@dammit I am not sure I agree with your last comment. I don't think that the data as it has been collated really gives us much useful information. As @Fengol pointed out: Be careful not to attribute correlation.
A problem I have with attributing too much to those stats is that it may lead to a belief that correlates forum activity to value added. Some people don't say much, others do. Some people get 'hearted' for useful comments / funny stuff, others don't. This does not reflect their over all contributions. If it did, we could simply draw forum activity as a 'voting system' and I do not for one second believe that our voting constituents are quite that easily swayed.
Voting for someone you agree with is not necessarily voting for a yes-man. Isn't that the point of voting? That you select people who you feel best represent your views and can therefore help steer the organisation in the direction that you would like to see it go? That is why people campaign - to tell others what they stand for so that those who agree with them will vote for them.
I agree that the voting system as it was implemented is not ideal. I think we should work to change it and improve it drastically as we go forward. But I do not support a re-vote at this stage.
I am so sorry, I am not at all trying to devalue the community! The community is the core of everything we do. I'm going to try to elaborate a bit on what I meant: a) The vast majority of people who are part of the community are not actively taking part in the organisation: look at the membership sign up. This worries me. We need everyone who is a part of the community to take more interest in the organisation. b) The organisation deals with the concerns of an industry as a whole, as well as those of the group of people who are active on the forums/attend meetings. c) An over emphasis on community involvement (forums and meetings?) has the danger of turning the committee into a popularity contest, and not a reflection of who is best placed to guide and promote the goals of the organisation. (note - some emphasis is absolutely necessary, just not an over emphasis) d) Forums and community are slippery, people argue, fragment and fall away - the organisation needs to live beyond this if it is going to be taken seriously outside of just these forum walls. e) The committee does not equal the organisation. They only administer and govern the organisation. It is useful to think of organisations as separate organisms. They have a different kind of standing in the world. They are made up of parts (crudely: members body, committee head) but they are things on their own - more than the sum of the parts.
so:
The community is the body of like minded people who make it happen, the reason for us to be here at all. The organisation is the legal entity that represents those people - but also an entire industry outside of just those people. The purpose of the community is to create a friendly welcoming helpful space for game development, thus driving the industry. The purpose of the organisation is to protect and promote the industry in spheres where a community can not reach.
Is this making more sense?
Thanks for the reply :)
It does provide quite a bit more clarity on the issue. But I suppose I still want things to be even more defined. And I'm also curios about how you see some things progressing.
In point A you raise that people from the community are not active enough in the organization. And in point C you caution against too much community involvement.
I agree that there is a balance between how active the community need be so that the organization can function optimally. I'm asking this since most of you post felt like it was addressing potential problems that could be quite a while down the road. So I'm interest in what kind of vision you feel like we are building towards.
I'm asking this since the organization is drawn from the community, and given that some people find the monthly meetup more important than the AGM. I'm wondering what we need to do to try and make an appropriate level of engagement in the organization seem more engaging.
Also in point D you raise the slippery slope that we serve the industry. But how do we divide the industry and community since the community is the primary point of contact for the organization: how does it reach those in the industry that are not part of the community?
---
@dammit yeah I agree with you. Hearts are a pretty useless metric. Hence why I can't actually say that there is any causation in the data, and just that there may be a some kind of correlation. I was mostly just curious to see if forum activity may have influenced the voting. Otherwise @Hanli pretty much said everything I was going to ;)
It is interesting that there is such a debate going on about the running of the AGM. I was nominated, but unfortunately was ill on the night of the AGM so couldn't attend.
Some comments about the corporate governance aspects that I'd like to point out - in general there doesn't seem to be any problem with the AGM and election from a corporate governance perspective. - Secret ballots are not mandatory and even listed companies will do a ballot by a show of hands and only based on participation rights (% ownership) if there is a specific request for that. I'm going to another AGM next month where members with too much money & time on their hands have actually gotten legal opinions about the validity of the elections at the AGM. The voting there is done by a show of hands. - There was a nomination procedure. This usually takes place before the AGM, but sometimes can take place at the AGM itself. - Nominees canvassing for votes? This rarely happens and is not necessary. If the community doesn't vote for someone because they don't know them or what they stand for - well that person could've done more to be visible. If they decide not to - then that is the nominee's choice. That there is the CT-JHB split makes sense because people will vote for those people they're more familiar with and they're more likely to have met someone in their home town. - It depends on the rules of the organisation as to whether people stand for a particular position or whether they stand for the committee and the committee then gets to assign the positions. This is not cast in stone. - The timing is at the discretion of the committee. 30 April may not have been the best date given all the public holidays, but sufficient notice was given. I have been involved in a situation where the AGM was scheduled during office hours which was inconvenient for most of the attendees, but they did so anyways despite requests for it to be changed. The only thing that matters is is a quorum of members - as defined by the organisation is in attendance. I know of at least one AGM where the speakers are only prepared for the 2nd meeting because year after year it is deferred due to lack of a quorum (at which point the quorum rules no longer apply) - who can vote - this is probably the most contentious issue especially because there is no specific definition of membership. Most of the "good governance" literature deals with organisations where the stakeholders are clearly identified by ownership, but even in the corporate environment the definition leaves out other interests such as environmentalists and labour.
Technology has meant that the process has become more inclusive - it was only 10 years ago that you had to travel to an AGM - but it still has its teething problems.
Generally being part of the committee is thankless backbreaking work that will by definition have at least one person complaining about what they do. My limited interaction with MGSA is that the members are keen to put the society first and if someone wasn't elected I'm sure that the committee would welcome their help and assistance (I'm around to help with accounting and financial stuff even though I wasn't elected.)
Lets support the current committee in what they have to do for the next 12 months rather than make them feel that there is a threat of new elections hanging over their heads at every turn. It will also harm the image of the organisation in the eyes of potential donors and supporters. The good news is that the process allows for the replacement of office bearers in 12 months and all members can campaign etc. if they feel the need to have a specific change made.
While you're thinking I have some extra food for thought :)
With the trouble of trying to get people more interested in the organization we likely need to have some kind of entry standard and member check.
As it would be possible to create two fake forum accounts for the nomination process, and then hire a large number of people to attend the meeting sign up to be members and vote the person that hired them as chair. And I doubt people going that far would really stop unless they voted in an entire committee of their choosing.
Even with the revolution clause this is still a problem since all those people will, and will forever, be members of the organization so trying to meet 66 or 75% member votes for a revolution will be substantially harder.
Yes I know it is really unlikely to happen. And it's probably more in @LexAquillia's department than yours. But it is something that will effect trying to get more people involved in the organization when there will be a least a circle to jump through in order to join.
Just a thought: on the revolution thing. How about a membership can be revoked if contested by more than 50% - 75% of the currently sitting committee? I think the chances of the entire existing and sitting committee being "evil" and collusive is much less likely than a hostile takeover situation, yeah?
If makegamesa had a paid for membership, I think it would eliminate most of these perceived issues.
1) Vested interest - people would vote because it is in their financial interest to do so. When something is paid for it has value.
2) Non Members Votes - I also noted several people that I haven't seen before who were voting, I actually mentioned this to Travis. If Members only were given the enfranchisement then you would be guaranteed to get a fair proportional representation of the electorate with their vested interest.
3) Professional Voting conditions - With the funds from the above said membership a developer could easily be paid to program an online voting tool or some such voting device.
and so forth.
I think that we need to seriously put forward the idea of a paid membership. That is not to scare people away, but if folks would like to come to more than 1 meetup then they should have to sign up so that we can all enjoy the benefits of the community.
I do agree that a paid membership for voting only could possibly help. As long as the cost is kept low (like R50 or R100) and that special cases like disadvantaged students/members can get the fee waived.
I disagree with your last point on paying to attend meetups, the meetups are primarily for the community not the association. We have had a tough enough job getting students/enthusiasts to attend 1 meetup never mind getting them to pay/signup to attend more than one... It just seems like a very exclusive thing to do.
My parents have always been members of one form of club or another and I am talking 40 years here of membership at a vast array of communities in SA and each and every one requires a membership fee to join and participate in. I am not sure why mgsa would be any different? I do not think we would have problems getting people to attend - the joburg group has massive interest, sometimes out of the door. The fee would not be to sponsor a grade 12, I would think the membership fee would be used as an allowance for bottled water, tshirts etc - things that make a community feel like a supported community.
I agree with @creative630. The money could go a long way towards the community, but at the same time paying for the meetup is against the spirit. Paying to be a member is great and will eliminate silly takeover stunts - THOUGH. If someone can be bothered to get 100 people to come in to vote for a hostile takeover, R5000 is trivial.
And I'm sure that meetups with entrance fees (even at R50 per month or whatever) WILL turn people away. This is certain. It's really not a foregone conclusion that people *will* come to the meetups. Those that do regularly are in the minority. We need to encourage not discourage that behaviour.
I maintain that we should reserve the right for the committee to revoke membership if there's an agreement of 50% -80% of the committee on the matter.
Also... If the committee gets money, I don't think we should waste it on bottled water :) We will have t-shirts - in fact we do have t-shirts - but they are paid for by whoever wants them. And R50-R100 isn't enough to cover for a t-shirt per person anyway. It has to be for something else.
I know you didn't mean verbatim those items exactly, but I just want to say that we must be careful about spending on inefficient things.
Point 5.6 of our constitution states that "General members will not need to pay subscriptions". This doesn't exclude us from creating other types of membership with costs, but 5.5 ."a general member has the right to attend, and vote at the Organisation's annual general meeting"
Point 5.6 of our constitution states that "General members will not need to pay subscriptions". This doesn't exclude us from creating other types of membership with costs, but 5.5 ."a general member has the right to attend, and vote at the Organisation's annual general meeting"
Point 5.6 of our constitution states that "General members will not need to pay subscriptions". This doesn't exclude us from creating other types of membership with costs, but 5.5 ."a general member has the right to attend, and vote at the Organisation's annual general meeting"
Constitutions can be amended, right - I'll need to check the constitution.
I didn't mean pay per meeting, but rather to be a member and as such attend as a member and not a regular etc.
Hmm? I don't quite know what you mean, what's the difference then to attend as a member and not a "regular"? It hardly matters if you pay once a month or once a meeting. The frequency doesn't matter.
You'd go to the meetups, and then... Have speaking rights? Sounds a bit strange. A bit pretentious, if it were structured like that. I can't think of a "membe power" that doesn't feel pretentious. Any ideas?
Damn, I deleted my post. Anyways. So a member would receive certain benefits that a non member would not. Maybe a badge on the forum. Maybe the use of the powered by makegamesa logo Maybe a Shirt from mgsa Power to vote etc.
Just a rushed note to address the 'unknowns' at the jhb meetup: Most of the people you likely didn't recognize at the Jhb meeting were students. These are people with a vested interest in MGSA, who follow our activities closely and hope to work in the industry one day. Most of them are on the forums, but they read and watch, the shyer/younger ones don't really comment. They can't all attend meetups as not every student can get there. (a point that has also been discussed often). But they are all able to be in Braamfontein in and around Wits. Having the meetups at Microsoft makes them available to only a very specific geographical and economic grouping. This is something we accept. But THIS is the danger of equating membership to the organisation to the 'community' (read: forums and meetups): "I didn't recognize them so by what right do they vote". Yes, the meetups are were we receive the best of the MGSA but that is not all we are working towards. People have an interest in MGSA who cannot necessarily be as visible as others.
I do actually think that paid membership is something we should consider - provided it is a token payment. If we want to grow the diversity of the organisation we need to come to terms with the fact that not every one is in the same financial position.
A lot of this discussion has turned to some form or another of gate keeping. This worries me.
I remember keenly how hard we have worked to make this community a safe space in which everyone can feel welcome, and I am keenly aware of how hard we still need to work to make MGSA a truly representative body.
Having the meetups at Microsoft makes them available to only a very specific geographical and economic grouping. This is something we accept. But THIS is the danger of equating membership to the organisation to the 'community' (read: forums and meetups): "I didn't recognize them so by what right do they vote".
100% agreed.
This is always a problem that's solved by more communication, from everyone involved. Committee nominees could explain what motivated them to run. People could explain why they nominated committee members. Posters could post more. Lurkers could lurk less and participate more - if there are participation frameworks missing, then that's a problem that can be addressed too.
But as for wanting membership tiers because we're essentially worried about potential "takeovers" by hostile groups of people who... want to stop the MGSA from doing good things? Well... Uh. Paranoid much? Yes, we want to have secure and safe online voting, but only because it's a better way to allow people to vote who can't make it to locations in person. Yes, we want to have safe and non-judgemental in-person voting procedures so that people can vote for who they really feel would be the best candidate instead of the one they think that others might want them to vote for. Neither of those things need participation gates in place, just verification gates to prevent the easiest of trolling.
Breaking things is always going to be easier than building them. We've been building this community, this association, for years now. There's been some pretty strong hate directed at it at times, it's still here. People that break things are lazy - all we have to do is make it require a little bit of effort and they'll give up. And if it does all break due to some evil mastermind and their carefully laid plans? Cool, we'll build it again. That's what we do: Build things.
Point 5.6 of our constitution states that "General members will not need to pay subscriptions". This doesn't exclude us from creating other types of membership with costs, but 5.5 ."a general member has the right to attend, and vote at the Organisation's annual general meeting"
As @bischonater says, this can be changed, with the right procedures.
I would be very against any kind of fee to attend, present at or speak at the meetups. We want to to grow the community, and some kind of paywall to getting content at the meetups or people to attend would work against that.
I am heavily in favor of paid MGSA org membership though. Pretty much any professional association that does any kind of real work to benefit it's members (such as working with government) has a membership fee. These things take time and have associated costs, and there's nothing wrong with having an entry fee to help with that. There shouldn't be an expectation of a material return on that fee (T-shirts). The fees are to help run things.
We could easily have a "normal" cost and a "student" cost, eg R50 and R10. Perhaps even a company membership cost for which companies can claim association and support on their websites. These amounts won't break the bank for members or make the association rich, but they will help towards some of the lesser costs.
It was mentioned at the AGM that MakeGames is now generating too much work for a volunteer-only committee to cover, and that some kind of paid MakeGames position might be necessary to avoid missing out on opportunities. As far as I can tell, not much has been said of this beyond what was said at the AGM. I don't know if this is something that is being planned on being tackled soon, or if it is a problem which can wait a while. But here are my thoughts in any case:
I hate the idea of MakeGames being unable to pursue every avenue of opportunity because the organization doesn't have the manpower, and I hate the idea of the committee being overloaded and the committee members feeling guilty for these missed opportunities, despite the committee members being in unpaid volunteer positions.
However, I'm not certain I want membership fees, or a distinction between paid members and unpaid members. If it were possible to raise the funds via donations I'd think that would be ideal. But I'm not particularly against membership fees either. I personally benefit a lot more than whatever the annual fee might be for having an organization like MakeGames routing for me.
Though for me what's important is that if it is necessary (in the near future) for one (or more) members of the committee to receive payment for their time in order to spend more time on the job (should they be willing), or if it is necessary to hire some kind of assistant to the committee, then we find a way to fund it.
(Just to be clear, I don't think that adding more volunteers to help with the committees workload is the best solution. There are enough potential volunteers, but I think that managing a significantly larger workforce of volunteers would be a burden in itself. Some problems would be better solved by a single persistent person, and for that they need to invest a lot of time, and for that they deserve remuneration).
(I'm also not trying to derail the discussion from the dissatisfaction with the vote and for ways to solve that problem, and to establish a better system going forward. If the volunteer-only problem is an urgent one then perhaps this is a matter for another thread?)
"I hate the idea of MakeGames being unable to pursue every avenue of opportunity because the organization doesn't have the manpower, and I hate the idea of the committee being overloaded and the committee members feeling guilty for these missed opportunities, despite the committee members being in unpaid volunteer positions."
mgsa needs to establish a revenue stream before it can even consider hiring somebody. I would assume at least 10k a month gross salary and operating costs which is 120k p/a at the low end of the salary spectrum. mgsa needs to make money and I do not see any money making ambition (50 rand a year joining fee won't cut it) from the association bar donations. I think if this is then the only way to proceed then we need an easy to see link with monthly donation targets and so forth.
I do not see any money making ambition (50 rand a year joining fee won't cut it) from the association bar donations.
That's because you're not aware of the discussions that are going on pretty much continuously as we try to find partnerships that allow MGSA to have income streams. We can't talk about things that are in progress because they're not final. Some of these things have been slowly churning away for years. Without someone as driven as Nick, a lot of these things would have dried up by now.
@dislekcia Out of curiosity. (And if you know) Is the matter of some kind of paid position at MakeGames urgent? (or is it something to keep in mind for next year or later).
And is it likely that MakeGames will have money in the near future to support that kind of expense, or other kinds of expenses?
I feel like the people who are suggesting membership fees are doing so out of concern for the operating costs of an organization like MakeGames, because the assumption is that MakeGames doesn't have any money, and isn't likely to have money unless something changes. That was the impression I received at the AGM in any case.
And lastly. Is this all in a report somewhere that I've been too lazy to read? In which case the previous two questions are moot, and I apologize.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky: As far as I'm aware, no it's not a pressing matter. Obviously it would be nice to have sooner and it's something that we feel MGSA needs in order to keep growing, but it's not that we absolutely have to get money now or the entire committee stops doing what it's doing or the webservers spontaneously combust or anything like that.
As for it being likely that MGSA will have money to cover expenses soon, probably not. That means we can't really incur expenses yet ;)
I think membership fee discussions arise naturally once anyone starts talking about different sorts of membership and voting rights in the community. I know that personally I'm super against membership fees because I believe that if we're doing something worthwhile, there should be other ways that we can turn that into financial support. It's those kinds of support that Nick is working on opening up. Things are definitely interesting right now and everyone should be super-glad that someone like Nick is pushing for MGSA. Also, as soon as anything becomes concrete, everyone will know :)
P.S. That's not to say that ideas on how MGSA could make money aren't welcome, they totally are. It's just that ideas like selling merchandise or taking fees from members in ways that mean someone has to spend extra time doing just that task, and not really growing the MGSA, are going to have to be really lucrative to gain traction.
To all the posts regarding communication disconnects, I've chatted to a few committee members about creating a monthly (or otherwise regular) newsletter which would contain this kind of information for those who wish to be kept up to date (as well as other awesome stuff).
I am literally going to the HTML email course workshop this week to be able to create smexy newsletters and then it's a matter of getting a signup button on the Facebook page (plox @Fengol) as well as a link on the forums and then driving people to sign up (go go @Bensonance). We've got some volunteers for creating arts things (@Damousey) so we're almost ready to roll :)
It will then just be a matter of getting committee members - and everyone else who needs/wants to be featured in the newsletter - to respond with the necessary infos so that it can all be included :)
To all the posts regarding communication disconnects, I've chatted to a few committee members about creating a monthly (or otherwise regular) newsletter which would contain this kind of information for those who wish to be kept up to date (as well as other awesome stuff).
I am literally going to the HTML email course workshop this week to be able to create smexy newsletters and then it's a matter of getting a signup button on the Facebook page (plox @Fengol) as well as a link on the forums and then driving people to sign up (go go @Bensonance). We've got some volunteers for creating arts things (@Damousey) so we're almost ready to roll :)
It will then just be a matter of getting committee members - and everyone else who needs/wants to be featured in the newsletter - to respond with the necessary infos so that it can all be included :)
Great idea.
Remember that you can always use mailchimp (for free > 2000 Subs ) and they already have the html templates to modify - they are easy to use and quick to setup.
If you need any assistance pop me an email. Info@stasisgame.com Other than our 3d co I have run a web Dev and hosting company for 13 years so I can lend a hand if need be.
@bischonator When you quoted @dislekcia and spoke about communication disconnects you left off the immediately preceding sentence which gives context and addresses this:
We can't talk about things that are in progress because they're not final.
This is a real concern that seems to be misunderstood. While there are many breaks in communication, something we are very aware of and trying to address as we go forward, things that are confidential can not be published. That is why the word confidential is used: it can not be publicly discussed.
For example: THIS IS NOT TRUE, IT IS A MADE UP EXAMPLE If I were in negotiation with Wits to arrange something, and I wrote that here, many things could go wrong: Like: a) A member of the press could run with it, even though it is still in negotiation. Even if they say 'still in negotiation' it impacts the public image / publicity management of the organisation. This would severely piss off a large institution that manages their press very very carefully - like Wits. In the Wits example, I would probably then get called in and shat on for a few hours, and marketing would respond - canning it on the spot. b) People could speak of it like it is happening (this happens often as everyone gets excited) and it gets back to someone who has not been consulted yet (large organisations take TIME). We would loose the good faith of the organisation. With one person in the food chain of a large organisation feeling put-upon the whole thing gets sidelined. In the Wits example, things go through so many meetings and committees that the number of people you need on your side is staggering. That is a lot of scope for things to go wrong. c) People could get really excited, and if it fell through (which is likely in early stages of negotiation) it could disappoint everyone. d) In large organisation is can take months to even get an appointment with the right person. If you announce things that you can only update in 4 months, it seems that is has come to a halt - it hasn't that is just the way the wheel turns. There are many more scenarios, these are just top of mind. Please let me state again: THIS IS NOT TRUE, IT IS A MADE UP EXAMPLE
We are not 'keeping secrets', we are negotiating. That is the role of the committee, and is why we need to act in good faith with the community.
This is where we currently have a problem: communication breakdowns with day to day things break this faith. We will work to rebuild it, and make sure that we are more on top of things going forward.
When I communicate with my staff at our weekly meetings to discuss where we are and where we are going I inform them that we may have a large potential project in the next week etc, but I do not necessarily give them client details and specifics as they may be in planning, confidential or not confirmed at that point in time. However, I keep them abreast of the general picture as to avoid a communication disconnect on the process forward. In your summation you have clarified my point, we as the mgsa community need to know what is going on. It was clear from Nick last night that he has oodles of projects on the go and I really appreciated that he is letting us know so we can be excited and involved. So hats off to you guys already.
Comments
I am not sure I agree with your last comment. I don't think that the data as it has been collated really gives us much useful information. As @Fengol pointed out: Be careful not to attribute correlation.
A problem I have with attributing too much to those stats is that it may lead to a belief that correlates forum activity to value added.
Some people don't say much, others do. Some people get 'hearted' for useful comments / funny stuff, others don't. This does not reflect their over all contributions. If it did, we could simply draw forum activity as a 'voting system' and I do not for one second believe that our voting constituents are quite that easily swayed.
Voting for someone you agree with is not necessarily voting for a yes-man. Isn't that the point of voting? That you select people who you feel best represent your views and can therefore help steer the organisation in the direction that you would like to see it go? That is why people campaign - to tell others what they stand for so that those who agree with them will vote for them.
I agree that the voting system as it was implemented is not ideal. I think we should work to change it and improve it drastically as we go forward. But I do not support a re-vote at this stage.
It does provide quite a bit more clarity on the issue. But I suppose I still want things to be even more defined. And I'm also curios about how you see some things progressing.
In point A you raise that people from the community are not active enough in the organization. And in point C you caution against too much community involvement.
I agree that there is a balance between how active the community need be so that the organization can function optimally. I'm asking this since most of you post felt like it was addressing potential problems that could be quite a while down the road. So I'm interest in what kind of vision you feel like we are building towards.
I'm asking this since the organization is drawn from the community, and given that some people find the monthly meetup more important than the AGM. I'm wondering what we need to do to try and make an appropriate level of engagement in the organization seem more engaging.
Also in point D you raise the slippery slope that we serve the industry. But how do we divide the industry and community since the community is the primary point of contact for the organization: how does it reach those in the industry that are not part of the community?
---
@dammit yeah I agree with you. Hearts are a pretty useless metric. Hence why I can't actually say that there is any causation in the data, and just that there may be a some kind of correlation. I was mostly just curious to see if forum activity may have influenced the voting. Otherwise @Hanli pretty much said everything I was going to ;)
Some comments about the corporate governance aspects that I'd like to point out
- in general there doesn't seem to be any problem with the AGM and election from a corporate governance perspective.
- Secret ballots are not mandatory and even listed companies will do a ballot by a show of hands and only based on participation rights (% ownership) if there is a specific request for that. I'm going to another AGM next month where members with too much money & time on their hands have actually gotten legal opinions about the validity of the elections at the AGM. The voting there is done by a show of hands.
- There was a nomination procedure. This usually takes place before the AGM, but sometimes can take place at the AGM itself.
- Nominees canvassing for votes? This rarely happens and is not necessary. If the community doesn't vote for someone because they don't know them or what they stand for - well that person could've done more to be visible. If they decide not to - then that is the nominee's choice. That there is the CT-JHB split makes sense because people will vote for those people they're more familiar with and they're more likely to have met someone in their home town.
- It depends on the rules of the organisation as to whether people stand for a particular position or whether they stand for the committee and the committee then gets to assign the positions. This is not cast in stone.
- The timing is at the discretion of the committee. 30 April may not have been the best date given all the public holidays, but sufficient notice was given. I have been involved in a situation where the AGM was scheduled during office hours which was inconvenient for most of the attendees, but they did so anyways despite requests for it to be changed. The only thing that matters is is a quorum of members - as defined by the organisation is in attendance. I know of at least one AGM where the speakers are only prepared for the 2nd meeting because year after year it is deferred due to lack of a quorum (at which point the quorum rules no longer apply)
- who can vote - this is probably the most contentious issue especially because there is no specific definition of membership. Most of the "good governance" literature deals with organisations where the stakeholders are clearly identified by ownership, but even in the corporate environment the definition leaves out other interests such as environmentalists and labour.
Technology has meant that the process has become more inclusive - it was only 10 years ago that you had to travel to an AGM - but it still has its teething problems.
Generally being part of the committee is thankless backbreaking work that will by definition have at least one person complaining about what they do. My limited interaction with MGSA is that the members are keen to put the society first and if someone wasn't elected I'm sure that the committee would welcome their help and assistance (I'm around to help with accounting and financial stuff even though I wasn't elected.)
Lets support the current committee in what they have to do for the next 12 months rather than make them feel that there is a threat of new elections hanging over their heads at every turn. It will also harm the image of the organisation in the eyes of potential donors and supporters. The good news is that the process allows for the replacement of office bearers in 12 months and all members can campaign etc. if they feel the need to have a specific change made.
Thank you so much for your post. I could not agree with you more on every single point.
@Karuji
Excellent questions. Let me think on it a while please :)
While you're thinking I have some extra food for thought :)
With the trouble of trying to get people more interested in the organization we likely need to have some kind of entry standard and member check.
As it would be possible to create two fake forum accounts for the nomination process, and then hire a large number of people to attend the meeting sign up to be members and vote the person that hired them as chair. And I doubt people going that far would really stop unless they voted in an entire committee of their choosing.
Even with the revolution clause this is still a problem since all those people will, and will forever, be members of the organization so trying to meet 66 or 75% member votes for a revolution will be substantially harder.
Yes I know it is really unlikely to happen. And it's probably more in @LexAquillia's department than yours. But it is something that will effect trying to get more people involved in the organization when there will be a least a circle to jump through in order to join.
If makegamesa had a paid for membership, I think it would eliminate most of these perceived issues.
1) Vested interest - people would vote because it is in their financial interest to do so. When something is paid for it has value.
2) Non Members Votes - I also noted several people that I haven't seen before who were voting, I actually mentioned this to Travis. If Members only were given the enfranchisement then you would be guaranteed to get a fair proportional representation of the electorate with their vested interest.
3) Professional Voting conditions - With the funds from the above said membership a developer could easily be paid to program an online voting tool or some such voting device.
and so forth.
I think that we need to seriously put forward the idea of a paid membership. That is not to scare people away, but if folks would like to come to more than 1 meetup then they should have to sign up so that we can all enjoy the benefits of the community.
I disagree with your last point on paying to attend meetups, the meetups are primarily for the community not the association. We have had a tough enough job getting students/enthusiasts to attend 1 meetup never mind getting them to pay/signup to attend more than one... It just seems like a very exclusive thing to do.
And I'm sure that meetups with entrance fees (even at R50 per month or whatever) WILL turn people away. This is certain. It's really not a foregone conclusion that people *will* come to the meetups. Those that do regularly are in the minority. We need to encourage not discourage that behaviour.
I maintain that we should reserve the right for the committee to revoke membership if there's an agreement of 50% -80% of the committee on the matter.
Also... If the committee gets money, I don't think we should waste it on bottled water :) We will have t-shirts - in fact we do have t-shirts - but they are paid for by whoever wants them. And R50-R100 isn't enough to cover for a t-shirt per person anyway. It has to be for something else.
I know you didn't mean verbatim those items exactly, but I just want to say that we must be careful about spending on inefficient things.
You'd go to the meetups, and then... Have speaking rights? Sounds a bit strange. A bit pretentious, if it were structured like that. I can't think of a "membe power" that doesn't feel pretentious. Any ideas?
Maybe a badge on the forum.
Maybe the use of the powered by makegamesa logo
Maybe a Shirt from mgsa
Power to vote etc.
Most of the people you likely didn't recognize at the Jhb meeting were students. These are people with a vested interest in MGSA, who follow our activities closely and hope to work in the industry one day. Most of them are on the forums, but they read and watch, the shyer/younger ones don't really comment. They can't all attend meetups as not every student can get there. (a point that has also been discussed often). But they are all able to be in Braamfontein in and around Wits.
Having the meetups at Microsoft makes them available to only a very specific geographical and economic grouping. This is something we accept.
But THIS is the danger of equating membership to the organisation to the 'community' (read: forums and meetups): "I didn't recognize them so by what right do they vote".
Yes, the meetups are were we receive the best of the MGSA but that is not all we are working towards. People have an interest in MGSA who cannot necessarily be as visible as others.
I do actually think that paid membership is something we should consider - provided it is a token payment. If we want to grow the diversity of the organisation we need to come to terms with the fact that not every one is in the same financial position.
A lot of this discussion has turned to some form or another of gate keeping. This worries me.
I remember keenly how hard we have worked to make this community a safe space in which everyone can feel welcome, and I am keenly aware of how hard we still need to work to make MGSA a truly representative body.
This is always a problem that's solved by more communication, from everyone involved. Committee nominees could explain what motivated them to run. People could explain why they nominated committee members. Posters could post more. Lurkers could lurk less and participate more - if there are participation frameworks missing, then that's a problem that can be addressed too.
But as for wanting membership tiers because we're essentially worried about potential "takeovers" by hostile groups of people who... want to stop the MGSA from doing good things? Well... Uh. Paranoid much? Yes, we want to have secure and safe online voting, but only because it's a better way to allow people to vote who can't make it to locations in person. Yes, we want to have safe and non-judgemental in-person voting procedures so that people can vote for who they really feel would be the best candidate instead of the one they think that others might want them to vote for. Neither of those things need participation gates in place, just verification gates to prevent the easiest of trolling.
Breaking things is always going to be easier than building them. We've been building this community, this association, for years now. There's been some pretty strong hate directed at it at times, it's still here. People that break things are lazy - all we have to do is make it require a little bit of effort and they'll give up. And if it does all break due to some evil mastermind and their carefully laid plans? Cool, we'll build it again. That's what we do: Build things.
I would be very against any kind of fee to attend, present at or speak at the meetups. We want to to grow the community, and some kind of paywall to getting content at the meetups or people to attend would work against that.
I am heavily in favor of paid MGSA org membership though. Pretty much any professional association that does any kind of real work to benefit it's members (such as working with government) has a membership fee. These things take time and have associated costs, and there's nothing wrong with having an entry fee to help with that. There shouldn't be an expectation of a material return on that fee (T-shirts). The fees are to help run things.
We could easily have a "normal" cost and a "student" cost, eg R50 and R10. Perhaps even a company membership cost for which companies can claim association and support on their websites. These amounts won't break the bank for members or make the association rich, but they will help towards some of the lesser costs.
It was mentioned at the AGM that MakeGames is now generating too much work for a volunteer-only committee to cover, and that some kind of paid MakeGames position might be necessary to avoid missing out on opportunities.
As far as I can tell, not much has been said of this beyond what was said at the AGM. I don't know if this is something that is being planned on being tackled soon, or if it is a problem which can wait a while. But here are my thoughts in any case:
I hate the idea of MakeGames being unable to pursue every avenue of opportunity because the organization doesn't have the manpower, and I hate the idea of the committee being overloaded and the committee members feeling guilty for these missed opportunities, despite the committee members being in unpaid volunteer positions.
However, I'm not certain I want membership fees, or a distinction between paid members and unpaid members. If it were possible to raise the funds via donations I'd think that would be ideal. But I'm not particularly against membership fees either. I personally benefit a lot more than whatever the annual fee might be for having an organization like MakeGames routing for me.
Though for me what's important is that if it is necessary (in the near future) for one (or more) members of the committee to receive payment for their time in order to spend more time on the job (should they be willing), or if it is necessary to hire some kind of assistant to the committee, then we find a way to fund it.
(Just to be clear, I don't think that adding more volunteers to help with the committees workload is the best solution. There are enough potential volunteers, but I think that managing a significantly larger workforce of volunteers would be a burden in itself. Some problems would be better solved by a single persistent person, and for that they need to invest a lot of time, and for that they deserve remuneration).
(I'm also not trying to derail the discussion from the dissatisfaction with the vote and for ways to solve that problem, and to establish a better system going forward. If the volunteer-only problem is an urgent one then perhaps this is a matter for another thread?)
mgsa needs to establish a revenue stream before it can even consider hiring somebody.
I would assume at least 10k a month gross salary and operating costs which is 120k p/a at the low end of the salary spectrum.
mgsa needs to make money and I do not see any money making ambition (50 rand a year joining fee won't cut it) from the association bar donations. I think if this is then the only way to proceed then we need an easy to see link with monthly donation targets and so forth.
And is it likely that MakeGames will have money in the near future to support that kind of expense, or other kinds of expenses?
I feel like the people who are suggesting membership fees are doing so out of concern for the operating costs of an organization like MakeGames, because the assumption is that MakeGames doesn't have any money, and isn't likely to have money unless something changes. That was the impression I received at the AGM in any case.
And lastly. Is this all in a report somewhere that I've been too lazy to read? In which case the previous two questions are moot, and I apologize.
As for it being likely that MGSA will have money to cover expenses soon, probably not. That means we can't really incur expenses yet ;)
I think membership fee discussions arise naturally once anyone starts talking about different sorts of membership and voting rights in the community. I know that personally I'm super against membership fees because I believe that if we're doing something worthwhile, there should be other ways that we can turn that into financial support. It's those kinds of support that Nick is working on opening up. Things are definitely interesting right now and everyone should be super-glad that someone like Nick is pushing for MGSA. Also, as soon as anything becomes concrete, everyone will know :)
P.S. That's not to say that ideas on how MGSA could make money aren't welcome, they totally are. It's just that ideas like selling merchandise or taking fees from members in ways that mean someone has to spend extra time doing just that task, and not really growing the MGSA, are going to have to be really lucrative to gain traction.
I am literally going to the HTML email course workshop this week to be able to create smexy newsletters and then it's a matter of getting a signup button on the Facebook page (plox @Fengol) as well as a link on the forums and then driving people to sign up (go go @Bensonance). We've got some volunteers for creating arts things (@Damousey) so we're almost ready to roll :)
It will then just be a matter of getting committee members - and everyone else who needs/wants to be featured in the newsletter - to respond with the necessary infos so that it can all be included :)
Remember that you can always use mailchimp (for free > 2000 Subs ) and they already have the html templates to modify - they are easy to use and quick to setup.
-Nic
There has also just generally been a delay in getting the sign up functionality available for those who wish to sign up to receive the newsletter.
Other than our 3d co I have run a web Dev and hosting company for 13 years so I can lend a hand if need be.
When you quoted @dislekcia and spoke about communication disconnects you left off the immediately preceding sentence which gives context and addresses this: This is a real concern that seems to be misunderstood. While there are many breaks in communication, something we are very aware of and trying to address as we go forward, things that are confidential can not be published. That is why the word confidential is used: it can not be publicly discussed.
For example: THIS IS NOT TRUE, IT IS A MADE UP EXAMPLE
If I were in negotiation with Wits to arrange something, and I wrote that here, many things could go wrong:
Like:
a) A member of the press could run with it, even though it is still in negotiation. Even if they say 'still in negotiation' it impacts the public image / publicity management of the organisation. This would severely piss off a large institution that manages their press very very carefully - like Wits. In the Wits example, I would probably then get called in and shat on for a few hours, and marketing would respond - canning it on the spot.
b) People could speak of it like it is happening (this happens often as everyone gets excited) and it gets back to someone who has not been consulted yet (large organisations take TIME). We would loose the good faith of the organisation. With one person in the food chain of a large organisation feeling put-upon the whole thing gets sidelined. In the Wits example, things go through so many meetings and committees that the number of people you need on your side is staggering. That is a lot of scope for things to go wrong.
c) People could get really excited, and if it fell through (which is likely in early stages of negotiation) it could disappoint everyone.
d) In large organisation is can take months to even get an appointment with the right person. If you announce things that you can only update in 4 months, it seems that is has come to a halt - it hasn't that is just the way the wheel turns.
There are many more scenarios, these are just top of mind.
Please let me state again: THIS IS NOT TRUE, IT IS A MADE UP EXAMPLE
We are not 'keeping secrets', we are negotiating. That is the role of the committee, and is why we need to act in good faith with the community.
This is where we currently have a problem: communication breakdowns with day to day things break this faith. We will work to rebuild it, and make sure that we are more on top of things going forward.
In your summation you have clarified my point, we as the mgsa community need to know what is going on. It was clear from Nick last night that he has oodles of projects on the go and I really appreciated that he is letting us know so we can be excited and involved.
So hats off to you guys already.