ATypI 2026 Sharjah – who is going?

124»

Comments

  • James Montalbano
    James Montalbano Posts: 161
    edited November 6
    FWIW 
    The first professional conference I attended was 1987 ATypI's TYPE '87 conference in NYC. It was the only time ATypI was held in NYC. My employer at the time paid my conference fee. I wonder if anyone here was at that event.

  • Miles Newlyn
    Miles Newlyn Posts: 289
    edited November 6

    I find my own typographic work supporting a liberal order whose assumptions are so pervasive that they pass for reality itself. Alternatives become almost impossible to see, and voicing them can carry a real cost.

    The British state I have worked for sends people to prison over social media posts. In 2025 alone, courts in England and Wales handed down 443 immediate prison sentences across four communications offences.

    I agree with Nadine's point about judging governments by the same standard. I’d carry that principle through to the choice of speakers. Consulting Ukrainian colleagues makes sense, and the decision to use the Russian flag deserves scrutiny in its own right. (I saw the British flag there too, a flag that some perceive as an inherently racist, colonial, and white-supremacist symbol). What I question is the suggestion that accepting a Russian speaker should itself have raised a red flag. What, specifically, about the speaker’s work, institutional role or proposed talk should have concerned the board?

    Consider my own record. I have given the state’s machinery of compulsory extraction a calmer face. I have helped mass news media give editorial judgements the appearance of reality. I have made concentrated financial power look like responsible stewardship and helped corporations with colonial foundations present themselves as caring. I have worked for cultural institutions that decide what deserves attention and for corporate philanthropy that turns human suffering into reputational capital.

    These commissions are celebrated as professional achievements. They were also paid services to institutions that exercise power.

    If ATypI were to consider institutional affiliation grounds for excluding a speaker, and were to apply it flatly and without prejudice, my record of work ought prohibit me from speaking.

  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,899
    edited November 6
    In reading your list I'm like, check check check.
    I should have clarified that I meant imprisoning people for their political opposition to the regime, not just locking up vast numbers of people for being poor and black.
    Dark humour aside, I think there is a significant difference where a country has a functioning internal opposition, freedom of speech and protest, and working mechanisms to remove a government, even if its constitution puts those mechanisms on a fixed four-year schedule (I don’t think many US citizens realise just how weird that seems to people in parliamentary democracies). As Chris alluded to, and as Nadine’s comparisons pointed out, a democracy can produce a pariah government, but that isn’t the same thing as a pariah state because the government is not a fixed entity that maintains power through repression. It may certainly have leanings that way, and the rule of law can be weakened under such a government, but civil society has a tendency to persistence in democracies (cf. Hungary and Poland).
    This is why I think there has to be some kind of decision matrix for an international organisation traveling to different locations and managing speakers from many different countries. I think things like the Freedom in the World index to which Christine referred can be part of that matrix, but there are also specific geo-political situations within and between countries that need to be taken into account, as well as more obviously, as Boris pointed out, open concerns within the community that the organisation represents.
  • jfporchez
    jfporchez Posts: 14
    edited November 6

    “Decision matrix”

    Some comments, in order to suggest the organisers to ask the right questions, without necessary to follow all ideas of a single individual posted on a Friday 6 November 2026.

    It is difficult to judge individuals; an association and the organisers of a conference are not a court as it can function in a democratic country, with a defence that has rights, following an investigation that follows democratic rules. Therefore, we may have a personal opinion about this or that individual, or about his company. But this cannot be a determining factor in the refusal of participation following a Call for entry launched by the organisers.

    My thoughts go to Alexei Navalny saying this: If this individual is the subject of condemnation by a court (in a democratic country, rather than from a Russian, North Korean, or Afghan, to take basic examples), the organisers should think twice. 

    If this individual would have had proven dubious practises (disclosed by the serious press and cross-cut by several sources) in the exercise of our profession, concerning copyright (for example), these elements would deserve to be taken into consideration by a representative panel of the organisers.

    More broadly, the recommendations of the country in which the association is located (including the recommendations of the "Foreign Affairs" website), and/or Freedom in the World indexes published by non-governmental organisations deemed reliable can push organisers to ask themselves questions. But these elements do not say whether such a person is a persecuted minority in his own country. Nor if it is so close to power and validates practises worthy of authoritarian, dictatorial regimes, absolute monarchy, using religion or not, in order to oppress part or all of its population outside the circle of power.

    In our present cases, the subject of this long discussion, the sanctions against Russia have been issued since 2022 and extended each year by the democratic country (as well as many other countries) in which the association is currently based. Therefore, the precaution of organisers is to acknowledge sanctions and don’t search for excuses. They should ignore the proposals to the Call for entry made by citizens (ignoring who they are, as organisers cannot judge individuals, see first paragraphs above) who have an address in this country and who/or pay their taxes in this country.

    The idea of sanctions is to bend this country, put pressure on the regime, knowing that the citizens of the country in question may suffer. In short: Putin can stop the war today, move away from Ukraine, and sanctions will be removed soon after.

  • mitradranirban
    mitradranirban Posts: 148
    For sake of completeness, I am linking the position of ATypi board in this matter 
    https://atypi.org/2026/11/03/statement-from-the-board-of-directors-of-atypi/ 
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,240
    There are plenty of grounds on which one could perfectly reasonably criticize ATypI. I just hate it when people either make things up or ignore the current realities:

    “I believe this could be addressed by requiring each candidate to submit a statement of approximately 350 words outlining their intentions, priorities, and plans for their term on the board.”

    For at least the past several years, candidates have done so. For example, here is mine from last year: https://atypi.org/about-atypi/who-we-are/board-election-2025-vote/thomas-phinney-2025/

    Why yes, it is only accessible to members. I have extracted the most relevant portion of my own last statement:

    Candidate statement

    As the active person who has the most years as an ATypI board member, one might reasonably ask several questions. Why do I care about ATypI in the first place? And why did I step back at the beginning of the year, and why have I been convinced to stand forward again?

    I love and support ATypI’s multifaceted mission to provide education and support for the global fonts and typography community.

    ATypI occupies a special place in modern typographic history, and has a unique role, being dedicated to global fonts and typography, with conference locations moving around the world. (It long ago broadened its scope, despite a 1957 start as a consortium of typefounding/machinery companies represented by white European males.) But those same factors create unique challenges as well. With recent changes in the organization, I feel I have more to contribute and can help provide some institutional memory, while supporting necessary changes.

    I was on the ATypI board for many years, with two breaks. Most recently, my family’s needs were a significant factor in my stepping down in February. But that situation has stabilized, and I have been convinced by Nada Abdallah and others that I still have more to contribute. It was a hard choice to come back — not because I am unenthusiastic, but because I take my commitment to serve the membership, by means of board service, very seriously. It requires real time and effort to do it right.

    In particular, I hope to: 

    1) Provide useful feedback to the board as to the thinking behind various decisions and practices of the past, to better inform decisions and necessary changes for the future.

    2) Serve on the finance committee, and support the treasurer (David Lemon) in making ATypI’s finances more transparent again, and instituting processes more conducive to financial stability.

    3) Serve on the governance committee, to help deal with administrative tasks that most board members hate. For example, we need to tweak the bylaws to clarify rules around board member and executive terms.

  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,240
    This has been done for all the elections since the ATypI website was reconstituted about four or five years ago. Pre-pandemic, ATypI elections were done in person at the annual conference, and candidates would make brief statements about what they hoped to accomplish or contribute, on the board.

    Now, that said, I will believe that not all the statements have as many specifics about what they hope to do for the members and organization as you might like. But they do exist, and you can always, you know, give feedback to the board about the standardized elements of the form that would affect this, prior to the next election! Or run yourself.
  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,899
    Thomas, are you able to share information about recent board elections in terms of the numbers of open positions and the number of candidates? It would be helpful to understand the extent to which positions are contested.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,240
    edited 4:29AM
    In recent memory, a serious number of contested positions has been very rare, as far as I am aware.

    The last serious exception was a big turnover about 2004, with many more candidates than positions. Mark Batty had been president for nine years (1995–2004), and IIRC was no longer on the board after the election. Back then, though, officers were directly elected by membership: if I understand/remember correctly, Batty was specifically running for President, and there was no fallback to just being a board member.

    In almost every year since, there have been the same number of open positions as candidates.

    Since the incorporation in California with new rules, the executive is elected by the board. Normally they are board members, but they do not have to be.

    In post-pandemic elections, only last year had more candidates than openings on the board.
    • 2025: 10 candidates for 7 positions
    • 2024: 5 candidates for 5 positions
    • 2023: 8 candidates for 8 positions

  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,240
    In elections since 2004, I would venture that maybe 15% were contested at all? (That is, had more candidates than open positions.) Given that it would be perhaps one to three “excess nominees,” my math suggests that there might have been something like 140 positions, and 146 candidates for those positions. 2025 was definitely a record in terms of the difference between available positions and candidates.

    Thus, for people concerned that any particular category of people (e.g. “indepdendent type designers) is or has been under-represented on the board, the primary reason is that people in that category did not run for the board.

    Now of course, existing board members (and other interested parties) play a role in recruiting potential board members to run. When I compare the makeup of the 2005 board to the 2026 board, the biggest shift is not occupations, it is that the board is no longer 15 out of 16 male, and 14 out of 16 from western Europe, the USA and Canada.

    I should add that… that is the result of very intentional long-term efforts and awareness, recruiting more board members who are women and from beyond western Europe, the USA and Canada.

    No reason that one couldn’t also consider an effort to have more independent type designers, or any other group one thinks is under-represented. However, it is helpful to actually bring up the question, rather than just leaving ATypI disappointed, without saying anything (per one person’s comment). And then somebody needs to convince those people to run.
  • Dave Crossland
    Dave Crossland Posts: 1,595
    Wow Thomas, great data! Thanks for compiling and sharing this :) 

    To be fair to Ramiro, I don't think I was super aware of every board candidate statement that's been posted and I doubt I participated in many of the elections as a voter - so I could easily have made the same suggestion. 

    I think the statement up-thread that was emailed to all members is a good sign, and suggests that ATypI could engage the membership via email and social media channels even more proactively. 
  • Ramiro Espinoza
    Ramiro Espinoza Posts: 843

    I find it rather strange that Thomas presents the facts in this way, particularly when, for years, I have been advocating for and urging the ATypI board to reopen a discussion list or forum that would allow for greater participation among members. My requests were consistently ignored or dismissed, usually by invoking the well-worn argument about the legal disputes ATypI had faced in the past. Honestly, I fail to see how a closed discussion list or forum could expose the association to similar risks.

    During one of the recent virtual ATypI meetings, I voiced my opposition to the decision to host the 2026 event in the United States, particularly at a time when ICE was conducting raids, targeting people of colour on the streets and subjecting them to deeply humiliating detention conditions. As a Latin American, I would not feel comfortable travelling to a country where people of my ethnic background are subjected to institutional discrimination and such treatment. I explicitly told the board members and former board members present that I found it unacceptable for human rights considerations to be entirely absent from the process of selecting conference locations. Unfortunately, the responses I received were rather hostile, and I was left with little sense that anyone considered my concerns reasonable or worthy of serious consideration.

    A few weeks after this unpleasant experience, I decided to resign from the association. I no longer feel that ATypI adequately represents the interests of independent type foundries, nor do I see a genuine commitment to fostering critical engagement and meaningful participation among its members.

    I could be wrong, but my impression is that, over the past few years, ATypI has increasingly existed primarily to organise a conference that also serves as a promotional platform for its sponsors, who, in return for their support, are rewarded with prominent speaking slots and exhibition spaces to advance their public relations efforts.

    It seems that, following the public protest by our Ukrainian colleagues, which was subsequently joined by other voices, the ATypI board is finally acknowledging that discussing human rights may not be such an unreasonable proposition after all, and that a discussion forum is, in fact, necessary. These are encouraging steps, and I sincerely hope they represent a genuine change of direction rather than simply an exercise in damage control.

    If, over the next few years, I see the association moving in a different direction and sense a genuine commitment to representing the interests of independent type designers, I would certainly consider becoming a member again.

Categories