Ian Schreiber (updated Q&A Answers)
- Coray Seifert (updated Q&A answers)
- Paul Skiera
- Mike Worth (updated Q&A answers)