Annual General Meeting of the IWF held in Athens on 27 th April 2006-05-04

This was a rather positive meeting meeting albeit a bit long and a tad chaotic at the beginning. Five hours in total and held in a restaurant. Amusingly when we finally found somewhere to meet and sat down we had two empty chairs! The Spanish and the Portuguese representatives had become stragglers. Panos now set off back into Athens to try to find them. We elected Jim Hauber to chair as he had a big voice and everyone could hear him over the waterfall, music, clinking glasses and waiter calls. It pays to have an Iron Maiden fan in the house when you need some noise!! J

The agenda and relevant documentation is posted separately and the voting sheet and the position taken is below. The Xs I have little to say about, those with numbers against them have notes below:

Notes to items and votes:

There are two clubs that exist in Portugal and it was proposed that they both join as there is a dispute as to who represents the country. We raised the issue that this would mean that Portugal had 2 votes in the EC and this makes no sense. Apparently the President has the right to cancel their bids if they seem to be colluding. Also if IWF is going to reform the voting system anyway, so it won’t matter for long I suspect.

• We raised issues on accounting methods and currency use. I also asked if the IWF has any insurance and it doesn’t so potentially the officers are personally liable at present if there is a negligence claim against the organisation. We didn’t press things in the interest of the greater good as it was important to have time at the end of the meeting.
  
• There was no vote on 3 as there are no recommendations to the AGM from the EC. We made the point that we did not believe it was appropriate for the EC to decide its own voting structure and that such matters should come before the AGM. I said that this matter was better left until the Mission and Vision section later as we viewed this as part of an overall reform.
  
• RSA had a proposal up to change the rules and to change voting between different types of members. When asked if there was anyone against we said that we had 2 problems: a) it was too soon to make any such changes if we were about to reform the whole thing and b) the proposal was in fact many proposals and while some seemed acceptable some were not. NZ agreed with this and said it was far too long winded. We said we would vote against in order to give us all time to get the right answer rather than an amendment to something already needing change (out first block vote).
  
• RSA had a proposal that to become President people must have spent time on the IWF Committee. We made three points: 1) we need to be seen as inclusive, not highly exclusive in the model of some of the poshest and most disliked golf clubs; 2) we want to encourage new blood and avoid old positions being entrenched; and 3) there are other and better ways to bring a new President up to speed. We also said that this was one of the issues with the process by which we interact. Colin Webster’s concern is a very good one – how do we make sure that any new President is a good choice and that he is equipped to do the job well? We fully support such a debate and question. However the mechanism thrown over the fence is unacceptable, and simply gets thrown back. The process is set up for conflict as the first time you hear of an issue is when you get a proposed solution. How much better it would have been to have a dialogue about the issue at the AGM and form some ideas together. There was quit a bit of confusion over this issue.
  
• The vote for President. We felt it was worth going round the table but we said we wanted to in order to see what other people’s views
  were. Several countries voted for James so it wasn’t just ourselves. Amusingly the news that we had lost the test match due to James’ defeat came through just before the vote … and a little devil on my shoulder did for an instant consider abstaining J This was understandably a pretty heated moment And the outcome from it is perhaps best tabled here. Glen from Australia said that we had now moved into a BHGS Dictatorship where we could do what we liked, had the votes and the President, and that they would have to trust us to be altruistic. Several other countries expressed concern about this. They are of course correct and their concerns are completely understandable – We did say we would have the same feelings if we swapped seats. I said that when I agreed to take on this role it was to help the IWF move forward: as for the BHGS itself, it has been the IWF’s biggest supporter since its inception and never sought for anything but its success. We want nothing more than to see it grow and develop in a positive way. It is farcical to represent the largest population of players and to have all the votes in this meeting and the same votes as Botswana in the EC. It is personally uncomfortable to be in a meeting of 12 peers and have more votes than all of them put together. The BHGS believes there needs to be a streamlined IWF with a single voting method. As soon as we can put the IWF onto a good path for the future by reforming it and its working practices we will gladly relinquish this voting power. I made a commitment as both the BHGS representative and at a personal level to look for positive ways to move the IWF forward. We need to stand by this to carry the room with us. As they said “we’re watching you”. That is entirely fair and appropriate. All we can do is work forward as honestly as possible towards the next AGM. We now have a Mission, Vision and Reform group chaired by James to move this on.
  
• Another very amusing part of the meeting. Rob gave a nice introduction about everything JD had done and how it was hard to think of someone more worthy of such an appointment, or words to that effect. There was a further query about their voting rights and yet more votes for the BHGS. I said that the BHGS did not believe in voting rights for honorary VPs. We said we felt we should give “medals” but not voting powers. We then voted on JDs appointment and we voted for. We then had an issue on how we could vote for something we fundamentally opposed. Once the voting system is reformed it won’t matter and JD is keen to relinquish any such votes anyway. We do not believe they should have voting rights at all. As for JD it is notable that nobody voted against his appointment at all – 2 minor abstentions IIRC. A just medal for somebody who has done so much for the hobby IMO.

In terms of other matters from the meeting thus far:

• South Africa will host the next IWF meeting. It is being planned for a location near the beachfront so the sunbathing family members will be happy. The date being planned is the last week in April. This should be a great event.

• Finland will be making a bid to host the 2008 IWF. They are looking at 3 locations in Helsinki and one outside. A very enthusiastic bunch of wargamers. Presumably if they pick the summer it will never go dark and the drinking teams will be able to stay up all day instead of all night. Mind you with the price of drinks in Finland we may find several members bankrupted before they fall over.

• France is very much back on board and is looking at hosting the championship in2010. Great news. I hope we can build our relationships and perhaps get some of us over to some good French comps this year.

• I believe Chicago is also looking at making a bid to host in the US – for 2009 I expect.

• New Zealand is looking at making a bid for 2011. Can’t wait for that one although better start saving now.

• Ireland will be hosting the first European IWF championship. This will be held in Dublin in a lovely Georgian building in late October or early November 2007. Rob Brennan is now starting to finalise the details. Aah Guinness!!

We then entered into the latter section of the meeting which was a discussion forum chaired by myself to try to take us all back to the basics of the IWF, agree what we were here to do and what we wanted the IWF to look like in future. Rob Brennan introduced this as a very valuable discussion and perhaps the best use of the time we have together.

We had circulated a “straw man” beforehand that is shown below. This was not intended to be the answer but rather a document to trigger discussion. The idea being to boil the IWF down onto 2 pages of what matters (see what you think). I hope that it will give you all some sense of the direction we are trying to move the discussion – much more seeking consensus about fundamental things than trying to impose any BHGS view.

MISSION (what its there to do)

The IWF exists to promote wargaming on a worldwide basis and to encourage and facilitate cross-border participation in the hobby. It will do this in particular by:

• Running the premiere individual championship in the world each year (The WIC) and managing this in a way that it grows and develops the hobby.
• Developing clarification and amendments of rule sets that ease play across national borders and at competitions
• Developing international ranking methods for use in international competitions and to provide general interest to the worldwide wargame community
• Actively promote the hobby in the press and in its activities worldwide
• Support the actions of any regional or national body – be it official or unofficial – if it believes these people are furthering the development of the hobby.
• Making is actions transparent so the general playing public can see that it is acting for the good of the hobby

VISION (what we hope to see in 5 years time if we get it right)

A WIC attended by 300 people, now expanded to several different periods rather than just ancients.

• Attended by the vast majority of the top players in the world.
• Highly international with players from 20 countries present.
• 25+ players from each of the large playing nations.
• 10+ players from several smaller nations.
• Main comp has over 200 players now
• Lots of side events organised to mix people up and let them get to know each other
• Now seen as an annual pilgrimage for lots of players

International clarifications in place for the main rule set and also for 3 or 4 other periods

International Glicko in place based for main rule set based on the results from WIC and all test matches.

The playing public are well informed of the activities of the IWF and are inputting ideas through their local reps so they all feel some ownership of the organisation

The IWF has achieved increased status for the game by promoting it at several games forums and working with the media – the IWF in conjunction with ITV has made Time Commanders 2.

The IWF has been able to successfully support a number of local and regional groups in their setting up of tournaments around the world (e.g. Singapore championship launched with practical help from IWF team)

The IWF website is as frequent a place to visit as the BHGS one because it has good and interesting stuff on it regularly.

WORKING PRACTICES (how we run ourselves)

There is an annual AGM at the WIC that provides a forum for intense discussion and debate of issues

• Issues debated
• Initial ideas formed into proposals (motions)

There is a period of 3 months after this where motion can be refined and motions with amendments can be added.

• Dialogue by phone and e-main
• One telecon chaired by proposer on each specific topic

After this motions are voted on with a single simple voting structure.

• This structure gives some weight to the nations that participate more in the WIC and less to those that do not – but neither one country one vote (Botswanagate) nor one member one vote (currently a dictatorship).
• Sliding scale based on participation in past WIC as this is real, trackable and what we want to achieve
• Vote is specific if it’s a specific issue – so DBMers vote on where the next DBM event is to be held, all vote if we are changing the constitution, More players vote on where this is held

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILIES (what each part of the jigsaw needs to do)

Country reps have role is:

• To act as part of the AGM/EC (or nominate a stand-on) and to run the IWF to meet its mission bringing their own personal experience and views to the table in doing so.
• To bring ideas from the forum back to the country players and feed ideas the other way, and thereby refine and adapt their own views and those of fellow representatives.
• Ultimately to bring specific motions back to their country and to vote as a representative of the country (even if their personal view differs).
• To provide some evidence that this vote actually represents the view of the body they represent (but they can choose their own method for doing this as countries work in different ways)
• To market the WIC locally and get as many players as they can along
• To put together teams to host the WIC in future and help them with their work

The executives role is:

• To run the administrative schedule properly (Secretary)
• To chair the process above (President)
• To ensure the reps play their roles well (President)
• To provide a summary of IWF activities for reps to make public to their countries (President & Secretary)
• To handle the money (Treasurer)

The honorary VPs role is:

• to act as wise old heads and comment and advise, but not to run anything.
• to act as ambassadors for the hobby and the organisation (press involvement, support local groups with help and ideas etc.)

In the event of a tied vote the honorary VPS and Executives together add their votes as a wise old head tie-breaker.

We went round the table and gave everybody some time to express what they felt the IWF should become and what was needed. It took a long time but I believe it was worthwhile. It led to a long list of ideas and thoughts. As in all such cases they are largely overlapping, have some areas where we agree on principles but disagree on details, and some areas where we have fundamentals to bottom out (e.g. is WIC supposed to be exclusive as an event or open to all and encouraging maximum participation). I made the point that in some of the areas of disagreement we should be able to find a solution that does both and “have our cake and eat it”.

We also had a brief discussion where Colin Webster and myself put forward voting mechanism that were neither one member on vote, nor one country one vote, but were forms of sliding scales that would give the BHGS more votes than Botswana, but not a dominant position. These seemed to be received positively by the group and I believe there is a desire to have a single voting structure. One possible approach is to link the votes in someway to WIC participation – so those countries who get more bums on seats get more votes. This has considerable appeal.

It is too early to say more in detail but the meeting overall I found very positive and forward-looking. We now have a Vision, Mission and Reform Sub-committee being set up under James’ chairmanship to carry this piece of work forward. This will be having two face-to-face working sessions at Britcon and at Ghent. Hopefully we can find a positive set of reforms that find large consensus with the IWF member group that can be voted through in the next AGM and leave us all smiling. This is our objective.

I am quietly optimistic we can do this and then remove the two-tier voting system so that we no longer have such a majority.

Simon

BHGS rep to the IWF

This depends on the outcome of motion 10h below

There are no recommendations (this is a standard agenda item)

There will be no vote on this discussion, any outcomes will instead be future motions at Exec Committee or Council meetings