Question regarding the change in the constitution for MGSA.

edited in Association News
Fengol said:
It is important to note that the constitution is currently being updated and the length of service as a committee member will be 3 years. The reason for the extended duration is the sheer amount of time needed to organise events (in most cases months in advance) and to get responses from government departments and sponsors.
If the version of the constitution I read is still the correct one I believe the change requires a 2/3 agreement vote at the next annual meeting and 14 days written notice should be given to the members before that meeting before this change can be effected.

As quoted from the online version of the MGSA Constitution

16. Changes to the constitution

16.1. The constitution can be changed by a resolution. The resolution has to be agreed upon and passed by not less than two thirds of the members who are at the annual general meeting.

16.2. A written notice must go out not less than 14 days before the meeting at which the changes to the constitution are going to be proposed. The notice must indicate the proposed changes to the constitution that will be discussed at the meeting.

16.3. No amendments may be made which would have the effect of making the Organisation cease to exist.
Some further elaboration on the change and reasons would be appreciated. Also the conformation that the notice above is not a notification that the change has been effected but rather the change is been suggested at the next meeting.

Comments

  • @tbulford you should join @Lexaquillia as a lawyer ;) You are indeed correct and my wording will be updated. The extension must indeed be voted for at the next AGM (with a notification going out before, when we confirm the AGM date).
    Thanked by 1tbulford
  • Besides the wording, I think @tbulford is right about some elaboration being needed on reasons for such a large change-as well as alternative solutions to those problems that may have been considered. With MGSA positioning itself to have such a position of power within the industry (becoming the go-to industry association from a government point of view), 3 year committee posts are a pretty big deal.
    Thanked by 1tbulford
  • @Fengol thanks for that clarification.

    Could someone please still further elaborate on the reasons. Currently I am inclined to vote against this change right now. The MGSA is aiming to position itself with a great deal of local and international authority for the South African games industry. This is something we all want. 3 years is a long time for something to change that might require a change.
  • I'm inclined to agree with Travis on this.

    Nothing dodgy/untowards the committee members, but 3 years seems long... and I'm not sure what purpose it really serves? You need to have an AGM once a year anyways to meet and review and that is the perfect time to focus and plan for the coming 12 months. If people are allowed to serve multiple years in a row already, then what's to stop that from continuing if the case is made for them to carry on with whatever plans they started during their term?

    And in the case where a committee member does change, surely it can't be that difficult to hand over any in progress organisational work to the new people so that they can pick up the torch?

    As it stands, there isn't any compelling reason for me to want to empower committee members for larger than a 12 month period.
  • I agree on the basis that competition is healthy and good... Not that there are any "competitiveness" really, right now. If people are delivering some goods and it's taking more than a year to do it in, surely there are things and mechanations visible enough for other people to see to have them voted back in.

    3 years straight up seem like an unwieldy default setting that could be open to complacency. And we don't want the possibility of that, IMHO.
  • I can't give any official response - just my personal sense:

    As I understood the issue, it was more in response to the odd timings of the AGM's (a starting up issue) which meant that the committee was swapped and changed a bit fast and we felt the need for more stability.

    Part of the problem is that it takes an awfully long time to get things up and rolling (from a legal standpoint and from an organisational standpoint) and the handover process for the key members (chairman and treasurer) is not at all easy.

    The rest of us can come and go really - and many of the functions should be taken into 'portfolios' of volunteers who report to the committee (like the social media and marketing currently).

    3 years seems long to me too, and it led to me needing to think long and hard about whether I would run again (and I suspect it is doing the same for all the current members).

    However, if MGSA is building toward a long term vision chopping and changing with the possibilities of loosing hard won expertise can be very disruptive, even detrimental. While 3 years seems long for an individual, in the life of an organisation it is quite short. We are entering a delicate time as MGSA, if we are to place ourselves in a powerful position of growth in the contested space of the South African economy we need stability, and to attain that 3 years is no time at all. I think people overestimate the length of a year in actually trying to achieve something in an arena that's not your day job.

    You most certainly can't get much through the government or legal system in that space of time. God knows 3 years at the DoE is only enough to get the paperwork stamped saying you are allowed to start the real paperwork (bureaucracy of doom(tm) ). I don't know what the DTI's like... but Nick does. For him to hand over a fraction of what he is doing as chair there would need to be a substantial period to get the new chair up to speed - just in time to rinse and repeat.

    Organisation and events etc don't worry me at all. It is the legal and financial issues that are a concern for me.

    Perhaps we can look at stabilising the positions of Chair and Treasurer?
    At least that would ensure that there is stability and coherence in the vision and operational plan, a more controlled change over, and that focus is not lost on long term projects.
    Make those 2 - 3 year appointments and have a 1 year tenure for other members before they need to be re-elected?
  • I'm still not convinced enforcing even the chairman or treasurer positions at longer terms are necessary.
    If the people involved are prepared to be re-elected, have done a good job so far, and can give a compelling reason why they should be re-elected (working on an event or legal process that needs continuity is a good example) why would they not end up being elected again?
    Even if they don't, there's no reason they can't continue with that project as a non-committee member falling under the relevant committee member's portfolio.

    A 3 year commitment makes me think twice about accepting a nomination (though to be fair, I'm considering withdrawing anyway), and I'm sure others would worry about that as well. It's also no guarantee of anyone staying on if they choose not to.
    Thanked by 1hanli
  • Thanks for the insight @Hanli I can see how this effects the sensitive work with the government. That having been said I agree with @mattbenic statement. These issues can be overcome in alternative ways.
    Thanked by 1hanli
  • edited
    @tbulford
    That having been said I agree with @mattbenic statement. These issues can be overcome in alternative ways.
    Agreed. I was just elaborating on what the reasoning was - as far as I remember.

    @mattbenic
    "A 3 year commitment makes me think twice about accepting a nomination (though to be fair, I'm considering withdrawing anyway), and I'm sure others would worry about that as well. It's also no guarantee of anyone staying on if they choose not to."
    Truth be told, same for me.

    Also, if the members aren't happy with it, that settles it. It was supposed to be a proposal for discussion and not a blanket 'we are doing this' :)

    Some semi-related thoughts:
    I think that we need compile a short 'vision' and strategy type document for circulation prior to the AGM and voting. Just something stating where the current committee sees us going and setting up an outline of path for achieving it.
    I would also like to see people who are running preparing a brief statement of their core interests, and how they see these fitting into the overall mission statement.

    For example: I am interested in education (surprise! no one saw that coming :P ) and I would like to take up an education portfolio, where I can research the educational opportunities available currently, and produce an 'educators guide' as well as an educational strategy for MGSA. I am also interested in gender and minority representation, and would like to look at strategies for diversifying the community. I can work on both of these as portfolios OUTSIDE of the committee - and with the 3 year thing in the mix, I am seriously considering that. These are also long term goals that can be passed on to new voices. (I also hold these two portfolios in my day job, so its familiar territory).
    The reason I've decided to run again is simply because, after stewing a bit and speaking to people, I thought that these two issues need to be represented not only as portfolios, but also in a decision making capacity in the overall steering of the organisation.

    Except - that sounds really campaigny *blergh*
    Thanked by 2tbulford mattbenic
  • hanli said:

    Some semi-related thoughts:
    I think that we need compile a short 'vision' and strategy type document for circulation prior to the AGM and voting. Just something stating where the current committee sees us going and setting up an outline of path for achieving it.
    I would also like to see people who are running preparing a brief statement of their core interests, and how they see these fitting into the overall mission statement.
    I think everyone who is nominated needs to motivate and also explain who they are and what their ideas are, what they plan to do etc. And, I believe, everyone who is nominating someone else should be motivating for that person as well. A nomination should not be accepted without motivation, imho.

  • Would people be happy with a 2 year term? With option to revote the standing members after a year?

    ... [nvm @hanli basically said something like that >.< in which case, I second it]
    Thanked by 1hanli
  • A 1 year term doesn't mean the positions will change every year - it means that if someone isn't pulling their weight in a department that it 'can' change if it needs.

    There is an AGM at least once a year (correct?). It wouldn't be any extra admin to do this - unless a position changes...in which case it probably needed to change...right?
    Thanked by 2Tuism Pixel_Reaper
  • I am hesitant to support three year terms, but I can also see why they might be useful.

    A lot of the work committee members do is often unnoticeable to the majority of members. @Lexaquillia is doing a huge number of things behind the scenes with the government to open up funding that many people won't know about; @Fengol does a massive amount of work on the forum back end, set up the bursary page, and was pivotal for organizing rAge; @hanli is doing incredible work to try bring all game development educators in South Africa together to share knowledge, is instrumental in organising A MAZE, and other cool stuff which I'm not sure I can talk about.

    How many people who will have a vote actually knew those committee members did those things? I don't think that many, and that is a concern for me. There are few to none members on the committee that aren't pulling their weight, but perceptions might not match up to that.

    Although, I guess, that's why I'm writing the profiles :P. It think as long as the roles and achievements of each committee member is clear at the outset of voting, I do see little reason to switch to 3 year terms :).

    I also agree that perhaps an ideal way to do this as @hanli suggested is the committee to embrace more roles and jobs being run by community members external to the committee - 'portfolio's ' if you will. That way the committee can focus less on actual implementation, and more on strategy - at least in some areas. That way even if people pivotal to certain tasks are no longer on the committee, they can still ensure the completion of the job.
  • I also agree that perhaps an ideal way to do this as @hanli suggested is the committee to embrace more roles and jobs being run by community members external to the committee - 'portfolio's ' if you will. That way the committee can focus less on actual implementation, and more on strategy - at least in some areas. That way even if people pivotal to certain tasks are no longer on the committee, they can still ensure the completion of the job.
    This task would hopefully be something we afford to compensate people for eventually. Its great fantastic and amazing the support and effort people are putting in for free.
  • edited
    Bensonance said:
    How many people who will have a vote actually knew those committee members did those things? I don't think that many, and that is a concern for me. There are few to none members on the committee that aren't pulling their weight, but perceptions might not match up to that.
    That doesn't mean that the voters aren't interested in knowing what the committee is doing. If the committee choose not to disclose their actions, even when it would benefit the community that they do so (as is the case during committee elections obviously), then it's a natural consequence that they lose their position to someone with more appeal.

    Can you see how combating the lack of information available by making the terms longer isn't really a solution?

    +1 for some informative profile write ups by Bensonance.
  • edited
    I agree 100% with @BlackShipsFilltheSky. It's been bothering me that we don't know all of what is going on; sometimes I found out about things through the animation industry o.00000.

    Furthermore, if there is already a need for continuity beyond one year, this is a great opportunity to let us know which specific projects (right word?) are in jeopardy if a person gets replaced.

    And of course, if it does not go through now (as I think it should not), it can always be revisited later once there is more evidence that three year terms would be useful. Our organisation is still very young; there is lots of room for changes in the future.
  • @BlackShipsFilltheSky Lol - I was a tad unclear there, I don't want to make terms 3 years either - and especially don't think it's a good way to combat the information available :). I agree with you and @hermantulleken that more transparency is needed, but often I think it's difficult to reveal stuff that's ongoing - I don't know of anything, project wise, that has been completed but hasn't been revealed to the community (I understand the irony of this statement :P).

    I think the AGM could also be used by the committee to reveal what work has been done since the previous AGM, and what projects are ongoing? That way we all know what the plans are going forward and know how the organisation is doing? To me this seems like what should be pretty standard AGM practice.
    Thanked by 2hermantulleken hanli
  • It seems this thread is raising many valuable points on the structure of MGSA and the role of the committee.

    I'm going to try to address some of the concerns (in my personal capacity):

    1) It was a point for discussion - there are various sides to the debate, but neither should ever have been presented as a 'this is what we are going to do'. It was JUST supposed to be a point for discussion at the next AGM, it is not even agreed on by the whole committee.

    2) Other than the work Nick is doing with the DTI nothing is in jeopardy. It was a proposal that was still to be discussed. All I was doing in my post was elaborating on some of the reasons it was raised. A lot of these (at Travis has pointed out) can be addressed in other ways.

    3) There seems to be a lot of concern around the lack of communication between the committee and the members, which worries me a deeply. This is not clandestine, nor is it choosing not to disclose. This is simply an oversight, caused by a day-job and real-life issue: time. And that is not acceptable, it is something that has to be fixed: I'm giving a reason, not arguing that it is ok not to communicate.
    We need to revisit the communication structures within the organisation.
    Thanked by 2Tuism hermantulleken
  • @Bensonance
    but often I think it's difficult to reveal stuff that's ongoing - I don't know of anything, project wise, that has been completed but hasn't been revealed to the community (I understand the irony of this statement :P)
    For that matter I ALSO don't know of anything (completed or in the works) that hasn't been revealed.
  • Given the nature of the internet and that we're all digitally savvy people, we really should be able to put together something that communicates the state of play of projects, things being organised and such.

    Half the time it's cos people aren't on the forums, but other half *is* because they're *not* being communicated. I agree that needs to change. I don't quite know what that solution is:

    Is it something that's not part of the forums? Like a news page? Our home page is needing a lot of love in that respect, but I'm not certain that's the best way about it...

    Is it another structure? Can we start another structure knowing that not everyone watches the forum closely enough anyway?

    Is it a sticky in the forum, where we cut any chatter and focus on important community news?

    Is it a newsletter that we all should be signed up for with imortant news only and nothing else? (google groups perhaps)
Sign In or Register to comment.