International Game Developers Association

|| Game Writers SIG || Current Initiatives || Monthly Meeting Minutes ||

---

[edit] March 31, 2005

Chris Bateman: Right, welcome to the first Writers SIG committee meeting!
Chris Bateman: I'm hoping to keep this and any future meetings to no more than 60 minutes apiece, so we don't get dragged down.
Chris Bateman: We have no formal agenda for this one, as this is as much a feasibility test as anything else.
WendyDespain: yay for on-task meetings
Chris Bateman: Apart from the constitution, is there anything urgent that needs to be discussed at this meeting?
RDansky: I can give a quick update of some of the stuff I've had come through in email convos. Not vital, but interesting and pertinent.
Steve Jacobs: How to get beer and chiken wings transmitted through breeze?
RDansky: You're in Rochester. You're in charge of that one. You don't want the wings from down here, trust me.
WendyDespain: do we need to talk about a replacement for Raphael?
Chris Bateman: Ah yes, that's probably worth discussing after the constitution.
Chris Bateman: Plus we should schedule the next committee meeting. Shall we plan monthly on the last Thursday of each month?
Chris Bateman: Does everyone want to briefly pass judgement on the draft constitution?
Steve Jacobs: That should work for me most months until September anyway
Steve Jacobs: especially this 11:00 time
Steve Jacobs: Will likely have to attend a meeting at 12:00 in April
RDansky: Last Thursday of each month is going to get problematic for people on this side of the pond.
RDansky: You're potentially going to run up against Thanksgiving and Christmas at the end of the year.
Chris Bateman: What about first thursday of each month instead?
WendyDespain: first thursday should work for me most of the time
Steve Jacobs: Assuming this counts for April I'll have a 12:00 meeting in May, other than that dunno. Summer's always variable for me.
Chris Bateman: (This year and this year only I can't make Thursday 5th of May, having checked my book).
Steve Jacobs: Won't know my fall teaching schedule for about 60 days
Chris Bateman: Obviously we're going to have to be flexible. We should probably just aim for the first Thursday, but actually set the date on a case by case basis.
Steve Jacobs: agreed
WendyDespain: works for me
Chris Bateman: Can we schedule the next one for Thursday 28th of April, same time as this one? (4 pm /11 am/ 8 am()
Chris Bateman: Rich, any comments on schedule before we move on?
Steve Jacobs: long as I can duck out at 11:50 it works for me
Chris Bateman: As I say, I want to keep these meetings to 60 minutes or less, so having you duck out ten minutes before the end can only improve our focus. :)
RDansky: Schedule looks good. I hate to be a nag and stuff - just watching out for red flags down the road.
Steve Jacobs: dandy
WendyDespain: just put it on my calendar
Chris Bateman: It's good to have someone who spots these things - I know we frequently forget to check for local sporting events before scheduling the IGDA North West chapter meetings. :(
WendyDespain: so - moving right along to the constitution?
Chris Bateman: Yes, does everyone want to pass comment?
RDansky: "We, the writers, in order to form a more perfect...oh, never mind" :-)
Chris Bateman: (Obviously we want to keep things relatively flexible, but having the constitution should help give us some focus).
WendyDespain: yeah, i thought the preamble was funny. "This is a constitution."
RDansky: On a more serious note, I think on the whole it looks very good. I would probably drop the references to socriatic method and just do it - no sense getting people hung up on terms.
Steve Jacobs: works for me
WendyDespain: I think something still needs to be in there about how decisions are supposed to get made.
WendyDespain: but maybe something less specific?
Chris Bateman: I felt the need to explain "sociocratic consent" since it's not a very common term.
Chris Bateman: Happy to soften this part, as it stands out as it is.
RDansky: *nod* There should probably be a rider to the "miss two meetings" bit about making sure everyone knows about them :-)
Chris Bateman: It used to say "decisions by majority vote, no reasonable objection ignored" which might suffice.
RDansky: Oh, I meant keep the content. Just say "we're doing it like this", as opposed to "We're doing socriatic method, which is explained below".
Steve Jacobs: Skipping without notifying :-)
WendyDespain: ah, i see. I have no problem with the content as long as we keep the line in there about it being an example and not intended as strict method
Chris Bateman: Rewording clause 5 as follows:
Chris Bateman: Two absences from a Committee Meeting without apologies shall be considered a resignation of a Committee post (provided the Committee Member in question was notified of the meeting).
WendyDespain: and you make a good point, Rich. I could see someone sneaky using that to boot someone
RDansky: Thank you, Wendy. It's my ninja tabletop rules design powers - I'm always watching for powergamers :-)
WendyDespain: I'm okay with that wording
Steve Jacobs: would reword apologies to notification
WendyDespain: it's just the Brit coming out in Chris :-)
Chris Bateman: Apologies is a formal term for notification of absence from a meeting - in the UK at least.
Chris Bateman: Happy to reword.
Chris Bateman: Clause 1: 1. Organisation. The SIG will be organised by a Committee. Decisions will be made by the Committee using the principles of sociocratic consent (that is, no reasonable objections will be ignored).
Steve Jacobs: Ok I apologise :-)
WendyDespain: that wording works for me, too
WendyDespain: but then, the only objections I had involved typos :-)
Chris Bateman: Do you want me to take out the term 'apologies' in clause 5?
RDansky: Add the word "formal" in front of it and it's fine.
Chris Bateman: Revised clause 5: 5. Committee Meetings. Committee Members are expected to attend the regular Committee Meetings or to provide apologies for absence. Two absences from a Committee Meeting without formal apologies shall be considered a resignation of a Committee post (provided the Committee Member in question was notified of the meeting).
Steve Jacobs: ok by me
RDansky: Last word should probably be plural. Otherwise, it's golden.
Chris Bateman: Wendy?
WendyDespain: I'm good
WendyDespain: laggy, apparently. but good.
Chris Bateman: OK. I'll call that done for now. :)
Chris Bateman: Moving on... next order of business: replacing Raphael.
WendyDespain: I'll e-mail you the two typos I found
RDansky: I nominate Stephen
Chris Bateman: The only issue with "promoting" one of you two is that then we have three execs and one committee member, but it's no biggy.
Chris Bateman: Do you want to give a reason for nominating Stephen?
RDansky: I think both he and Wendy are sensible enough to run from the gig, but I think Wendy is faster and thus, we're more likely to catch Steve :-)
Chris Bateman: I nominate Wendy, on the grounds that Wendy has been utterly invaluable in the first year, and it would be good to get some gender representation in the exec. Of course, Stephen's been invaluable too, but alas he has a penis. :)
WendyDespain: you are a smart, smart man
Steve Jacobs: nice :-)
Steve Jacobs: If nominated I will serve, or something like that
WendyDespain: doh - playing the diversity card
WendyDespain: I must confess that I'm not a full member of IGDA at this point as I'm kind of too poor for the fees
RDansky: I suppose the real question to be asked here is "Do either of you want to be on the Executive"?
Steve Jacobs: DOn't want it that bad
WendyDespain: so I'm not sure I should be on the exec panel
Chris Bateman: *laughs*
Steve Jacobs: happy to keep penis and resign position
Chris Bateman: Steve, do you have IGDA membership?
Steve Jacobs: Yah
Steve Jacobs: There are two points to select Wendy over me
Chris Bateman: I think that might clinch it. :)
Steve Jacobs: one already mentioned, diversity
Chris Bateman: Of course, Wendy could buy a membership - they're cheaper now. :)
Steve Jacobs: second, being able to say execs must be industry pros, which I ain't
WendyDespain: Hmm, I only barely count as an industry pro if you look at it kind of sideways
WendyDespain: I've worked on some "alternative reality"-type online games
WendyDespain: and free MUDs and MOOs
Steve Jacobs: I think the committee could and should decide about the industry pro issue
Chris Bateman: I don't think it's about credentials, really... It's about who wants the position, and who would be good for the position. You'd both be good, do either of you want it?
Steve Jacobs: maybe even baking it in to the constitution
WendyDespain: Steve, However, brings a great perspective from the academic world which is in the constitution as being important to the sig
Chris Bateman: I don't want to get all WGA about the SIG and insist on proof of qualifications for membership... that would just be hideous.
Steve Jacobs: Happy to serve if Wendy doesn't want it
Steve Jacobs: Happy to not serve if she does
WendyDespain: what does it entail?
RDansky: For the record, I really don't want to get into Credentials Wars. If you're in the SIG at all, you're either a pro or trying to be one, and I'll take intent as proof in this case. Chris Bateman: Being on the exec? Not much more than being on the committee in real terms. It's just it only takes two members of the Exec to take action.
WendyDespain: I'm hesitant about stepping up as I prefer to run the world from behind the scenes with puppet leadership. But I'll do what needs to be done to keep the org. going.
RDansky: (Right. So Steven joins the Executive with the caveat that Wendy tells him what to do?) :-)
WendyDespain: don't kid yourselves, I'm already telling all three of you what to do ;-)
Steve Jacobs: ok :-), and I get to keep my organs
RDansky: *laugh* touche
WendyDespain: that's why Raphael bailed
RDansky: The whole "keeping your organs" thing?
WendyDespain: No complaints about Steve's biology
WendyDespain: heh, actually I meant that he didn't like me telling him what to do. but the timing came out funnier with the organ question.
RDansky: *grin*
Chris Bateman: Okay, we seem to have leaned to putting Steve into the exec, on the grounds that Wendy is happier behind the scenes. If everyone passes comment on that, we'll consider it done (object now or forever hold your pieces!)
WendyDespain: Yay Steve!
RDansky: As a followup topic, we should look into enlarging the Committee.
Chris Bateman: Yes, let's rebuild the exec first. We're seconds away.:)
Steve Jacobs: Thanks Wendy and I agree Richard
Chris Bateman: OK, done.
RDansky: Congratulations, Steve.
Chris Bateman: Right, next order of business is, as Rich says, getting more people ontot he committee.
Chris Bateman: The problem is - who do we have who will say they will do things, and do it (as opposed to say they will do things, then vanish without a trace).
RDansky: I think we've got a good bunch of motivated folks this year. Ed Kuehnel and Coray Seifert are really picking up the ball.
Chris Bateman: And a related point - we *desperately* need a new webmaster, as JoAnna is willing, but lacks time.
WendyDespain: I suggest that we go through another round of calling for volunteers etc. for the new inniatives, and see who steps up and who doesn't
WendyDespain: I'd second Coray Seifert
Chris Bateman: Yeah, I think it would be good to offer Coray a committee position. I'd be happy with Ed as well.
WendyDespain: I haven't had any interaction with Ed
Chris Bateman: Stephen: comments on Coray or Ed?
Steve Jacobs: I agree
Steve Jacobs: We also had some new faces show up this year who might be good
Chris Bateman: I'd like to make sure the committee doesn't end up all male. I'd like to suggest Rhianna Pratchett for a Committee post (if she's interested). I realise none of you have met her, though. :)
RDansky: She's definitely been a contributor.
Steve Jacobs: Seen her in the list though
WendyDespain: I second Rhianna - as long as she's available
Steve Jacobs: agreed
RDansky: No objections here.
Chris Bateman: Okay, then let's extend an invite to those three to join the committee. Shall I take care of that?
RDansky: If you'd like, sure thing.
WendyDespain: that kind of goes along with another topic - how do we break it to the other members that we've had this meeting without them - and make it sound like a good thing? Chris Bateman: It's not a case of like, more of a case of having a light workload this week, so wanting to contribute while I have the spare time. :)
WendyDespain: Also - I'm willing to step in as official webmaster.
RDansky: "Hey, guys, the org is going really well and we've got lots of new folks, so we took some time to just formalize all the stuff we've been doing."
Steve Jacobs: Wendy I think we can make it a good thing, while presenting it as an interim move
Chris Bateman: Well that'd be fantastic, if you don't mind the extra responsibility.
WendyDespain: as long as I'm allowed to get assistance from other members as needed
Chris Bateman: Wendy - if you're willing to take over the webmistress position, you can write your own ticket as far as I'm concerned!
Chris Bateman: Rich - do you want to address the SIG after this meeting and let them know what we've been up to? I think you can make it sound positive. :)
WendyDespain: Yes, Rich, I like the way you're wording things
Steve Jacobs: "here's how we're moving ahead, come get involved if you'd like"
WendyDespain: if you want another pair of eyes on the email, I'm happy to read it over
Chris Bateman: Yeah, we might want to run the draft over the committee, just as a precaution. I'm going to rubber stamp it automatically though, so don't wait for my response. :)
Chris Bateman: OK, that covers the agenda. Moving onto AOB (any other business).
RDansky: *grin* OK.
RDansky: Quick update on feedback from the initial post-GDC email
Steve Jacobs (private to Chris Bateman): do you want to discuss Wiley or sit on it for now?
RDansky: Ben Serviss is chomping at the bit to do whatever we ask him to. Ed K has volunteered to spearhead the credits effort. I've been in contact with the WGA folks and will be stepping that up. Incidentally, Suzanne Oshry apologized for being a bit, shall we say, over the top in the meeting.
Steve Jacobs (private to Chris Bateman): not the privacy send option in the lower right hand corner of chat window
Chris Bateman (privately): Let's leave it out for now - there's enough going on, and it's not vital. RDansky: Coray is good to go on the quarterly.
WendyDespain: on the quarterly sig report?
Steve Jacobs (presenters): all good
Chris Bateman: I've just remembered that Jason has offered us a listserv inside the IGDA structure... we don't have time to discuss this now, but I mention it so it can be on the agenda for the next meeting.
RDansky: Yes, Wendy - a la the one the Wireless group does.
WendyDespain: that's cool
Chris Bateman: Also, I spoke to someone on the Censorship committee who may have a draft document with a list of words that can and can't be used according to the ESRB - more news on this as it happens.
RDansky: (and scrolling back a few lines, I would love another pair of eyes on the email)
Chris Bateman: Wendy - we should probably maintain an agenda for the next meeting on the Wiki. Is the Wiki repaired, or should we wait for things to settle down?
Steve Jacobs: Do we want to invite one of the WGA crowd to becomre a committee member or keep them at arms length for now?
WendyDespain: oh - I need to give an update on the wiki situation
Chris Bateman: Re: WGA. Given that we have allowed anyone to attend the committee meetings, I think we should be fine. I'll bet somebody from the WGA will be happy to sit in on the meetings without us having to make them a full committee member. (Of course, if they have the time to offer and they want the post... different situation).
WendyDespain: wakkawiki - the old one - is pretty much useless at this point. there's a rampant worm/spider/whatever you want to call it and nobody interested in coding a fix for it. But that doesn't matter because there's a new, improved way of doing wiki with the IGDA.
RDansky: I'll talk to Jen about that, if you'd like.
RDansky: (the WGA stuff)
Chris Bateman: To Rich: yes, I have in my book to bug you about the WGA tomorrow. You are basically the sub-committee in charge of talking to the WGA.
Chris Bateman: To Wendy: when will the new Wiki be off the ground?
WendyDespain: There's now an IGDA-wide wiki, with other SIGs also getting in on the act. It's already up and running, though not very populated yet.
Chris Bateman: So do we need to migrate data to the new wiki?
Chris Bateman: [10 minute warning] Let's try and tie up all remaining conversations.
WendyDespain: It requires an IGDA registration - go to your profile page on the IGDA website. There's now a link to click to give yourself access to the wiki
WendyDespain: the same username and password will work on the wiki as work for the IGDA website and forums
WendyDespain: and yes - I'm slowly working on migrating data over to the new wiki
Chris Bateman: OK. I will go to the new Wiki tomorrow and see about setting up an agenda for the next meeting.
Chris Bateman: Re: migration - thanks. I appreciate it!
Steve Jacobs: will sign up today or tomorrow as well
WendyDespain: thank goodness for google cache
RDansky: Does someone want to volunteer to get the minutes to Jason? :-)
Chris Bateman: Are we all okay with the idea of 'publishing' our agenda on the wiki?
Chris Bateman: Steve: you said you could extract a transcript I think.
WendyDespain: I think putting our agenda on the wiki is a great idea - very open-government
Chris Bateman: If you can send a copy to the committee and to Jason that'd be perfect.
Steve Jacobs: I can grab a transcript and send it to Jason
Steve Jacobs: and committee
Chris Bateman: OK, great.
WendyDespain: i'll also write an email to group as a whole about the wiki, once i have the data migrated
Chris Bateman: I *think* that covers everything for this time out. Can everyone confirm there are no "dangling topics"?
WendyDespain: I'd like to talk more about the monthly sig reports i was doing (sort of)
RDansky: Where are we going to put the constitution if folks want to see it?
Steve Jacobs: nothing dangling for this meeting (will not go down the organ road here) :-)
Chris Bateman: We'll put the consitution into the Wiki.
Steve Jacobs: Wiki for constitution I think
WendyDespain: and i'll put it on the public website
WendyDespain: if anyone wants it there
RDansky: (and do we want to edit the penis references out of the transcript? :-)
Chris Bateman: Monthly sig reports... this might be a topic to put onto the next agenda for direct discussion.
Chris Bateman: Yes, public website too is also a good idea.
WendyDespain: i also plan to do another "call for volunteers" like we did last year at this time, unless there are any objections
Chris Bateman: I think a call for volunteers is always a good idea once a year.
WendyDespain: won't get it done today, but soonish
Steve Jacobs: Once the Wiki's rebuilt we should merge the data there with richards updates and then use it to craft an agenda for next month
WendyDespain: I'll combine the old list of inniatives with the new list from the latest meeting
WendyDespain: then I think next meeting we can talk about priorities
Steve Jacobs: SOunds good Wendy
RDansky: And hopefully I'll have more to talk about from the WGA side.
RDansky: Do we want to turn Coray loose on the quarterly in the interim?
Chris Bateman: Okay, next meeting we can talk about the initiatives, and the monthly updates etc. as a main topic for conversation.
WendyDespain: no objections to turning Coray loose
WendyDespain: although he may want to wait a bit as the dust settles. dunno
Chris Bateman: Let's get Coray onto the committee and into the next meeting... if he wants to get started on something prior to then, more power him.
RDansky: Sounds like a plan.
WendyDespain: also - i think we should leave in the bit about the penis (or lack thereof) as it shows the casual nature of our open government thingy
Chris Bateman: OK, I'm getting ready to call this first committee meeting concluded. I want to thank everyone both for coming to the meeting, and for their contributions over the last year - I'm really pleased with the direction everything is going.
WendyDespain: Yay writers SIG!

NOTE: private messages were also put into the transcript. Here's Stephen's explanation for what he said. "For the record, I've been able to identify an editor interested in the book proposal at Wiley. It's early days to tell whether there's anything there beyond a personal interest on his part and it'll likely be a month before we know if there's an offer in the offering :-)

As you saw, Chris didn't want to derail the flow of the meeting, especially since there's mostly speculation at this point."