WSFS Business Meeting – Sunday Liveblog 7

1003: Meeting is in session. Jared starts off reading a land acknowledgment.

1005: Warren Buff up for report on site selection. This is the first year we’ve had electronic site selection and it was a rousing selection. 323 electronic votes this year, total of 802 ballots expressing a preference. He reads out the write-in candidates; the remaining 776 votes were (unsurprisingly) for Glasgow. There were NO ballots indicating none of the above.

1008: Esther MacCallum Stewart, chair of Glasgow 2024, is up to introduce us to Glasgow WorldCon. She calls up all of her team who is present. A lot of kilts! And people wearing the same tartans. (ETA: It’s called “landing zone” and it’s the Glasgow 2024 tartan.) We start with a video that’s I’m Gonna Be by the Proclaimers. There is a lot of singing and clapping along! Everyone is so excited :)

1013: The name of the con will be Glasgow 2024: A WorldCon for Our Futures.

1013: Esther thanks the previous chairs of Glasgow WorldCons.

1014: Announcement of guests! Artist Chris Baker (Fangorn). Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer.

1016: Ken Macleod. Nnedi Okorafor. Terri Windling.

1019: Prices for WorldCon up. The website should be alive in about 40 minutes. Note that the tartan is going to be available for purchase, either already made into items or just the cloth if you want to make something for yourself!

1022: DisCon III immediately sends $27K in pass-along funds to Glasgow. Dave McCarty gives Esther a ribbon.

1024: In response to a question, Esther notes that Glasgow WorldCon is happening temporally close by to the Edinburgh music festival and Edinburgh Fringe, which is a 45 minute train ride away, and there is a ton of stuff always happening. The Glasgow table will be opened by midday.

1026: Warren Buff to report the NASFic votes. 312 votes for Winnipeg. Note Orlando had withdrawn.

1029: For Winnipeg… dang, I missed the names of the ladies who came up to talk about NASFic. I am so sorry. (Someone correct me?) We start with the land acknowledgment for Manitoba; it’s Treaty One (?) territory. Dates for NASFic are July 20-23, 2023. (The Winnipeg NASFic is going to be Pemmi-Con, I love it.)

1032: Question time & presentation for Chengdu 2023. Starting with a presentation regarding the Chengdu facilities.

1045: Questions now. Martin Pyne – when will the dates be set? Ben Yalow – It has been set! It’s on the next PR, but he can tell us now. It’s August 16-20, 2023.

1046: Dave Hook – since Covid is still ongoing, what is the backup plan if Chengdu gets shut down again. Ben Yalow – Boy have things changed a lot over the last several years, and we have another year for things to change further. We can’t really plan on what the restrictions might be. We’re wide open on in person because we don’t know what it’s going to be. We’re also planning a significant virtual programming track for those who cannot attend in person.

1047: Brian Nisbet – Will Chengdu be able to do online site selection considering its success here? Ben Yalow – no decision have yet been made concerning electronic site selection. They’d like to know how things were done here to see what is feasible and if it can be integrated with existing and new platforms. New platform should be rolling out any day now.

1048: Andrew Adams – Visas will be required for many who are regular WorldCon attendees. Will you have information to help people get Visas. Ben Yalow – we’re hoping to get financial government sponsorship of the convention soon, and if that happens we may be able to get some help with getting Visas too.

1049: question about venue. Ben Yalow – Chinese contracting practices are different from what we’re used to. We have an agreement with the venue; there is no contract yet, but there is a general agreement.

1050: Winnton Matthews – What percentage are you expecting to have the programming in Chinese vs Chinese/English. Ben Yalow – A lot of this is going to do with if we get government sponsorship. With the right kind of corporate sponsorship, we have a hope of being able to get simultaneous translation services, but cannot lock that in until we have sponsorship sorted out and see what is feasible.

1052: Mark Richards – For those who are supporting members of Chengdu, what arrangements are being made for Hugo votes etc. Ben Yalow – Correction: everyone who voted or purchased an advance supporting membership for Chengdu has been upgraded free to attending. We are in the process of getting data from DisCon and rolling out a new registration platform.

1054: Terry Ash – What is the timeline on getting the facilities/hotel contract for people who need to do serious advance planning. Ben Yalow – we are still working on this. Right now, travel arrangements between here and Chengdu are quite terrible. Many flight paths have been cancelled. We hope many of the international flights will come back… but that’s out of our control.

1057: End of questions, quick pause to change memory cards in camera.

1059: Now we are back to E.2 30 Days Hath New Business, with Jesi Lipp explaining the committee report on why the rule change is written as it is, which does not actually cause a time loop.

1102: Jared: “Andrew, for what member does the purpose rise? Wait…” Andrew inquiries if this is even a lesser change at all or if it is functionally no change at all. Jared clarifies that it is functionally no change, but we will call it a lesser change to just make it clear why it does not need to be re-ratified next year.

1104: The text of E.2 is amended as written now. No debate requested. E.2 is ratified.

1105: Time for new constitutional amendments! Alan Tupper rises with a motion to suspend the rules and censure the committee of Chengdu WorldCon for not being sufficiently prepared… at a time on Monday morning. There is a second. Martin gets up to say he has heard an objection to consideration. The objection to consideration is out of order as first the body has to vote to suspend the rules in the first place.

1108: Not two thirds in favor of suspending the rules. Moving on.

1109: We are not taking up F.2 To Defuse the Turnout Bomb, Cut the Red Wire, as it has been moved to take up before F.1 The Zero Percent Solution. Kate Secor moves to send F.1 and F.2 to a committee of the whole since F.1 and F.2 are are mutually exclusive so let’s just resolve them into a single motion and vote on that.

1111: We are going into the committee of the whole with Jesi Lipp presiding. No objections to continuing to record. This means we are taking advantage of the looser debate rules; we have been instructed to come out of this with a single motion. We cannot directly change, but we can recommend changes.

1116: Rafe Richards moves that the report of this meeting be to suspend the rules to remove F.2 from the agenda and take up F.1 immediately. Doing one of the two amendments is a very good idea, and he thinks F.1 is a better idea than F.2.

1118: Cliff Dunn against. Adopting F.1 means we could still end up with categories where there are only a couple hundred votes or a handful of people. Feels that there is a point where the community has spoken by broad disinterest. And F.2 speaks to that.

1120: Olav Rokne for. There are already mechanisms for removing categories with insufficient interest; it’s this body. Goes into the history of where the clause in question came from and argues that it has not done the job it was intended to do.

1122: Ben Yalow against. Thinks we should have a safety mechanism for when there is no statistical significance to the result.

1124: Speech for. There are some categories that are more difficult for people to engage with. That does not make those who do engage with them irrelevant.

1128: Committee of the whole disbanded. Jesi Lipp gives the report after Jared called the question (hah). Now voting to suspend the rules. The ayes have it. F.2 is now removed from the agenda and we will take up F.1.

1130: Corina Stark for F.1. Unexpected things happen that can prevent people from nominating and voting in the awards. Those in small categories deserve to be recognized and celebrated no matter how few votes they receive.

1132: Jesi Lipp attempts to call the question. There is no objection. We proceed to the vote on F.1.

1134: Call for division. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS IT’S TIME FOR THE SERPENTINE. Dunno why this is necessary because there’s a lot of ayes… but I guess it’ll get the numbers on record.

1139: 72 in favor, 19 against.

1140: Jesi Lipp calls our attention to paragraph 29 of Roberts Rules of Orders Revised, which states that when the result of a vote is clear, the chair should not allow a call of division by an individual member that will annoy the assembly.

1141: Jared has taken pity on us and given us a 10 minute recess byeeeeeeee.

1155: Back in session. Jesi Lipp is making a few motions. Asking for consent of body to take up F.6 immediately so the maker of the motion can be here. Then moves to refer F.6 and F.5 to committee of the whole. Martin Pyne objects. Andrew Adams for the committee of the whole as F.5 and F.6 are closely linked enough. Martin Pyne brings up that he thinks we can deal with F.6 expeditiously and deal with F.5 tomorrow. Terri Ash points out that F.6 implicates no other category unlike F.5.

1204: Motion to move F.5 and F.6 to committee of the whole fails. Terri Ash comes up to speak for F.6 as the maker of the motion. The artist categories have been so fundamentally bolted to publishing for so long, that it does not actually reflect the way fantasy/scifi is made, put into the public, or sold. Most artists are putting work out there and directly selling it; publishers are not coming to art shows to find cover artists any more.

1207: Lisa Hertel against. Lisa is a professional artist; the problem is that every fan artist eventually offers their work for sale. If nothing else, it lets you eventually get it out of the house. Lisa moves that we strike “for sale” from both sentences it occurs in.

1210: Speeches against. That amendment would effectively continue the status quo. Dave McCarty argues that the difference between fan and professional art is entirely that fan art is available for free.

1212: Diane Castello for. This is not the reality of how fanart works now. Effectively charging for prints, etc, of fanart of other IP to make money…

1213: Ben Yalow manages to put a six second speech against. (“Challenge accepted.”) He at least gets a full independent clause before Jared gavels him.

1220: I brought up the definitional problem of fan vs pro artist. Some understand fan as an artist that just doesn’t charge money, while the newer definition is frankly someone who uses someone else’s IP to make art. And if we’re going to start bringing in professional artists making money off someone else’s IP we are getting into a very sticky place. (I know fanartists do make money in this fashion. I have paid fanartists for such work before, myself. But if we are going to start drawing attention to it via Hugo Award, this could become a massive issue if IP holders start noticing.)

1225: Now we are debating whether to refer to committee.

1231: Voting on the motion to refer to committee and… it is too close to call, so we’re doing a division. SERPENTINE NUMBER TWO. 49 for and 36 against. F.6 is referred to committee. It will be chaired by Sarah Felix and co-chaired by Teri Hertel.

1233: Motion to suspend the rules and take up F.4 Best Game or Interactive Work. The ayes have it, we are doing F.4 next.

1235: Ira Alexandre recognized as maker of the motion. Moves to strike 2026 in the sunset clause to 2028 so it gets the standard five years. It passes to be 2028. Now in favor of F.4 in general. The video game/interactive work category outperformed many other categories in the year it ran and had comparable participation to short form dramatic presentation. This is a golden age of games as art and we should recognize this vital and thriving speculative fiction medium.

1239: Rafe Richards against, bringing the Too Many Hugos argument. He’d rather have a best games hugo than some of the ones we already have, but until we get rid of some of them, he can’t support a new one.

1241: Question is called. Ron objects. The ayes have it, the question is called.

1242: F.4 Best Game or Interactive Work is passed on to Chengdu for ratification next year.

1243: A straw poll is taken up to see if we think we can get through F.3. WE’RE GONNA TRY IT.

1244: Cliff Dunn speaking for F.3, which will have a process for getting rid of unpopular Hugos. He notes that there is a massive social cost for anyone who brings up eliminating a category. Having a mechanism to automatically bring up categories for review means no one has to fall on their sword on the internet.

1247: Andrew Adams moves to make this from a constitutional amendment to a standing rules change. Kate Secor asks how that would effect things. Jared answers: it will take effect at the end of the worldcon and not need to be ratified; could be suspended by a 2/3 majority, which is rather meaningless since it would have to happen before the business meeting; could be amended in a one year process.

1249: Dave McCarty after the explanation of the chair, he feels that it would be better for this to be a two year process rather than at the whim of a single business meeting. Ben Yalow in favor. While he thinks the criteria is too difficult, but either way it remains a two year process, because actually killing a category will require amending the constitution. Kevin Standlee points out that procedurally it is better to make it a standing rule because it is an instruction to the business meeting, not to the convention.

1252: Voting on changing F.3 from amendment to standing rule – it is changed to standing rule. Now voting on putting it in the standing rules – the text of F.3 will be put in the standing rules wherever the secretary deems it appropriate.

1253: Motion to adjourn for the day.

1253: To note, we still have F.5, F.7, and F.8. And… my flight tomorrow is at 1300. So I can *maybe* go to half an hour of tomorrow’s meeting before yeeting to the airport. Yikes.

7 thoughts on “WSFS Business Meeting – Sunday Liveblog

  1. Pingback: Glasgow 2024 Wins, Announces Guests of Honor | File 770

  2. Reply Brian Nisbet Sep 4,2022 12:40

    Wonderful resource, thank you. The correct spelling of my surname is “Nisbet”.

  3. Reply Sara A Mueller Sep 4,2022 15:23

    Thanks for posting notes for those of us who couldn’t be there!

  4. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 9/4/22 The Pixel in the Scroll at the Edge of the World | File 770

  5. Reply Kevin Standlee Sep 12,2022 21:03

    1029: For Winnipeg… dang, I missed the names of the ladies who came up to talk about NASFic. I am so sorry. (Someone correct me?)

    Co-chairs of Pemmi-Con Linda Ross-Mansfield and Robbie Bourget. (Robbie was co-Chair of Anticipation, the 2009 Worldcon in Montreal.

    We start with the land acknowledgment for Manitoba; it’s Treaty One (?) territory. — apparently well-known in Canada but not elsewhere. I’m on Winnipeg’s parent board of directors (CanSMOF, which also ran Anticipation) and didn’t know what it meant either until I looked it up.

    Jared clarifies that it is functionally no change, but we will call it a lesser change to just make it clear why it does not need to be re-ratified next year.

    Which is why I hate this “greater” or “lesser” change terminology. This was a change that was “not greater” which is not the same thing as “lesser” IMO.

    …the chair should not allow a call of division by an individual member that will annoy the assembly.

    I would have pointed out that Standing Rule 7.3 requires that at least ten percent of the people at the meeting have to call for a division in order to do so, but (a) there might have been 10%, and the only way to tell would have been to count again, and (b) it would have taken more time to do it than we would save by doing so.

    and co-chaired by Teri Hertel.

    Lisa Hertel


    Sorry you couldn’t be at Monday’s meeting. I’ve gotten to the point that I never leave until at least the day after the convention; too many things happen on the last day. This year, I couldn’t leave until Friday because even six months in advance, I could not get a bedroom on the California Zephyr train back to Nevada until then. And there are ten bedrooms on each of those trains, which shows you how much demand there is for them.

    Thanks again for doing these reports.

Leave a Reply