WSFS Business Meeting – Saturday Liveblog 13

Getting started a bit late thanks to a traffic jam at the elevators.

All we’ve missed so far is introductions and a quick reminder on rules. We join this business meeting, already in progress, as we vote for members of the Mark Protection Committee. There are four nominees and three spots.

1016: We are now moving on to the remaining resolutions that were not addressed yesterday. D.5 Solidarity with Ukraine. Chuck Serface, a former Peace Corps volunteer who was in Ukraine, reads a speech asking for our support of the fans in Ukraine. Ben Yalow speaks against the resolution, saying this is not WSFS business as we should not be involved in real world politics.

1020: Perianne Lurie moves to amend the resolution by removing the word “by fascist” due to Godwin’s Law. Debate is extended by one minute for each side. I am not tracking the quick speeches for and against, valid points being made on both sides to be honest. (No one saying what’s happening in Ukraine is okay, it’s more a discussion regarding if calling it fascism is useful or not.)

1028: The removal of “by fascists” is not passed. Debate continues regarding the motion; several of the “against” points were that the business meeting does not have power as a body to make this kind of resolution and it is not within our purview. (I disagree with this point, but it’s a fair one made by Kate.)

1030: Cliff Dunn requests a ruling from the chair on if the resolution is within the purview of the body. Jared rules it is. Cliff appeals the decision of the chair. Jared points out that the word “fans” is in this resolution and WSFS has previously passed a resolution being mad about Pluto no longer being a planet. Time for debate then has expired and no one gets to speak against. The ruling of the chair is then sustained.

1034: The resolution for solidarity with Ukraine as written is passed by the body.

1035: Resolution regarding Sergey Lukianenko is up next. An objection to consideration is raised and does not pass.

1037: Ben Yalow rises with a Point of Order that the WSFS constitution forbids the interference of WSFS is the matter of WorldCon guests, etc. Jared rules is not well taken because the resolution asks and does not direct or otherwise require action.

1039: Ben Yalow against; he agrees that making it mandatory would definitely be across the line. But he feels the line should not be the requirement of unconstitutional action, but rather the attempt to persuade.

1043: After a brief break to change memory cards in the camera. Elspeth points out that we are asking and therefore trying to influence a WorldCon committee and we are not allowed to do that. Time for debate expires.

1045: Cliff Dunn for rises to speak for the chair’s ruling. He points out that a WorldCon removing a GoH is not unconstitutional and we are not asking them to do anything unconstitutional. DisCon removed a GoH and they were allowed to do so.

1046: The chair’s ruling is sustained. We are out of debate time.

1047: Martin Pyne makes the point that per standing rule, there has not been substantive debate so therefore each side should get two minutes. Jared agrees and now each side gets some time to debate the actual resolution.

1049: I’m not going to try to summarize the debate, but I will note in this and the previous resolution, the slippery slope argument got pulled out each time. It is a quirk of mine that I find this line of argument particularly unconvincing.

1053: Resolution D.6 is adopted.

1054: MPC election results: Kevin Standlee, Ben Yalow, Nicholas Whyte

1056: Time for standing rules changes! Up next is C.1 – Making Business Meeting Feedback Possible. Cliff Dunn comes up to speak for. He says that the function of this rules change would be to allow committees–not individuals–to refer matters to the business meeting for debate and direction without actually having to put in amendments that could actually be passed when they aren’t really ready.

1059: Motion to amend to add the word “only” to the motion so that matters may only be referred back to committee. Ben Yalow speaks against the motion, pointing out that this would, for example, yesterday have made the motions be referred back to a committee that no longer exists.

1101: Kate Secor for, noting that this does not specify what committee the motions must be referred back to; new committees could be created.

1104: Vote for the motion to amend. The motion passes but… division is called for. TIME FOR THE FIRST SERPENTINE OF THE WORLDCON there is cheering, see, I’m not the only sicko here.

1107: The standing rules change is NOT amended. Serpentine says NO. Motion to call the question, but there is an objection.

1111: Don Eastlake notes that this standing rules change is not necessary; he is of the opinion that a committee can report back to the business meeting and ask for direction, though it seems the committee in question was unaware of that. A motion to refer this to the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee (which is very meta) is made and passed. This standing rules change will (hopefully) be back next year, having been nitpicked.

1113: Next standing rules change, C.2 If You Don’t Have To Print, Neither Do We. Cliff Dunn explains that this year it appeared the concomm was not going to print agendas for the business meeting. And he feels that if there are only electronic copies of the agenda, it should not be required of people with late motions to print out hardcopies; those should be electronically inserted instead into the electronic copy of the agenda.

1116: Elspeth rises to move to amend the motion to insert that a hardcopy should be provided if possible. “Where do you wish that inserted?” “In the appropriate place.” (Kate Secor finds the appropriate place.) It is noted that the availability of hardcopy is an access issue.

1118: Kent Bloom moves to refer to committee to consider the just requiring that harcopy be required,.

1120: Ben Yalow points out that there is obviously confusion as to who is required to do what and that needs to be hammered out first.

1123: The motion to refer to committee passes. Jared tries to make Kent Bloom the chair, but Jesi throws themself on that grenade instead. “Jesi wants it.” “I didn’t say I wanted it, I said put me in charge.”

1124: 15 minute recess!

1139: And we’re back. Starting up with the re-ratification of E Pluribus Hugo.

1140: Dave Wallace rises as one of the originators of EPH to speak for. He feels the overall effect of EPH has been very beneficial; after 5 years, it has worked reasonably well. One question is whether or not it is a black box. He did some analysis of published reports to do spot checking. He did analysis on, for example, the fancast category. I will not try to replicate it here.

1144: David Kaplan against, arguing that the EPH method may push works by marginalized creators down due to a slating effect of members of marginalized communities simply nominating those from their communities. He suggests instead that “no award” voting be used to point toward the existence of slates.

1146: Mr. Richards for EPH, reminding us that EPH came from a crisis point in WorldCon and the valid fear that if EPH falls off, the problem will return.

1147: Lisa Hayes against, calls it a black box.

1149: Kate Secor for, “It’s not that complicated.” To people outside this room, Hugo Nominations are a black box anyway.

1150: Dave McCarty against. Says that bullet voting gets past EPH and people do it both on purpose and inadvertantly. EPH and Five and Six work against each other.

1159: Question is called. We vote, but then… time for another division LET’S GOOOOOOOOO

1201: Question is definitely called. And EPH is RESOUNDINGLY re-ratified.

1203: E.2 30 Days Hath New Business. There is something going on and I’m not sure what. I think there’s an amendment proposed to this thing that’s already passed once? Don Eastlake has the amendment, which would be “this rule may be suspended with a 2/3 vote.” Because he argues this is basically a standing rule.

1208: Sorry for the long pause, having internet problems. Also, we are in the weeds in a serious way.

1210: We vote to take up the amendment to E.2. Then Jared rules that this is a lesser change so it will not need re-ratification.

1210: Kate Secor asks if the amendment will violate the standing rule against creating time loops because it would effectively have the meeting rule on something that occurs before the meeting is convened.

1211: Intense debate happening at the officer table.

1212: “All right, now that we’ve had English 101 here…” A time loop has not been created, per the chair.

1214: I have no idea what is happening any more, please hold.

1214: Don Eastlake moves to refer to committee, to report back tomorrow. Kate Secor argues that we already have so much to do tomorrow.

1217: Committee referral passes. We’ll revisit E.2 tomorrow.

1218: Short pause for memory card change, then E.3 The Statue of Liberty Play. (This is a Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee thing.) No one stands up for debate, E.3 is ratified.

1222: E.4 A Matter of Days; no one stands for debate. E.4 is ratified.

1223: E.5 Non-Transferability of Voting Rights. Ben Yalow in favor; people who want to be involved can buy a membership. Speech against –

1228: Andrew Adams for – ConZealand got to have a really horrible experience dealing with the membership issue. He doesn’t care which way there’s clarity, but there needs to be clarification on if there is transferability or not. Because they had to make the decisions themselves and it was horrible. It needs to be in the rules one way or another. So if people don’t want this, please clarify it in the other way.

1228: Speech against – feels this is an attack on people with low and fixed income.

1230: Kate Secor for – doing a membership in WSFS and then separating attendance is not so different from professional organizations many people are part of. If memberships in WSFS are transferred there is no one tracking/informing what rights come with it. This would mean WSFS memberships cannot be transferred, but a ticket to the WorldCon can be transferred.

1232: Perianne Lurie against – This effectively makes memberships less valuable. It’s been fine the old way up until now.

1233: Ron Oakes for – fully supports this as a former Hugo database administrator. This does not effect the ability to transfer an attending “upgrade.” The person you sell your upgrade to must simply have a WSFS membership already.

1236: Attempt to call the question, which fails. Debate continues.

1251: Vote on ratification–division is called for. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS FOLKS, THIRD SERPENTINE OF THE MEETING.

1253: Motion is ratified, 46-40.

1254: As we only have a few minutes left, we are going into recess tomorrow. Whoof we have a lot lined up for tomorrow.

13 thoughts on “WSFS Business Meeting – Saturday Liveblog

  1. Pingback: EPH Re-Ratified, Pro-Ukraine and Anti-Lukianenko Resolutions Passed by Chicon 8 Business Meeting | File 770

  2. Reply Andrew Sep 3,2022 13:12

    Thank you!

  3. Reply Andrew Sep 3,2022 13:14

    Thank you for this (possible duplicate comment – sorry)

  4. Reply Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little Sep 3,2022 13:31

    1049: I’m not going to try to summarize the debate, but I will note in this and the previous resolution, the slippery slope argument got pulled out each time. It is a particular quirk of mine that I find this line of argument particularly unconvincing.

    I noticed that, too. And I think that “But if we start making statements reflecting the values of WSFS, where will it end?” is neither a logically nor morally impressive argument.

    Thank you for your liveblogs, and also for your contributions to the debate.

    • Reply Alex Sep 3,2022 23:17

      “Neither logically nor morally impressive” is such a concise way of putting it.


  5. Reply Rick Moen Sep 3,2022 15:37

    Thank for the diligent coverage, as always, Alex. As a minor edit, that name is Chuck Serface, a thoughtful contributor for many years.

  6. Reply Soon Lee Sep 3,2022 16:22

    Thank you! Your Business Meeting liveblogs are a treasure.

  7. Reply Dave Wallace Sep 5,2022 03:58

    Hi, Alex. My comments on my analysis of the Fancast category in 2017 were taken from my recent comment at File770 here. You can find links to the original analysis and spreadsheet in that comment.

    The analysis I quoted directly was:

    Superversive SF had 6 solo votes and 55 shared 2-way with Rageaholic. Rageaholic had 21 solo, and the 55 shared 2-way votes with SSF. Neither shared votes with any other long list nominee.
    Storyological at the time of its elimination had 14 solo votes, 1 3-way with Fansplaining and Fangirl Happy Hour, and 7 2-ways: 1 with Coode Street, 1 with Fangirl Happy Hour, 1 with Tea and Jeopardy, 3 with Skiffy and Fanty, and 1 with Down and Safe.

    I also noted that this kind of analysis does not expose any individual’s vote unless they choose to disclose it, nor does it allow one to correlate votes between categories, but it does allow an individual who voted for a long list entry that got eliminated to either see the effect of the points from their vote getting transferred correctly (yea!), or to claim that their vote should have been listed but was not, allowing them to show that something was wrong with how their vote was handled if they are willing to disclose their vote after the fact. This allows spot checking of the EPH published results in a way the old system did not allow.

  8. Reply Kevin Standlee Sep 12,2022 20:49

    Not mentioned in here was the point of order I raised where I thought that Chuck Surface’s debate had drifted away from the first resolution and into the second and was not germane. I understand why the Chair ruled it PofO not well taken, and spoke briefly with Chuck about it after the meeting. He took no offense, for which I’m happy as I like Chuck and consider him a friend.

Leave a Reply