[arg_discuss] ARG SIG Draft Constitution

[Andrea Phillips]

Brian makes some excellent points, many of which arise from the ways
the Writers SIG is different to ours. Which is, you know, OK. :)

I can think of a couple of other models that might work better for us,
though I'm not updating the draft in wiki without a little more
discussion. First, I'd suggest skipping the whole Committee business
-- I figure the whole SIG is our Committee, really -- and just elect
an executive group of, say, three people. We can either have a
secondary election among the SIG as a whole choosing one of those
three as chairman, or we can skip the whole chairman thing and just
allow executive decisions on a majority basis. (The reason to have an
executive at all has to do with IGDA-level administrative stuff;
holding email moderation rights, participating in the SIG-Admin group,
pulling GDC stuff together, etc.)

I am all for forming sub-committees for specific purposes, like, say,
running ARGology or scheduling IRC chats or coming up with Topic of
the Week topics, but we've had a lot of trouble in the past getting
solid commitments for this kind of thing. Do we thing formalizing
positions like that would encourage participation?


On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Brian Clark <bclark at gmdstudios.com> wrote:

> So I'm vomiting feedback here, perhaps as a way of getting a dialog going,

> but I'm not particularly passionate about any of these positions. Viva la

> "MEH!"

>

> 1. This proposed constitution essentially has:

>

>        Committee Members appoint new Committee Members

>        Committee Members elect Executive Members

>        Executive Members (2) can act in the stead of the Committee

>

> >From my personal experience, that works fine with small organizations where

> the Committee exists primarily as a group of catalysts, but can present

> intrinsic problems that feel cliquish as the organization grows. In essence,

> it means the membership of the SIG has no real role in the management of the

> SIG and, in worse case scenario, might end up existing simply as the voting

> body to appoint a "strong executive trio".

>

> 2. Similarly, the structure suggested is kinda divorced from the goals

> articulated. I tend to favor organization structures that grow from

> responsibility instead of authority. To illustrate, what if there were

> standing committees that anyone could join that were tasked with particular

> duties, and the organizing committee was in essence the chairs of each of

> those committees?

>

> 3. As articulated, committee membership looks like it is "for life" -- if

> you actually dropped dead for not apologizing for missing three meetings :)

>

> 4. I realize the "Caveat Lector" is meant tongue in cheek, but since that

> means "reader beware" it seems to imply that the committee or executives are

> free to disregard the constitution (or worse, "self-destruct it") if they

> find it expedient to do so.

>

> That said, my personal perception is that the SIG remains nascent primarily

> because it hasn't really committed itself to doing much more than chewing

> the fat or serving as a platform for canonizing individual's efforts, rather

> than because it lacks some system for governance. Until there is actually

> something to "govern," is this level of structure really needed ... or, to

> further mix Andrea's mixed metaphor, do we need to make sure the trains run

> on time if we haven't invented trains yet?

>

>

> Brian

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On

> Behalf Of Andrea Phillips

> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:24 PM

> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

> Subject: [arg_discuss] ARG SIG Draft Constitution

>

> Hello, friends and SIG members,

>

> Given Adam's decision to step down from the SIG leadership, I feel

> like it's time that we formalize the leadership and governing

> principles of the SIG a little better. For one thing, I'd really like

> for everybody feel like they have a stake in how the SIG is run and

> what its fate is; and if we have more hands on deck, maybe the trains

> will run on time around here. (Mea culpa!). (And forgive my mixed

> metaphors.)

>

> That said, I've cribbed heavily from the Writers SIG and drafted an

> ARG SIG Constitution:

> http://www.igda.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_Games_SIG/Constitution

>

> I figure we should take about two weeks to look at it and respond;

> based on feedback I (or you!) can make revisions to this Constitution,

> and then I'll find a way to set up a poll for us to vote on it

> anonymously to ratify. This may actually require a lot of discussion;

> for one thing, the Writers SIG is a lot bigger and more vocal than

> ours, so we might want only a single Executive (I already made the

> minimum goal Committee size smaller).

>

> I also plan to set up a chat session on the topic in about a week's

> time -- but I'm not sure what would be the most convenient day and

> time for the majority of SIG participants. If you've got anything to

> say on that, please speak up.

>

> Annnnnd have a lovely weekend, everybody. :)

>

> --

> Andrea Phillips

> http://www.deusexmachinatio.com

> Words * Culture * Interaction

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>




-- 
Andrea Phillips
http://www.deusexmachinatio.com
Words * Culture * Interaction