I would like to comment on some of the things that senorita simpatica said.
 I appreciate the feedback, so let me explain a bit what I mean:

1. I personally believe that Mr. Seirawan's game is welcomed, and I like
it.  But IAGO World Tour ran into problems with it.  Because of the
dislike of variants by one of the creators of the game, it means that they
don't want to associate with any other variant.  Secondarily, the
impression I received was that they don't want any variants made of their
game.  It is fixed and changes are not welcome.  In other words, if the
variant community really liked it, but wanted to expand on it, as a
variant, they are likely to be forbidden to do so.  Yes, designers have
every right to be as restrictive as they like with their design.  But if
they adopt a very restrictive attitude, where does that leave the variant
community?  Seirawan chess is a 'dead end' as far as the variant
community is concerned.  This is why the classic version of IAGO Chess
exists and will have its rules produced.  It is mean to belong to the
world, and for them to use it as they see fit.  

2. Let me comment on what I spoke on 'flaws'.  I don't mean a game is
fine in its own right.  What I mean is that a game, unless it is an
evolving design (chess was this until the say the 19th century), it will
eventually get 'solved' and people get bored of it.  Of course, variants
are a way to keep things fresh.  But the issues with variants is you
usually never get enough players behind a single version in order to have
it stick.  There are rare exceptions of course.  This becomes an issue
when you have an association that wants to have champions at games, and
promote and retain them.  It also needs a way to systematize variants on
the whole.  It also needs standards of some sort.  It would also need a
game that is willing to be changed, so that it never falls to the being
'solved' issue that abstracts run into.  The point here is to deal with
it now, so that the game continues to remain fresh.

3. The idea of 'tampering with the rules' is exactly what chess had done
for centuries. The game changed as the community had new needs.  I believe
there is room for a version of chess that does the same.  Of course, such
changes do need to be managed.  The issue of just spinning of variants
willy-nilly is the same thing you have in regards to variants.  That is
what a variant is, by the way.  They are great for providing a diversion,
but without some concern given to treating them more seriously, they are
always going to not be viewed seriously.  

4. I will argue that the changing of the names of the pieces was selfish,
in regards to it was a personal preference done in order to appeal to
personal tastes.  Not quite 'small minded', but selfish (Ok, I can
recant of saying 'small minded' in my prior quote).  He wanted to have a
distinct look to the pieces, and there apparently is little concern for the
variant community.  The argument about 'small minded' is that the person
would want to do it alone as a stand alone variant.

5. As far as Shatranj being stabled and fixed, ask yourself how many
people are still playing the regular rules of the game.  They do variants,
right?  The question here is whether or not you want people to just abandon
a game completely when they get bored, or there be at least one version of
chess that is open to change with time, to support the needs of a
community.  I will also add here that the likes of Chess, Shatranj, etc...
are NOT games that were created by one person.  They are a community
developed game that is the byproduct of evolutionary input.  What I am
saying about a chess I am looking at, is that I propose that a version be
developed that will continue to change and evolve over time, without the
intent on being close ended and permanently fixed.  The game can remain
relatively stable, and the changes be gradual.  

I will say that, so long as everyone is freelancing, and not working
together, then the way it is now isn't an issue.  But, if you want to
jointly promote variants, and a range of chess, consideration to how to do
this is important.  IAGO and the IAGO World Tour are looking to eventually
have chess variant champions, and a champion of the chess variant world. 
The question is, how does one do this if things are as they are now? 
Also, how does one end up doing a chess game that is in the Capablanca
school, when one variant that is new tells variants to buzz off, and the
other one got itself blacklisted from this site, due to threats of
lawsuits.  In all this, that is what IAGO Chess will be heading towards.