First, I’d like to again say thanks for doing this. It’s rare for any of us to get an outsider’s look at who we are, so it’s a real treat for me to see what an objective “first impression” of me looks like. Also, our statements were limited to a strict word count, so it is nice to provide the “short version” on the IGDA website and then be able to elaborate here.

To answer your questions:

“Why run now?”

Well, I ran last year too, so it’s not like I am choosing this year specifically. I started running for Board when I felt I had reached a point where I could make real contributions, and I will continue until I reach a point where I feel I cannot. Additionally, this year I was nominated by at least one other person (in previous years we were expected to “nominate” ourselves), so I took that as an extra vote of confidence.

“You note that you’ve been involved with a number of SIGs and committees, but for the most part not in what capacity. Can you elaborate on your involvement with these groups?”

Great point — the people in those SIGs know what I did, but of course anyone who was not actively part of them would have no way of knowing.

For the Education SIG, I’m active on the mailing list, which in practice means being an industry voice that is available for any professors looking for information for their classes or curriculum. I was also one of many contributors to the 2008 Curriculum Framework, an Ed SIG project to provide a starting set of guidelines for the creation of game-related educational programs. In particular, aside from the general proofreading common to all contributors, I provided the first draft of section 2.1 (new to the 2008 version) and proposed some new topics under the Game Design section. I’ve also contributed some of my course syllabi to the IGDA Curriculum Knowledge Base. I’ve attended and presented at the Education Summit at GDC since 2007. And of course, I evangelize the IGDA and the Education SIG to any game educator I meet who hasn’t already heard of them.

For the Sex and Games SIG, primarily my role has been forum moderator, which mostly means keeping the board clear of spam (as you might imagine, we get our fair share of this). I also provided occasional content for the blog, back when the SIG was younger.

Credit Standards Committee might sound a bit different from my other endeavors, but I’ve attended the Credits Roundtable at GDC since 2006 and have been a member of the committee ever since. It’s a subject dear to me, given that I was uncredited on the first three games I worked on (the online card games Chron X, Star Trek:ConQuest Online, and WWE With Authority — I joined the company after initial release and worked on expansions and updates). Mostly I have offered comments when new revisions of the Standards are sent around.

“You mention as a goal you’d like to “[increase the] IGDA’s role as a voice and advocate for individual developers, not just corporate studios.” Can you speak to how you’d go about leading this effort?”

This ties in with some other questions you ask about QoL and whether individual or studio rights come first (see below), and I will answer those specific questions in the other sections.

Other than that, I want the IGDA to position itself as the first place that developers think of when looking for an advocate. If some scandal breaks about credits or QoL or other issues important to developers, the IGDA should be releasing a clear statement of its position in a timely manner. It should also be a place for unified community discussion, and eventually action. While we do have forums and SIGs and local chapters, I think we can do a better job bringing these resources to developers and providing a safe and open forum so that developers can take positive steps together.

“One of your other goals is, “Supporting more ongoing events like the Members Only Webinars and Global Game Jam that add value to developers’ lives.” What kinds of events do you envision here?”

The blessing and curse of the IGDA is that it is largely a volunteer organization. The curse is that most people don’t have the time or inclination to actually volunteer for much. The blessing is that every now and then, one person comes up with a really awesome idea AND the energy to get the ball rolling on it.

I use the word “support” in that statement deliberately. This is not about the Board coming up with a Great Idea for an initiative. It is about encouraging members to find their own initiatives, and then provide total and ongoing support for those who do so. So, I see the IGDA more as a conduit than a source. I see its role as providing a way for people to promote their initiatives (through emailings and the IGDA newsletter and website), seek help (someone who has an idea but needs a partner to supply skills they personally lack), and share resources (perhaps someone with web space or a hosting company can provide discounted rates for IGDA initiatives) — these kinds of things, to get people the help they need to take their own volunteer projects further, and get them promoted.

So honestly, I’m not envisioning any specific kinds of events — rather, I’m envisioning that the incredibly creative and talented people in this industry have THEIR visions, and I want to help bring those out into the open for the benefit of everyone.

“You say that “the IGDA should be front and center” in any discussions about alternate employment arrangements, such as a Hollywood style contractor system or unionization. Do you see this as a role where the IGDA advocates for one side or another, a more neutral informational role, or something else altogether?”

A long time ago, I was confused about this. After all, the IGDA seems to straddle both worlds (individual developer and studio), as evidenced by a number of studio heads on the Board and also studio memberships. What happens when the needs of the individual conflict with the needs of the studio — where does IGDA stand?

It turns out that the Articles of Incorporation are very clear on this, as I was informed when I originally asked. The IGDA is not a trade organization; that is, it was founded very specifically to assist individual developers and not development companies. So, I see the IGDA as advocating for the individual, as per its stated mission.

“What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?”

Given my previous answer, this should be obvious: it should come down solidly in support of safe and sane work practices, and as a front-line advocate for the rights of developers. I think GameWatch.org was a great start, as a potential place where employees could anonymously report the working conditions at their studio (good or bad), and I think it is a shame that this was less of an IGDA initiative than an Erin Hoffman initiative. I would love to see the IGDA take more steps in this direction.

The thing that really kills me here is that there is a large body of documentation already showing that excessive crunch is detrimental not just to the individuals but to the company as well, so this really should be an area where developers and studios have aligned interests. But it seems like some studios still do not understand this, and in these cases the IGDA needs to advocate for the individual developers.

“Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?”

The IGDA is admittedly in a difficult position here. On the one hand, it’s a great revenue source at a time when everyone is struggling financially, and it provides a fairly low-cost benefit that employers can offer to their staff as one more part of a competitive benefits package. On the other hand, it makes it difficult for the IGDA to act decisively in situations where developer advocacy necessarily means alienating the studios that they work for. As an example, if some day the IGDA evolved into a union-like organization, how would studios feel about paying union dues so that their own employees could go on strike?
So, this is a conflict of interest. On the other hand, as I noted before, most of the time it is minor. Studios and individual developers usually want the same thing: to make great games that ship on time and on budget and make lots of money.

In the short term, studio memberships and sponsorships are likely not going away (at least, I do not feel comfortable promising otherwise). Long term, I would like to see the IGDA offer individual developers sufficient value that they are willing and able to pay their own dues, and seek alternate revenue sources that are not conflicts of interest, in order to wean itself off of studio-based income without experiencing a devastating revenue shortfall. First steps I see are to identify those other revenue sources and act on them.