For those of you who are interested, here is a log of the proceedings at tonight's meeting of the IGDA Voter Guidance Committee. A summary of the ideas and our conclusions follows, and apologies if I've misrepresented anything. It's been a long day.
As an introductory sidebar, we discussed creating a barrier to entry for candidates to cut down on the number of people on the slate -- for example, by requiring candidates to get signatures from supporters. The idea was reasonably popular, though the number of signatures various parties felt was appropriate varied from 10-100.
The core problem, though, is getting information to voters on who the candidates are and what they represent. The current statements by candidates doesn't provide sufficient information, and voters don't seek out additional information on their own.
We could create a base set of questions (perhaps 10-15) that all candidates must answer. These could either be the same set every year, or solicited from membership annually, perhaps in the newsletter. This idea met with wide approval.
We could have a forum for conversation with candidates, though there were concerns that this could require too much of a time investment from candidates; so perhaps with one thread per candidate. Concerns the forum would be high-volume or populated with trolls; this would require even-handed moderation. Another possibility is creating specific panels on these forums.
The Writer's SIG is starting a journalism initiative that could research/vet candidates and report on their findings. This would solve the problem of getting information from candidates that is not mere self-representation, but there is concern that an internal effort along those lines from the IGDA could be a matter of legal liability. A summary of how this would work will be presented to the Board, who will look at it from the legal perspective.
We could do a real-time Town Meeting, as a group or per candidate, in which candidates answer questions from members. This could be recorded on something like ustream. Concerns that this presents a participation barrier to members in disparate time zones and might be difficult to implement.
We could do a press conference, through forums or a podcast, in which we offer game-industry publications the chance to ask the candidates tough questions. Concerns this would be logistically difficult to implement and appears inaccessible to voters.
We could also do a roundtable or real-time debate of all or several candidates on a podcast, or record video statements from each candidate to post online.
Suggestion that we could get the Localization SIG involved in translating election materials.
Sheri Rubin very helpfully summarized our next steps and solicited volunteers.
- Andrea will create the edits for the procedures manual to incorporate they'll have a base set of questions to answer along with their statement
- Brian (maybe) will take the initiative on determining what those questions are (either by committee or polling the igda membership via the forums or survey with notice in the newsletter)
- Corvus is going to work on a proposal for the journalism initiative to do research on the candidates
- Andrea will create the edits for the manual to state that they will be getting researched
- TBD, someone needs to take on the task of determining the best ways to get the info Corvus's group digs up out to the voting membership (pending BoD review of legal question)
- TBD, someone needs to take on the task of creating the forums for the candidates with Joda and looking into the online transcripted chat/video sessions with each candidate (pending feedback on these ideas from BoD and interested members)
- Sheri will go talk to Tom with the Loc sig about getting things translated
And that's a wrap, folks. Have a great night!