Next Steps

[Ron Toland]

Based on what Stephen's reported from the folks at Celtx, it looks
like we need to get formal approval from the Game Writing SIG, and
possible from the IGDA itself, to go forward with the partnership.

From others' comments, I think we're definitely ready to ask the SIG
for their endorsement (or rejection) of the proposed partnership. If
no one objects, I'll post to the SIG list (by tomorrow) asking for
just that.

From there, I think we'll need to put something together to present to
the IGDA. I think an overview of the Celtx software attached to
Stephen's Design Doc would be a good place to start.

Comments?

Ron

[Coray Seifert]

Sounds like a plan.

I think the only factors that remain to be determined are the specific prioritization of tasks.

Stephen, are you going to send that email to the Writers SIG? Sounds like once we get that list, Celtx can get started right?

- C

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Thanks for moving this forward Ron.

Ron Toland wrote:

Based on what Stephen's reported from the folks at Celtx, it looks
like we need to get formal approval from the Game Writing SIG, and
possible from the IGDA itself, to go forward with the partnership.

>From others' comments, I think we're definitely ready to ask the SIG
for their endorsement (or rejection) of the proposed partnership.  If
no one objects, I'll post to the SIG list (by tomorrow) asking for
just that.

"Formal Approval" would involve the WSIG board, not members, and IGDA board
approval. Mind you we can do this in stages...

>From there, I think we'll need to put something together to present to
the IGDA.  I think an overview of the Celtx software attached to
Stephen's Design Doc would be a good place to start.

I imagine creating our next design doc will be a much more collaborative effort, and will be much more involved; at least with Celtx.

Thanks again,
Stephen

Comments?

Ron

[Ron Toland]

So, should we email the members of the SIG board individually? Or
publish our request for approval to the SIG mailing list to maintain
transparency?

Ron

[Roane Beard]

It seems to me that we should seek out the approval of the SIG as a whole before moving forward to the board. At that point, the board will see we have broad buy-in from the affected members. After that, it makes sense to me to contact the board members individually to petition their support. That way, once it gets to the board, it will be likely to pass.

Just my thoughts.

-Roane

--
___________
Roane Beard
Staff Writer
Meteor Games

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Hey all,

Let me ask: What does "approval of the SIG as a whole " mean? I don't think we have quite the democracy we dream of. Is there some mean or quorum for voting, what is a "win"? It seems to me that we are making up the rules as we go along, and placing roadblocks on getting "votes" doesn't seem like a great idea to me. This all was created in and around the WSIG. We are the WSIG, and as such I don't think we need a voting system.

Corvus's survey was a great way to reach out to the rest of the WSIG outside the tools initiative. Anyone that wants to be involved can be.

I agree with Roane about petitioning the board members, but again to what ends?

Peace in the middle east,
Stephen

[Roane Beard]

Hmm. That's a good point. We don't strictly need some sort of formal approval from the SIG, but at the same time, if we can indicate that the majority of the people represented by the SIG are in support of this initiative, then we have a lot of ammunition going to the board; after all, the role of the SIG is to support the interests of the writers. If we come off as a small group of individuals in the SIG pursuing this initiative without broad support, the board has little reason to get behind it.

That said, it may be that the results of Corvus's survey are strong enough to indicate that we have that broad support.

The purpose of approaching the individual board members is to win their approval individually before moving on to the board as a whole. I know in school board politics, which I've unfortunately been a participant in, getting the backing of a board member before the meeting is the difference between success and failure. That said, I haven't followed IGDA politics *at all,* So I don't know if such a move is necessary.

Thoughts?

-Roane

[Corvus Elrod]

Are we talking about the SIG board, or the IGDA board? Seems to me we
might want to have our board take this to the IGDA board.

--Corvus

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

INT. VIRTUAL EXISTENCE - Day

Stephen DINEHART stops picking his big nose and looks to CORVUS.

                            DINEHART
                          (elated)
                        Bingo!!!!

O.S. Flashing Lights

SOUND: O.S. Sirens

DINEHART begins typing, despite the large bugger on his face.

I think you have the right idea. Coray has been our go to man for the board, maybe we should just prepare a nice doc and cover letter for the board?


Corvus Elrod wrote:

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

You have the right idea, let's work up a nice letter to solicit interest from IGDA board members. We are already very transparent, if anyone gets too worried about it, we can publish the letters. Let's me you and Coruvs pass around a draft until it clicks then we can solicit feedback if need be.

Stephen

Ron Toland wrote:

[Roane Beard]

Yeah, that's brilliant.

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

You should be in on it too bro, let's just keep it small. Heck maybe we should just invite everyone again to a conference call to talk about it? I imagine only us folks will be there in the the end.

I'll set it up for tomorrow evening.

Stephen

Roane Beard wrote:

[Coray Seifert]

Hey all,

I think we might be overthinking this a wee bit. This initiative is AWESOME and a no-brainer for the IGDA GWSIG to support, imho. I think if we just toss a simple write-up over to the committee which represents the SIG, they'll approve it, and that will be enough for us to put the IGDA Game Writers SIG stamp of approval on it.

As for going to the board, I don't think its really necessary. We could toss it their way as an fyi, but really the board places some pretty serious faith in the SIGs to push initiatives like this forward. My guess is their response would be "Awesome, we love this. What do you need us for?"

Let's get Celtx working on this asap. I want to be able to use it for my next project :)

Cheers,

- C

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Awesome!

Thanks for the kick in the ass Coray! You heard it hear first kids, let's keep it simple and move forward. I'll get on a draft of the write-up, unless we have other volunteers.

Cheers,
Stephen

Coray Seifert wrote: