Good morning everyone! I feel less like death today, so keep your fingers crossed for me. Liveblog will commence shortly, normal rules apply. Just waiting for the secretary of the meeting to arrive…
1004: Kevin Standlee calls the meeting to order.
1011: MPC report. Good news, marks were registered in the EU last year.
1013: Dr Adam – this year, as part of the New Zealand bid the marks and domain have been registered for 2020 and will pass that on to whichever bid wins. Would be good for the committee to do this advance registration as a matter of course. May be a good idea to register some years ahead as there’s been a shift in the WorldCon naming scheme that’s made it much more predictable and we don’t want the domains, etc, being poached.
1015: Vince Docherty – we purchased WorldCon.com some time ago and it was expensive to get, make sure we know we have that one.
1015: Kevin is responsible for most of the words on the main websites, so blame him if there’s a problem.
1016: MPC elections. Reminder that these ballots are preferential.
1021: Election closed.
1021: Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee report from Mr Eastlake.
1023: All members reappointed by chair. Kevin Standlee will be chair unless the committee prefers someone else.
1024: Mr Wilmuth reports for the WorldCon Runners Guide standing committee. They’d like to move the guide to a new domain potentially. Mr Standlee suggests they consult with the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, which controls the sites. Committee is reappointed.
1026: FOLLE Committee is continued with no objection.
1026: YA Committee report is included and implicitly part of the YA Award debate. Committee has no request to continue and will sunset at this WorldCon.
1026: Ms Neal thanks the YA Committee for their work. There’s applause. THANK YOU GUYS.
1027: “No Vanishing Business” Committee Report has come back with language for the proposed standing rule change. Basically, would change things so up to 4 weeks before the Business Meeting, new business could be withdrawn. Then withdrawn business would have to be available to be viewed. Business could be withdrawn if everyone who proposed it agreed to it. (This would then give everyone a 2 week window to step in and re-propose the withdrawn business if they wanted, before the agenda is frozen for the Business Meeting.)
1032: Six minutes of debate time is agreed on.
1031: Kate Secor in favor. Permitting people to withdraw business that they’ve decided is a bad idea without having to waste the business meeting’s time; this seems the balance between that efficiency and disappointing people who look forward to debating that business at the meeting.
1034: Member wants notice of withdrawn business established.
1034: Mr Eastlake notes that at this time, there is no provision to allow for the notification of the members for submitted business.
1035: Motion to call the question, which is seconded.
1035: Mr Cronengold has point of order. Does call the question outrank motion to amend. Yes. And that’s actually a parliamentary inquiry. Call the question outranks almost anything.
1036: Question is called, debate is ended. So now we’ll vote on “No Vanishing Business.”
1037: The item is adopted and will take effect next year.
1038: One minute recess.
1040: MPC members re-elected.
1041: Hugo Awards Study Committee, Mr Docherty. (Mr Docherty: “How long?” Mr Standlee: “Technically 42 minutes.” Mr Docherty: “I’ll do it in interpretive mime.”) Briefly going over the report. If you wish to participate in the committee, please contact him as noted in the report.
1042: Is there any objection to referring D6-8 back to the study committee for next year? No objections.
1043: WorldCon and NASFiC reports are in the packet, not going to go over them here.
1043: Okay, we are on to business referred from 2016 WorldCon. Up first: BEST SERIES!
1044: Motion to postpone until tomorrow until after we see the Hugo Award results. Seconded. And the affirmative has that, so it is postponed until tomorrow.
1045: On to C.2 December Is Good Enough. This is moving the deadline on when you’re eligible to nominate for the Hugos. Debate time is 8 minutes.
1046: Mr White gets to go first. It’s fairly straightforward and technical. This is simply because the most tedious element of administering is merging the member list for the current and previous WorldCon. Simply better to end it on the calendar year. This may facilitate 3SV, but will not speak on that further.
1048: Corina is speaking! Finances are generally much tighter for people in December, so extending through January will make it easier for people to get in.
1049: Mr Oakes the process of merging the data is very complicated. Moving back a month would save a significant amount of work. Would allow them to get the award nominations up much sooner.
1050: No objection to ending debate and bringing it to vote.
1050: Motion is ratified. This will take effect next year.
1050: Now C.3 Two Years Are Enough. This is to make it so the people from the past and present WorldCon get to nominate for the Hugos. This would disallow the members of the future WorldCon as is current from nominating, though 2019 will be grandfathered in.
1051: Mr Harris for; this simplifies the data merging process. N+1 members are mostly people who voted in site selection… who for the most part are members of the N WorldCon. This change was originally made to get more people participating in nominating for the Hugo Awards. That’s obviously not a problem anymore… [bitter laughter from the crowd]
1053: Dr Adams against; when we have a WorldCon in a new place, we get people who join fairly soon after the WorldCon is seated. We want to bring those people in as soon as possible and encourage more people to join and be involved.
1055: Mr Wallace for; anyone new to the WorldCon family can get a supporting membership in the current year’s WorldCon. Doesn’t think it would have that great of an impact.
1055: Mr Walling against; while the number of 50-100 has been bandied around. A lot of times when a WorldCon is in a new place, people will join early in order to vote in site selection to bring that WorldCon to them. They tend to join too late to be involved if this measure is accepted. As is, this encourages more participation.
1057: Mr Kovalcek in favor; if people have joined the year before to vote, they would already be eligible. Have to do the best job we can instead of trying to do everything and doing it badly.
1058: Mr Whyte against; the real hassle is merging the previous and current year’s membership. The next year’s really isn’t that big of a deal since it’s not that large. This is a marketing opportunity to bring more people in. This helps boost membership and participation. Also think it looks bad for this meeting to be restricting the franchise.
1059: I have no idea who is speaking. For LonCon though, N+1 came to about 117 new names.
1101: Point of Order from me: will the chair please remind people to state their names.
1101: Mr Yalow in favor; this provides an incentive to join because you get greater rights.
1103: On the motion to ratify, here we go… oooh it’s close.
1103: HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS KIDS, IT’S SERPENTINE TIME.
1106: Affirmative 45, negative 41. Motion is barely ratified.
1106: We have now reached 11 o’clock, but Chair suggests a recess until 1115.
1116: Meeting back in order. We are taking up C.11 Young Adult Award and C.11.1 Clean Up “Young Adult” Award, which names the award and has been ruled to not change the scope and therefore will not postpone the implementation of the amendment.
1117: Looking at the amendment to name. Ms Rask for; there was a lot of debate about the issue, and this was the best compromise for the naming concern. Technical stuff here for how the voting and naming will work; basically naming will begin as soon as the main amendment is passed.
1119: Dr Laurie against; so we’re going to have a Not A Hugo that’s for YA but there’s no requirement it will be named ever. This sounds like a bad thing for the MPC.
1120: Kevin strongly reminds us that members don’t get to talk to each other. All comments are THROUGH the chair.
1121: Mr Cronengold for; … sorry, I’ve lost the thread of this argument. This is some technical stuff here.
1122: Ms Secor against; we have been told the naming of this award is contentious so we might be debating this for years. But we’ll still be giving out the award. Would rather say that we have to name the thing or we’re just not going to pass it at all.
1124: C.11.1 passes, so the blanks are stricken out of the Young Adult Award amendment.
1124: NOW C.11 Young Adult Award, Ms Rask for. She is one of the assistant chairs and will give the report. Has been instructed by the chair to not discuss the naming because that is not in the scope. Asking everyone to consider the award in a positive light.
1126: Chair reminds us there is a provision that this will have to be re-ratified by the 2021 Business Meeting.
1126: Ms Secor has a motion to amend, so that the award should not be given out until there is a name for it. But worded in a way that leaves it to the discretion of the WorldCon.
1127: Mr Dunn proposes now for a second order amendment to make “need not” to “shall not” to remove the discretion from the WorldCon concom. He is seconded, but there is objection to the suspension of the rules.
1128: We are having amendmentception here guys.
1128: No rules suspension 4 u. So that amending of the amendment fails and we’re back to the original.
1129: Question (sorry, he said his name SUPER FAST): will this be a greater change? Chair rules that this does not increase the scope of the amendment, which would allow it to be ratified here.
1130: Mr Cooper PI: British versus American English, suggests changing presented to awarded. Kevin agrees, since technically speaking we are not required to hold a Hugo ceremony.
1131: Ms Secor for this amendment – there is sufficient concern about giving out a nameless award. This would be a way to let us pass the award with allowing us to still hold it back if a name hasn’t been agreed on.
1131: Mr Peterson: believes that there is already the name; there’s capitalized “Young Adult Award” which would be the name. Point of order? No, per Kevin, not well taken. He’s pretty sure that YA authors would rather have an award with a generic name rather than no award at all.
1133: PRK point of order: says member is not debating amendment, but Kevin rules Mr Peterson is speaking to the amendment.
1134: Dr Laurie for – it’s not a Hugo, it’s not a Campbell, it’s just “an award” so it has no standing.
1135: Mr Yalow against – agrees in general that we should not give out a nameless; we can’t have a second order amendment, we decided that earlier. But he wants a shall rather than may, so he wants to defeat the amendment and then propose his own.
1137: Motion to call the question on the amendment, seconded. Debate is ended on this amendment.
1138: Amendment fails.
1138: Now Mr Yalow proposes a new amendment with a shall not instead of need not. (Thus requiring a WorldCon to not give out an award if it’s unnamed.)
1140: Ms Neal going to speak against this amendment as no speech for. Concern is that this amendment will delay the implementation of the award, which has already been delayed for years. Thinks it is worth giving an award out even with a generic name rather than stopping this momentum. Vote down this amendment.
1141: Mr Gunston PoI: would this amendment prevent the concom from exercising its existing power to create a special Hugo category for a YA award. Kevin says in that case, it would be a Hugo rather than a Not-a-Hugo as proposed.
1143: Dr Adams for – if you’re going to do this, then don’t do it in this silly way. Do it right from the start.
1144: Mr Gerrib against – let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We’ve been working on this for years, let’s DO IT.
1144: Dr Laurie for – thinks this is the only way we’re actually going to get a name for this award.
1145: Mr Peterson against – there’s time already provisioned for getting the award named.
1145: Mr Dunn for – just because there’s time on the agenda doesn’t mean it’ll get done.
1146: Mr Cronengold against – if we want a name, just do a greater change instead of leaving something dangling in the constitution.
1147: Question is called.
1149: SERPENTINE TIME, GUYS. BUCKLE UP. (argh this is tough, because I really don’t like this amendment, but I think if we don’t attach it, a bunch of people are going to turn on the YA Award and it won’t get ratified at all. Arggggggh.)
1151: Negative has it (56-35), provision is not adopted.
1152: We are back to the underlying motion, the award itself. Oh god this is tense. And of course there’s a one minute recess.
1153: We’re back with Ms Rask now talking for the underlying motion. Quick going over the committee report for the naming timeline. There were 460 names suggested and all were researched and vetted.
1155: Mr Dashoff with a PoI – can we put “WSFS” in front of the name? That would be a greater change.
1156: Mr Bloom against – opposed to dividing fiction into categories. We want the best of the best and that’s it.
1157: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. Seconded. Debate is closed.
1158: Oh god here it is, we’re voting on the YA Award.
1158: SERPENTINE NUMBER FOUR KIDS. Kevin thinks the affirmative has it, but we’ll be happier with a count.
1200: 65 for the YA Award. Now counting negative.
1200: 27 against. WE HAVE A YA AWARD GUYS!!!!
1201: 5 minute recess.
1209: And we’re back. Next up is naming the YA Award. First we will vote on the suggested name, yes or no. If it fails, then we will solicit suggestions.
1210: Mr Cronengold asks that the matter be laid on the table so the committee can correct errors in its report for about 5 minutes.
1211: I just want a recording of Kevin saying, “FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE MEMBER RISE?” as a ringtone on my phone.
1212: Affirmative has it, we’re laying the naming aside for not more than five minutes while the YA committee speaks to us about its corrections. It’s basically just a two percent bump on one of the numbers.
1214: Back to the naming. This currently is to pick a name to put in the blank that will then be voted on in the motion to name.
1216: Lodestar is now in the blank. So the question is now D.4 Name That Award. This has the effect of if it is ratified, the award will be named Lodestar in 2019, so the 2018 award would be nameless.
1219: Mr Cronengold asks if we can put retroactive naming in the amendment. Chair rules no.
1220: We are appealing the ruling of the chair.
1221: Mr Thorpe – sees no reason why we can’t retroactively name it. (I think?)
1221: Debate is ended and the appeal for the ruling is on the table. The chair’s ruling is sustained.
1223: About 14 minutes remain to debate the motion.
1224: Mr Peterson from the committee for; since MidAmeriCon, the primary issue has been the name. They’ve spent a lot of time debating and vetting. It doesn’t violate any other award names or copyrights.
1225: Dr Laurie against because the vast majority wanted Madeline L’Engle, wants to strike Lodestar and substitute that name instead.
1227: Ms Rask against this change. The question about whether to name the award after a person is very contentious. For example, L’Engle has been criticized for her depiction of LGBT characters and promotion of an Evangelical mission. Also, she’s mostly really promoted by people of a certain age group.
1229: Yalow for the change – if we want public recognition for the award; using the name of an author is more likely to get public attention and will have more credibility.
1230: Motion to extend debate by 5 minutes by PRK. Debate is not extended.
1231: Motion to call the question. Seconded. Okay, question is called.
1231: Negative has it, amendment fails. We’re keeping Lodestar rather than going with L’Engel.
1232: Ms Hayes calls the question on the underlying amendment too. Seconded.
1232: PoI from Dr Laurie – if we vote to use Lodestar, can next year’s business meeting change the name prior to ratification? The chair rules that this kind of change would be major and require an additional year for ratification.
1233: Ms Rudolph with a PoI – is there anything in the rules that would prevent the WorldCon from using the name that will be up for ratification? The chair rules that the con would not be allowed to use the name. Dr Adams asks that the chair recuse himself and hands off to Mr Eastlake.
1234: Mr Eastlake rules next year’s convention could use weasel wording to mostly get around this.
1235: Mr Lee comes to support Mr Eastlake, who says he does not need support but thanks anyway.
1236: Mr Kovalcek asks if we are voting on the ruling. Mr Eastlake: the ruling hasn’t been appealed, do you want to appeal it? Mr Kovalcek: No. In that case, can next year’s WorldCon choose to have their special Hugo Category and call it the Lodestar?
1238: We are down a definitional rabbit hole, y’all, and it’s getting very silly.
1243: We are now voting on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Which is that next year’s WorldCon can create a special Hugo and call it the Lodestar award for this purpose. Ruling is sustained.
1244: Now the question is if we are calling the question for D.4
1245: Okay, question is called. We’re getting there. Now will we adopt the name?
1245: The affirmative has it. The name motion passes. The YA Award is named Lodestar, subject to ratification.
1246: Tomorrow when we convene, site selection business only to start. Recess at 10:30 will be the former WorldCon chairs photo. Not before 1100 we will reconvene for regular business. You don’t have to be here until 11 if you aren’t interested in those things.
1248: Ms Secor says reports requested from the Hugo Administrator will be distributed at 10. You don’t have to stay, but come pick up the reports so you can study them before the business meeting comes back to order at 11.
1249: Meeting is adjourned until 1000 tomorrow.