Tag: wsfs

You can find a copy of the agenda here.

Hugo Study Committee report here.

The WSFS business meeting #1 liveblog will begin shortly in this space! I’ll update this post every 5-10 minutes.

1007: Five minute warning. Time for the instructional video about parliamentary procedure!

1016: Tim Illingworth is the chair of this business meeting. Staff are Don Eastlake (parliamentarian), Linda, Jesi Lipp, and Paul. Be aware that the business meeting will be recorded and posted later.

1019: Preliminary business meeting agenda: time setting, standing rule changes and resolutions, and MPC nominations.

1021: Kevin Standlee would like to call attention to as a proofreading error. Video crew (Lisa and Scott) will record in batches and there will need to be video breaks, and this year will not be livestreamed.

1022: Tim mentions one of the financial reports has the wrong year on it. All reports are accepted without objection with the acknowledgment that there is the incorrect year.

1023: Committee reports. First up is MPC.

1023: Kevin Standlee chair reports. MPC is the only permanent committee. Manages service marks. The written report is in the agenda. The only item called out is on page 35. Last year, the Flemish language portion of Belgian TV (VRT) launched a prize in honor of Hugo Claus, and were going to call it the “Hugo Award.” Nicholas Whyte made initial contact with them, and they agreed to rename the price the “Hugo Claus Trophy.” The committee believes that this was accomplished without attorneys is because “Hugo Awards” is one of the service marks owned by us in the EU, and this was a good use of money.

1026: Nominations for elections to the MPC…. except Tim didn’t ask for question.

1026: Question from Andrew Adams about Brexit and possible need to re-register marks in the UK.

1027: This has not been considered yet but will be.

1027: Nominations now. Judith Bemis asks to be nominated. Kevin Standlee asks for unanimous consent for incumbent members to remain and receives it.

1028: Terry Neill question – if we unanimously re-nominate the current members, is that the limit, or can we add more? We can have as many as we like. Means tomorrow we will have an actual election instead of “just a coronation.”

1030: Don with report from Nitpicking and Flyspecking committee. The committee recommends that item D2 be passed. The members of the committee are willing to serve another year. The committee is provided for in the standing rules.

1032: Jesi Lipp has a nitpick, which is that her last name needs to be corrected in the report.

1033: No one from the WorldCon Runners Guide committee to report. No one from the FOLLE committee to report. But there is one from the Hugo study committee. “Boy do they have a report.”

1033: Vince says he’s hopefully the outgoing chair of the committee. Report is included in the packet. Vince’s responsibilities for Dublin WorldCon mean that he can’t be chair next year.

1035: Question on how people can get on this committee. A new chair will be appointed who will be taking volunteers.

1036: Now we are on to standing rules changes.

1037: Tim proposes five minutes for everything but D5. I object and explain that after speaking with Marguerite Kenner, D4 needs more time.

1040: Tim tries again with 5 minutes for everything but D4 and D5, and then Terry objects because the Lodestar thing will need more discussion, which she’s probably right on.

1040: Kate Secor points out that when we went through items one by one we could object to consideration, etc. Can we do that if we’re doing them in a lump?

1042: 5 minutes for A1, Restricting Ratification of Amendments.

1043: Cliff Dunn on A1. Primary purpose of this is that there’s a tendency to try to amend things majorly at the ratification meeting. It would be better if members knew if big changes were coming. Concerns that business meeting could be ambushed by a small but dedicated crowd. Greater versus lesser change.

1044: No speech against. Voted on now. A1 passes.

1045: Martin Pyne with a parliamentary inquiry – can there be a motion to put it into effect immediately, when would that be timely? Tim says that in this case, then the person proposing the amendment would have had to do so two weeks ago, so it really doesn’t work.

1046: A2 Deadline for Submission of New Business gets 5 minutes. Kate Secor speaks for, because 2 weeks seems like too short of a time to let everyone deal with proposed business. A month out for new business would make things much easier for the staff and presumably if you have been working on your new business, you should have your ducks in a row that long.

1047: The standing rule changes will come into effect after this business meeting.

1047: Don Eastlake against. Didn’t think it was a problem when the deadline was actually at the business meeting. Simple things could work, complicated amendments proposed at the meeting usually went down in flames. If the deadline is too late for the secretary to get it into the agenda, then the maker of the motion has the burden of printing everything up and bringing it in.

1048: Linda Deneroff against. Having an earlier deadline works better for getting financial reports and such for the agenda. It would stop these last minute, sometimes trivial proposals that get made. An earlier deadline forces people to think what’s going to happen and what they want to accomplish, etc.

1050: Todd Dashoff moves to call the question. Seconded.

1050: Question is called, A2 is passed by majority.

1051: Time limits for business passed on.

1051: C1 What Our Marks Really Are gets five minutes. C2 The Reasonable Amendment gets 5 minutes. C3 Make Room! Make Room! gets 5 minutes. C4 Name That Award gets 10 minutes.

1052: 10 minute break time!

1109: We’re back!

1109: D1 Remote but Real. Five minutes proposed by Tim, ten by Kevin. Ten minutes it is.

1110: Andrew Adams proposes to refer D1 to committee. Point of Order from Kevin; the preliminary business meeting cannot refer to postpone anything beyond the main business meeting.

1111: Cliff asks if we could suspend the rules to do this?

1111: Dr Adams says no thanks, he’ll just do this tomorrow.

1112: Motion to postpone indefinitely, which is seconded. This is debatable at four minutes.

1112: For postponement: This is a complex issue, and we need time to figure it out, with or without a committee. This shouldn’t be taken up this year.

1113: Kate Secor: Agrees that the motion is missing some discussion. Urges not postpone indefinitely, but that we move it to committee tomorrow.

1113: Ben Yalow speaks against postponement as well. Can’t do this without discussing it, and we cannot form a committee by postponing it. Tomorrow when it comes to the floor and we can send it to a committee, let’s do that.

1114: Kevin Standlee thinks that this is a really bad idea in principle. We really don’t want to go here, and we don’t want to create an elected body separate from the business meeting.

1115: Terry Neill is broadly in favor of things that broaden WorldCon to serve more members and would like to see it thoroughly discussed.

1116: Parliamentary Inquiry from Seth. If the motion to postpone indefinitely, can there still be a motion to appoint a study committee to report back next year. Tim says that yes, we could do so.

1117: Motion to postpone indefinitely fails.

1118: Warren Buff with motion to suspend the rules and send this to committee.

1118: When would be the committee be expected to report? Next year.

1119: Point of Order from Kevin. This seems to have not come up before. There is a principle behind suspending the rules. Rules that affect the rights of absentees cannot be suspended. Members may take for granted that motions to create committees cannot be taken up until the main business meeting for that reason. Tim agrees, motion is out of order.

1122: Joshua Kronengold speaks for this motion; it is already known by absentees that a motion could be killed. A motion to move to committee is allowable because it is a lesser version of killing an item.

1122: Terry Neill says that we have a flow of the meeting that people expect. If we overrule the chair, we’re sticking a socket wrench in that expectation.

1123: Elspeth believes that assumption is incorrect.

1123: Seth with a PI. If we did overrule the chair, would it be in order for the main meeting to take it back from the committee and consider it. Tim doesn’t think so. Don says you can’t do by a normal motion, but can move to reconsider, etc.

1124: Kate Secor: there is a qualitative difference between the thought processes of killing a motion versus sending to committee. Not giving people a chance to know a committee is even being formed because they’re not here is pretty unfair.

1126: We vote on the appeal of the ruling of the chair, and that appeal is lost. D1 will proceed to tomorrow’s meeting and probably be referred to committee there.

1127: D2 Adding Series to the Series is given 5 minutes of time.

1127: D3 Counting Comics. 5 minutes proposed. 8 minutes proposed. 8 minutes is set.

1128: Dave McCarty (Hugo admin) to speak to the motion itself. This is not a technical fix; this is a substantial change to how we will count in this category. Moving to postpone indefinitely because he thinks it is ill conceived.

1129: Dr. Adams against the motion because he believes there should be a debate.

1129: Kate Secor this particular proposal is offensive to someone who nominates. She nominates what she nominates.

1130: David Brachman (former Hugo admin) says the reason for this is because this category has particular problems for administrators. There is ambiguity left, but in this case it should be clarified what will happen when they nominate something.

1131: He is still Ben Yalow and does not think this is guidance that should be given to Hugo admins, because this is not how things should be counted.

1132: John L (also a former Hugo admin) says the original rules were extremely nebulous, and this will clarify things.

1132: Terry Neill suggests we do with this what we did with D1 and take this on to tomorrow where it can be referred to committee.

1133: Kent Bloom says that whether it is postponed indefinitely or it goes back to committee, there is a committee already looking at these matters and it will be considered by them.

1133: PRK with PI. Would this prohibit the Hugo Study Committee if it was postponed? No, just the business meeting. The committee can consider it.

1135: Motion is voted… OH SHIT KIDS IT’S OUR FIRST SERPENTINE.

1137: More than two-thirds in favor of being postponed indefinitely, so D3 is toast. Tim remarks that the Hugo Study Committee should take note.

1138: Todd Dashoff points out that the remit of the Hugo Study Committee is section 3.2 and 3.3, and this is 3.8.

1139: Kate Secor points out that the language does not say it’s limited only to 3.2 and 3.3. So it can be considered by the committee.

1140: 10 minutes debate for D4 Best Podcast Hugo Award.

1140: Kate Secor moves to postpone indefinitely because people eligible for this award have expressed extreme concerns about this language. Better to postpone indefinitely so it can be reworked. Seconded, and postponed indefinitely by an overwhelming majority.

1141: D5 Professional and Fan Artist Hugo Awards. 20 minutes for debate.

1142: Ms. Dashoff points out that tomorrow the business meeting is set against the ASFA meeting, and proposes to postpone definitely until Sunday. (Kevin clarifies the motion should technically be to not be considered before 11 on Sunday.) Unanimous on that motion, so this will be considered at the WSFS meeting on Sunday.

1143: D6 Comic Books and Graphic Stories. 5 minutes for debate.

1144: D7 Notability Still Matters. 5 minutes for debate.

1144: Meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow morning! See you then.

This meeting felt incredibly fast and quiet compared to every other meeting. We just ran right through things. A little over thirty minutes from start to adjourning sine die.

• Retrospective Improvement Part 1 is ratified without debate.
• Retrospective Improvement Part 2 is ratified without debate.
• Universal Suffrage is ratified without debate.
• What Our Marks Really Are is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
• The Reasonable Amendment is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
• Make Room! Make Room! is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
• Big thanks all around to everyone, and meeting is adjourned!

And that’s it until next year. If you like what I do, throw the price of a coffee into my tip jar. See y’all in San Jose!

Previous Posts:

• Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #1: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #2: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #3: Liveblog | Summary

Usual rules apply!

1001: Meeting called to order.

1006: On to the ratification of constitutional amendments still remaining.

1006: Retrospective Improvement Part 1. This is a replacement for retro Hugos. This is to allow retro Hugos for the four year window between the third and fourth WorldCons because “there was a disruption.” “The late unpleasantness.”

1009: Retrospective Improvement Part 1 is ratified without debate and a simple show of hands.

1010: On to Retrospective Improvement Part 2.  Ratified without debate.

1011: Next will be Universal Suffrage. This is basically to prevent a convention committee from selling a convention full weekend pass without including WSFS voting rights. This prevents the decoupling of membership from attendance. WorldCons will still be able to sell individual day passes just fine.

1015: Clarification: full weekend passes bought after the Hugo voting deadline means you wouldn’t be able to exercise Hugo nominating/voting for that year because the deadline was past, but only because of that. And you still would be able to vote/nominate/etc for the next year. And come to the WSFS meeting and vote, and so on.

1017: No debate, Universal Suffrage is ratified.

1017: And that’s all the business from last year! (I think there might be more than a few hangovers in the crowd today.)

1018: Three items of new business remain, as D5 (Requiring Electronic Payments) has been withdrawn, D4 (Name that Award) was passed Friday, and D6-8 (Category reorganization stuff) were referred to committee.

1020: D.1 What Our Marks Really Are. There’s a little language correction to it to instruct the MPC to communicate with NASFiCs as well as WorldCons.

1022: Motion to adopt the amendment without debate. Needs 2/3 majority… which the chair thinks we have. Division is called for, but before I can get the serpentine alarm wound up, the motion is withdrawn. Apparently we are not in a serpentine kind of mood today.

1023: There are some questions but honestly it’s nitpicky and I need more tea, sorry.

1026: No debate, What Our Marks Really Are passes and will be sent to San Jose for ratification.

1026: Next up The Reasonable Amendment. This is a one word change.

1027: Another move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. This time, it worked just fine. The Reasonable Amendment will be going on to San Jose for ratification.

1028: Last item is Make Room! Make Room! The effect of this would be to make the gray zone boundary between novella and novel 8000 words.

1029: Mr Dunn moves to send to the Hugo Award Study Committee. No second, so that doesn’t happen.

1030: Dr Laurie moves to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. This passes. Make Room! Make Room! will be sent on to San Jose for ratification.

1031: Point of personal privilege from Ms Secor, an all around thank you. Lots of applause.

1032: Almost time to adjourn. The chair announces about fifteen minutes after adjournment, the MPC will meet.

1033: Mr Docherty moves to adjourn Sine Die in memory of David A Kyle, Kathleen Mire, and Peter Weston.

And that’s it! Fastest business meeting ever.

Summary for the rather short main business meeting, since I didn’t show up until after site selection and the WorldCon Chairs photo.

• Best Series is ratified. It will continue as a regular category. It will be up for re-ratification in 2021 and automatically added to the agenda.
• Three Stage Voting fails ratification.
• EPH+ fails ratification by a large majority. This is likely because its effect would have strengthened bullet voting still further, and we’ve already seen that happening this year.
• Motion to suspend EPH fails. EPH will continue to be in effect.
• Motion to suspend 5 and 6 fails. 5 and 6 will remain in effect. (Discussion was had as to whether this worked at conflict with EPH. Personally, I would need to see more data.)
• Defining North America is ratified, with apologies from Ben Yalow.
• Meeting adjourned with dire warning from the chair that we have the room for five hours tomorrow, and we had better not use all that time.

Previous Posts:

• Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #1: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #2: Liveblog | Summary

Sorry to be a few minutes late, everyone.

What we missed: By unanimous consent, the word “volume” in Best Series was changed to “installment” to indicate it doesn’t necessarily have to be a full novel added.

Now we join our meeting, already in progress.

1108: Dr Farah Mendelsohn for the ratification of Best Series. Basically a rehash of the arguments for from last year, indicating there are mechanisms for keeping the category fresh, etc.

1112: Question from Dr Adams; if we ratify this amendment this year, will the series that won for 2017 be eligible since the Best Series this year was actually a special Hugo, not under this amendment. The Chair rules that he declines to rule and it’s up to the administrator for next year’s award.

1115: Ben Yalow speaking against the chair’s ruling. Believes the chair is incorrect because the exclusion clause is “has not won previously 3.3.x” and thus this year’s winner will still be eligible.

1116: Lisa Hayes for; this leaves it open to the administrators. You have to leave it open to the interpretation by the administrators, that’s their job.

1117: Debate ended and question called. The chair’s ruling is sustained.

1117: Dr Adams offering amendment to add that the winner under WorldCon 75 be excluded as if it had won under 3.3.x. Chair rules the motion is out of order. It would increase the scope of the amendment.

1118: Dr Laurie brings up that it’s impossible to actually become familiar with all of the series to vote intelligently.

1119: There is no time left for arguments in favor. Mr Tredaway has an inquiry – does this exclude a graphic series from eligibility? Chair rules that it’s defined by word count, so if you have a graphic series that has that number of words, sure. Dr Adams clarifies that this was asked last year too and answered the same way.

1121: Mr Whyte, this year’s Hugo administrator also against – agrees with Dr Laurie. The joy is in celebrating the work of the previous year. We’re really changing the meaningfulness of that if we’re shifting to work that goes back sometimes decades.

1122: Motion to end debate fails.

1123: Ms Rudolph against – agrees with Dr Laurie, and does not think there will be sufficient Hugo-worthy works to keep nominating after a few years.

1124: Mr Yalow against – has vast sympathies for the burden on the Hugo administrators. Series vs sub-series; uses the “1632” series as an example. How are we defining it? The award is difficult if not impossible to administer.

1125: Mr McCarty against – in all other fiction categories, we judge complete works. The series are not necessarily compete.

1126: SERPENTINE SERPENTINE SERPENTINE (the Chair is in doubt)

1131: 51 for, 39 against. Best Series is ratified. It will become a regular category starting in 2018. Note that it will be up for re-ratification in 2021 and is automatically on the agenda.

1133: Three Stage Voting is up. The chair recuses himself as he intends to speak in favor in debate. Mr Eastlake becomes acting chair.

1134: Mr Harris for – 3SV is a targeted strategy for removing unsuitable works; brings the No Award option forward. All algorithmic approaches are still vulnerable to gaming. The human judgment places the responsibility upon the voters. 3SV is something forced on us as a response by people who are bad actors. The question is if this is still needed. If you think there’s a chance of people coming back with a targeted attack again; if you think the measures are unnecessary and the bad actors have lost interest, then vote against it. What is our success criteria? What do we consider a good ballot? EPH guarantees a couple of good candidates; a lot of us thought that years in the future with categories that are half slate was not great. Decide you are okay, for example, with PNH being displaced by VD because of bullet voting.

1138: PRK has a PoI – would an amendment to make 3SV at the discretion of the Hugo Administrator be a greater or lesser change? The chair rules that this would be a lesser scope change and such an amendment would be in order.

1139: Dr Laurie against – doesn’t think we need this. Thinks making sure we have five good nominees, that’s good enough.

1140: Mr Standlee for – in 2015, Kevin had the choice to preside over the business meeting as opposed to proposing this, and he regrets not doing 3SV then. This strategy is more in keeping with the ethos of the Hugos; it has safeguards built into it. It puts the power in the hands of the voters. It has a supermajority and quorum requirement. It doesn’t empower just the administrator. This takes some of the things the administrators have had to do in secret and quickly before, and puts them in the open and in the hands of the voters. During the preliminary period, that’s when permission and eligibility checks for the nominees; and now the Hugo admins can openly ask for help contacting people instead of trying to do so in secret. Also takes burden of keeping quiet from potential finalists. Crowdsources the eligibility and contact research.

1144: Ms Secor against – introduces a political stage to the Hugos.

1146: Mr Wallace for – welcomes this amendment as an author of EPH and EPH+. Helps restore the honor of being a finalist. By putting junk nominations out there.

1147: Ms Deneroff question – is this intended to replace EPH or be an adjunct?

1148: Mr Whyte against – as this year’s Hugo admin, has changed his position on this. Says puppies are no longer a problem. Doesn’t think there’s sufficient evidence for thresholds set in amendment.

1151: Question – is it possible to delay this another year so we don’t have to go through the whole process? Not as such, but there are ways to effectively do that.

1152: Mr Oakes for – this will be very easy to implement. Does not trust VD to keep his word. (hear hear!)

1154: Mr Boucher moves to insert “at the discretion of the site selection of the Hugo Administrator” – Kevin Standlee requests it’s “the administering WorldCon” as a point of order. No objection.

1155: Mr Boucher in favor of the amendment – we need weapons that are available to us, but doesn’t mean we have to use them constantly.

1156: Mr Yalow against – 3SV is already becoming a political question. This makes it more political and puts the administrator in the heart of the politics.

1157: Kevin Standlee with a PoI – would this increase the scope of the change. Chair is of the opinion that it decreases the scope and as such is a lesser change.

1157: Chair’s ruling is appealed. Sorry, not following the ruling appeal debate because I needed another cup of tea.

1201: Question is called on appeal of the chair’s ruling. We are three deep now and people are getting confused, so Mr Eastlake is explaining it. And we’re a SERPENTINE HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS

1205: 40 for, 47 against; chair’s ruling is overturned, making this proposed amendment a major change.

1206: Back to the amendment. Kevin moves to call the question. Seconded. (This would mean voting to the amendment and then the underlying proposal with no further debate.)

1208: Mr Cronengold has a PI – has there been sufficient debate? Yes.

1208: Mr Yalow with a PI – will you have to have two calls on who wishes to speak? Yes.

1209: Dr Laurie is confused (ME TOO, DR LAURIE) – voting order of the stack? Yes. Okay.

1210: Question is called on all pending questions. So we’re going to vote on the amendment first. Nays have it and amendment fails. (The bit about the additional clause.)

1210: Now onto ratification of 3SV. Ratification is defeated.

1211: 10 minute recess.

1223: And we’re back. The chair would like to remind us that when he asks if there is objection, if you do not object, keep your mouth shut. There is no objection to taking up EPH+ before the motion to suspend EPH.

1223: Now we will have a report from the Hugo Administrators on EPH not to exceed 10 minutes.

1224: Mr Whyte has provided detailed reports. Perhaps unprecedentedly so.

1226: This is a really impressive number of reports Mr Whyte has produced, y’all.

1229: Clear conclusion: EPH this year made it much harder for slate candidates to get on the nomination list, but made it easier for those with bullet voting to do so.

1231: Move to thank the administrator and his staff for going above and beyond on this analysis. Lots of applause.

1233: On to EPH+, or rather the amendment for EPH+. Recognizing Mr Wallace first to speak in favor. Chair is ruling that if the amendment for EPH+ passes, it will be a greater change and there will need to be an additional for EPH+ for ratification.

1235: The ruling of the chair is appealed. Five minutes of debate that comes out of the five minutes for the amendment. The chair says looking at the proposal, it’s changing a lot of stuff and the only way to digest it properly is with another year.

1236: Ms Secor against the ruling – the effect of 6.1 is to make the use of EPH+ is optional. Making things optional is a lesser and not a greater change.

1236: Mr Yalow for the ruling – in our recent history, ie a few minutes ago, we decided things that give greater power and flexibility that did not exist prior in fact do constitute greater changes. We should follow the precedent that we set twenty minutes ago.

1237: Mr Cronengold against the ruling – the change here is that 6.1 would allow the business meeting to make the change available a year in advance. It makes a sunrise clause. It does not expand the scope.

1238: Dr Laurie calls the question on the appeal. Chair’s ruling is sustained. The amendment is a greater change if passed and will require an additional year of ratification.

1239: Motion to extend debate back to five minutes since we just used a bunch of the amendment’s debate time. There is objection because I think we want to keep moving.

1240: Debate clock is not reset because there’s less than 2/3 voting for it.

1241: Dave Wallace for the amendment – the effect is to make EPH+ optional on a vote of the business meeting. It’s the extra strength version; makes anti-slate stronger but also makes bullet voting stronger.

1243: Mr Harris against – it’s not helpful to switch this on and off from year to year; this only becomes clear in Jan/Feb when people start announcing intent.

1244: The amendment fails. Now on to EPH+.

1245: Mr Wallace for – This has a stronger anti-slating effect. Given that 3SV has failed, we should pass EPH+, because he does not trust the chief puppy to abandon his efforts. Doesn’t think we’ve seen the end of it.

1247: Mr McCarty against – EPH does reward bullet voting. People who nominate only one thing get disproportionate strength under this system. Under EPH+ this becomes even worse.

1248: Mr Cronengold moves to add a one year sunrise…. can’t do that, since amendments are considered speech against.

1248: Ms Hayes against – fundamentally against EPH, and thus EPH+ is basically worse. It’s a magic box.

1251: Debate ended, we are voting to ratify of EPH+.

1251: EPH+ is NOT ratified by a vast majority.

1253: Mr Yalow speaking for suspending EPH for a year because the way it encourages people to bullet vote. EPH makes nominating harder to explain. Points out that Sad Puppies, who include longtime members of fandom, changed their behavior to be less bad, while the rabids went back to gaming things.

1255: Mr Dunn against – if EPH goes away, what’s to say the slates won’t return? The suspension motion was just up if things interacted strangely, which they didn’t.

1256: Ms Hayes for – agreement with Ben Yalow

1257: Ms Stark against – bullet voting allows one bad candidate on the list, but that’s what 5 and 6 is for. Don’t bring back the slates.

1257: Mr Bloom for – his opinion that EPH has no effect on the puppies. The No Awarding is what made them change their strategy.

1258: Alex speech against (hi this is Corina).  Getting rid of EPH would be bad because the Puppies are watching and won’t give up.  Sad that 3SV was struck down so strongly suggesting it be kept on until we get something better.

1300: Mr Kovalcek for – better we have a clear system that is easy to explain in the short term. EPH is horrible, we need to come up with something better.

1300: Mr Renda against – EPH is bad, but it’s the price we pay for having better resistance to slates.

1301: Mr McCarty for – for the record; while we use EPH we will continue to get perverse results with things getting knocked off the ballot for inexplicable reasons.

1303: Mr Pomeranz against – reluctantly, defends EPH. Thinks the greatest harm will be swinging back and forth too quickly. Get more data on the results. The ill effects are not so significantly bad as to need to remove it immediately.

1304: By vast majority, the motion fails. EPH continues in effect for the following year.

1305: 10 minute recess.

1314: Meeting back in order. We are on to Defining North America.

1316: Mr McCarty proposes to suspend rules so we can bring up 5 and 6 now to dispose of like business together.

1318: Rules are suspended, motion to suspend 5 and 6 for one year is before the meeting.

1319: Clarification: laying a motion on the table does not specify when we will pick it back up. It requires a motion to pick it back up. If we do not pick it back up before the meeting is adjourned sine die, the motion dies.

1319: Mr Yalow is not asking a question where he knows the answer already for once. We are not allowed to adjourn sine die when there is still privileged business on the agenda, so is this motion privileged?

1320: Chair: We can adjourn sine die without picking it back up.

1321: Motion to lay on the table fails.

1321: Now on to the motion to suspend 5 and 6.

1322: Mr Bloom in favor of suspending 5 and 6 because we didn’t suspend EPH and says they are at cross purposes. At least one should be suspended.

1324: Mr Cronengold against – please stop switching back and forth. Let’s see how it runs for a little bit.

1325: Mr McCarty in favor – We’ve tested EPH against many sets of data. If there is a slate of five candidates, the candidates that EPH knocks off, like 50% of the time it puts them back on. These don’t work well together.

1326: Mr Desjardin against – consistency, some resistance against slating. It makes a better ballot. What was added to the ballot this year was mostly very good works. Anecdotal experience is that this is a very popular change.

1327: Ms Hayes calls the question. Seconded. Question is called.

1327: Motion fails overwhelmingly. 5 and 6 remains in effect for one year.

1328: Back to Defining North America.

1330: Ms Dashoff – why is central America part of North America here? Chair rules that’s actually debate. Okay.

1331: Mr Yalow for – being the person who carelessly and accidentally took it out of the constitution years ago, he apologizes for the necessity of putting it back in.

1331: What about the Caribbean islands? Does this extend to islands bordering the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, those things are part of the Caribbean.

1333: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. Soundly seconded. Question is called.

1333: Motion is ratified by a very large majority.

1334: No, Iceland is not eligible to hold a NASFiC. (Continents, not tectonic plates, people.)

1334: Mr Kovalcek motions to adjourn.

1334: Mr Cronengold wants to debate.

1335: Mr Kovalcek for the motion – most of us are tired and stayed up late last night. It’d be better to come back tomorrow when we’re fresh.

1336: Kevin notes that we have the room for five hours tomorrow. DO NOT MAKE US USE ALL THAT TIME. Meeting adjourned.

Summary for all the action on Friday!

• Kevin Standlee gives the report for the MPC and we re-elect the standing members.
• Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee report by Mr Eastlake. All members reappointed by the chair.
• FOLLE Committee continues with no objection.
• YA Award Committee officially sunsets this year and are thanked for their hard work.
• The “No Vanishing Business” resolution returns with new language from the committee. Effectively, this will allow people to withdraw new business they’ve submitted to WSFS (with agreement from all submitting parties) up to 4 weeks before the first business meeting. The withdrawn business will still be available to be viewed, so that in the remaining two weeks before the business meeting deadline that business can be resubmitted if someone still really wants it brought up.
• Committee report from the Hugo Award Study Committee from Mr. Docherty, which mostly acknowledges who has volunteered, tentative plans for moving forward, etc. Items D.6-8 are referred back to the study committee until next year.
• Best Series Category is postponed definitely until Saturday, so it can be considered after seeing the Hugo results.
• December Is Good Enough is ratified and will take effect next year. (This moves the deadline for buying memberships if you want to nominate for the Hugos up to December 31.)
• Two Years Are Enough barely passes, 45-41. This N+1 WorldCon membership will no longer confer nominating rights for the Hugo. 2019 will be an exception to this.
• The Young Adult Award is ratified 65-27.
  • A new amendment to name the YA Award “The Lodestar Award” passes despite items to change it to the L’Engle. This amendment is sent on for ratification in 2018.
  • So it should be noted that technically while we have an award in 2018, it can’t possibly have an official name until 2019 at the earliest. There was some wrangling over how WorldCon 76 might be able to get around this using the WorldCon’s constitutional power to create a special Hugo award.

Previous Posts:

• Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog | Summary
• Main Business Meeting #1: Liveblog | Summary

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.

As usual for the Preliminary Business Meeting, today we were setting the agenda for the next three days of meetings, particularly agreeing upon debate times for the various items. Here is a link to the agenda, and my own thoughts on the new proposed amendments.

Highlights:

• Big thank you here to Zalia and Corina for covering the first hour of the meeting for me. Love you guys.
• Happy birthday to Kevin Standlee!
• Standing rule changes:
  • No Candidate Regions (A.1), Debate Time Streamlining (A.3), and Butt Out (A.5) pass.
  • Electronic Documents Are a Thing (A.4) fails.
  • No Vanishing Business (A.2) is referred to committee, to be reported back on Friday.
• Resolutions:
  • Kimo no Na wa (B.1) has its Hugo eligibility extended by a year.
  • Artist Eligibility (B.2) is sent to a committee. (More on this committee in a minute.)
  • Convention Publications to Be Delivered to Members (B.3) is replaced with the B.3.1 version, which is then adopted.
• All constitutional amendments from the 2016 business meeting are assigned debate times and will be considered in the coming days. Also, there are motions to suspend both EPH and 5 and 6 up for debate. Please note that this is baked in to our adopting of both of those amendments last year; we required ourselves to reconsider them yearly to assess if they are working as intended. Both EPH and 5 and 6 have been postponed definitely to the Saturday business meeting, so they can be debated in light of this year’s Hugo results.
• New constitutional amendments:
  • What Our Marks Really Are (D.1), The Reasonable Amendment (D.2), Make Room! Make Room! (D.3), Name That Award (D.4) have debate time set and will be considered at the main business meeting.
  • Requiring Electronic Payments (D.6) is postponed indefinitely at the request of its originator to allow better consideration of its implications.
  • The Division of the Hugo Award Best Novel Category (D.6), A Reorganization of the Best Related Category (D.7), and Best Dramatic Presentation Reorganization (D.8) are all referred to committee, to be reported back on before anything else is to be done with them.
• SO ABOUT THAT COMMITTEE. A Hugo Award Study Committee was created to consider the best artist issues, and then had its mandated expanded by the meeting to consider all Hugo categories – but only categories, NOT anything to do with nominating or voting. This is the committee that D.6-8 were referred to. They will be making recommendations for the 2018 business meeting.
  • Committee members: Vincent Docherty will be chairman. Other appointed members: Nicholas Whyte, Chris Barkley, Kevin Standlee, Kate Secor, Michael Lee, Catherine Duval, John Hurts conditionally if he is prepared to cooperate with the committee’s requirements.
• Mark Protection Committee nominations were made without incident.
• And this is where we ran out of time for the day. Other items normally seen to on Preliminary Meeting day will have to just get done tomorrow because people got very exercised about the Publications resolution.

All right, going to take a look at these new proposed amendments.

Previous Posts:

• Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog

Hello everyone! It’s Thursday at WorldCon 75, I’m sick with a cold, and it’s time for the Preliminary Business Meeting! Liveblog will commence when the meeting starts. As usual, updates will come every 5-ish minutes or so. Apologies for mis-spelling names and the like, please leave corrections in the comments and I will get them later.

Also! As a wrinkle this year, for the first hour I’m going to be on a panel, so the liveblog will be taken care of by my friends Corina and Zalia (say hi, everyone) and they’ll do their best. I’ll be back at about 1100 local time and will take over.

(If you want the short summary of what happened, see here.)

9.54: There is sweet blessed coffee for the attendees of the business meeting.

1001: Business meeting for noobs video displayed which is very helpful for me to get a feel for this.

1010: HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Kevin Standlee who is spending his birthday chairing the business meeting. We thank you with a gift of a new official gavel, engraved with ‘Kevin Standlee. Chairman WSFS’.

1012: The Business Meeting will be in order! Introductions and thanks. Videos of the meeting will be uploaded to the YouTube channel and is currently being Livestreamed on the Worldcon 75 YouTube channel.

1017: Awwww yes, Business Attendee Ribbons that are visible from space!

1019: Today we will be setting the agenda, deciding time limits, hearing reports, looking at rule changes, hearing resolutions, looking at time limits for constitutional amendments, and having the initial consideration of new Consitutional Amendments. Presentations for future Worldcons will be done at the Fannish Inquisition panel at 1pm today in the same room as the business meting (207)

1023: First Main Business meeting takes place on Friday, Site Selection Business Meeting will be on Saturday with presentations from 2019 and 2018 Worldcon hosts. Maybe from 2020 potential bids if there is time.

1025: We are on to The Agenda. Which first involves setting the agenda for the main meeting on Friday/Sunday.

1027: Discussion of Standing Rule Changes.

1028: Item A1 – No Candidate Regions (2 minutes of debate). Mr. Eastlake from the Nitpicking and flyspecking committee explaining. Definition of Regions of North America have been removed from the Constituion but verbage left in standing rules relating to nominations. Move to remove this passed unanimously and takes immediate effect.

1030: Kate Secor asking for explanation of motion on No Vanishing Business. Rules say that motion is submitted in advance and cannot be removed as others have planned for it and may have skipped submitting motion itself. Time for discussion reset to 3 minutes for and against.

1033: Ben Yalow speaking against, stating that this is a motion to amend and requests exact wording of motion be figured out. Suggests that ability to withdraw does not that until the deadline for submitting new business has passed.

1035: Clarification and seconding of Ben Yalow’s point.

1036: Accepting Ben Yalow’s speech as first speech in favour of amendment.

1037: Kate Secor asking question about wording -Have specified date mentioned in the rule is the standard submission date of two weeks prior.

1038: Mr Eastlike speaking against amendment. Putting in rule to allow a motion to be withdrawn even with a deadline doesn’t give opportunity for other members to submit motions similar in nature.

1039: Chair suggests referring proposal to Committee of Mr Yalow, Mr Eastlake and Ms Secor. Passed with no objection with report to come at main business meeting.

1040: Recess for 1 minute. Delicious coffee break.

1042: Corina taking over.  Hi!  Debate time streamlining debate starts.

1045: Amendment: change “may” to “shall”, unanimous consent.

1047: Proposal to produce a pre-set list of numbers of debate times.  No second, motion fails.

1048: Motion passes unanimously, takes effect immediately.

1049: Debate on proposal to eliminate wording that suggests print copies of new proposals and recognize that electronic copies exist, making existing practice into official rules.

1050: Linda Dineron speaks against this proposal as it depends on who is the secretary of business meeting.

1052: Point of information regarding technology on electronic signatures.  The exact method will be determined by the members.

1052: Hello everyone it’s Alex, I’M BACK! (Thank you so much Corina and Zalia.)

1053: “Still Ben Yalow.” This would require distribution to all members, even those without internet access, which is a thing.

1054: Kevin Standlee notes that this would impose financial burdens on the concom, so therefore the next two WorldCons will not have to comply.

1055: None in favor. Another against. Ann-Marie Rudolph, feels that the requirement and ensconcing this in the rules is more than is needed. We are already sending all material in electronic and paper format. This imposes a burden, doesn’t allow for pivoting on technological advances. Current practice is sufficient.

1057: Debate ended, call the question. The motion fails.

1058: A5, Butt Out. (No smoking, basically.) Any objections to 2 minutes debate? None.

1058: Question from Dr. Laurie – does this include e-cigarettes? No.

1059: Emotion is unanimously adopted. The business meeting will always be a non-smoking event, even if the location is a place where smoking is allowed!

1100: Moving on to resolutions. B1, extending Hugo eligibility for Kimi no Na wa. No objections to 2 minutes of debate, no debate, unanimous approval.

1101: B2 Artist Eligibility – 10 minutes of debate time adopted unanimously.

1102: There is an amendment by substitution proposed to create a Hugo Award study committee that will study the proposed revision. So we need to decide first if we’re going to do the amended version or the original version of the resolution.

1103: Please correct Kevin if you have a doctorate and he doesn’t realize it.

1103: Dr Adams has a parliamentary inquiry – is today the decision day to do committee? Yes, if that passes.

1103: This preliminary business meeting can’t send stuff on to next year’s WorldCon directly or indirectly. The committee will refer things next year to the main business meeting, which will then deal with it.

1104: Geoff Thorpe question – this is specifically for the 2018 business meeting? Kevin says the committee may recommend a constitutional amendment, but we can require the committee to do other things when the committee is made. We are creating the committee so we can give it additional tasks in the motion to refer. We cannot tie our own hands.

1105: Mr Docherty speaks in favor of substitution – this is to broaden the study committee to look at all categories, not just the artist categories. This will look at all categories and either refer to main business meeting or bring reports with regards to a comprehensive review of categories.

1107: Question for the maker. Go ahead and use some debate time against, see what happens. The previous speaker might ask you to yield some of your time. Mr Todd Dashoff actually has a parliamentary enquiry – can this committee spin off subcommittees.

1108: Kevin says yes, they can spin off subcommittees as they want unless it is specifically forbidden to them, since that’s allowed in Roberts Rules of Order.

1108: Professor Dr White on behalf of makers of original proposal to examine artist categories, thinks it’s a good idea to broaden to examine the entire structure of the Hugos in the round. Please vote for the amendment and then the resolution.

1109: No objection to adopting the substitute, so we are adopting that and now it will be before the meeting. Now we will consider the resolution, now substituted by unanimous consent.

1110: Chair suggests we reset to 8 minutes. No objection.

1110: Mr Bloom has an incidental motion. Because we cannot create a permanent committee today, suggests we postpone to tomorrow.

1111: Kevin was going to suggest that we suspend the rules so we can form the committee today and charge it with things to be reported to tomorrow. Since it seems to be people want this.

1111: The chair is a very bad chair and apologizes for going about this the wrong way. :)

1112: Any objection to adopting this resolution – there is one hand. Mr Oakes who wishes to speak against it. He proposes an amendment to limit the scope to only changing Hugo categories and not voting or nomination procedures. Since we have been working on those enough on our own.

1113: There is no objection to this amendment it seems. This would narrow the scope of the committee. But everyone seems in basic agreement that we want a review of the categories.

1114: In favor of amendment to the resolution, Mr Oakes. We have spent many years dealing with the nomination and voting process. Allowing the committee to broadly consider article three lets them mess with those, so let’s put the safety net on to restricting them specifically to the categories.

1115: Kate Secor against – appreciate the intent of the amendment, but there’s a lot of defining language (eg fan vs pro) that aren’t in 3.3, and the committee needs to be able to reach other parts of the article.

1116: No speech for the amendment. Paul Tredaway against, why bother narrowing it, because the committee has no power to implement its recommendations, just make recommendations. Give them the power.

1117: Mr Eastlake proposes to amend the amendment so it’ll encompass 3.2 and 3.3 instead of just 3.3. We suspend the rules to allow this amendment and vote it in.

1118: The resolution is amended to be 3.2 and 3.3 instead of just article 3.

1120: Back to the main motion now as amended.

1120: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. No objection to ending the debate.

1121: Voting on the resolution itself. Only a few opposing votes. The committee will be created. Whoever is appointed as chair, they can add people to the chair at their discretion. The chairman of this meeting is not interested in discussing your membership in the committee with you, PLEASE talk to the chairmen of the committee.

1122: Dr Laurie wants to know when we can instruct the committee… when the committee has been created please.

1122: Vincent Docherty will be chairman. Other appointed members: Nicholas Whyte, Chris Barkley, Kevin Standlee, Kate Secor, Michael Lee, Catherine Duval, John Hurts conditionally if he is prepared to cooperate with the committee’s requirements.

1124: Chair asking unanimous consent to move D6, 7, and 8 to the committee just created with instruction to report back to the meeting tomorrow.  (Division of Best Novel Category, Reorganization of the Best Related Category, Best Dramatic Presentation Reorganization) Unanimous consent, we will not be taking them back up today.

1125: Unanimous consent on this.

1126: Dr Laurie asks that the committee be instructed to consult with organizations whose members will be impacted by these changes such as ASFA and SFWA.

1126: Motion is seconded, but there is not unanimous consent, so we’re going to have a debate.

1127: Dr Laurie says that the committee will be dealing with definitions, best to ask the professional organizations that represent those people.

1127: Mr Wallace parliamentary inquiry – since the committee is reporting back tomorrow, would this require them to consultation in the next 24 hours? Goodness no.

1129: Alex gives a speech in favor of consulting with organizations re: what is a professional as it is better to have more informaiton (hi this is Corina).

1131: Ben Yalow trusts Vince. (Alex back. And. Who the fuck is Vince.)

1132: Mrs Dashoff is in ASFA and would like to volunteer she is here for consult.

1132: Against: this is unduly burdensome.

1133: Me: With all due respect, who the hell is Vince?

1134: Meeting is in recess until 1145. I need some goddamn tea.

1145: And we’re back.

1146: B3 Convention Publications to Be Delivered to Members plus its attendant amendment by substitution.

1147: 20 minutes of debate time unanimously passed. Now looking at the substitution B.3.1; rather than rephrase it, chair recognizes Mr Harris to open debate.

1147: This comes up because of this con’s proposal for distribution of the souvenir books (I have no idea what this is about); the substitution is because we feel the current resolution constrains the committees too rigidly. While recognizing valid concerns, this broadens things and brings it more in line with the constitution as is. Started to get in a messy situation when there was the option to charge people; do you want paper or electronic publications was initially intended as for progress reports, not the souvenir book. There are people who are happy for electronic PRs that still want the paper souvenir book. To be financially and environmentally efficient, we need to split out the PR and souvenir book and ask individually if they want those in paper or electronic.

1151: Mr Moen speaks against the substitution; there’s nothing in this amendment that gives advance notice on how to exercise that preference. Doesn’t even specify timely.

1152: Mr Yalow – in some ways it does say that there will be timely notice. If you’re going to charge people for things, you have to specify at the time of bid filing. Also wants to address different rights for attending and supporting. The rights of attending members are defined with respect to supporting members in the constitution. You can’t give supporting members fewer rights than the attending members; the attending member is defined as supporting members plus.

1154: Mrs Dashoff has an inquiry. Having read both proposals, and sees no provision for collecting the preferences of supporting members, who are those who vote … this is a point for debate on the underlying proposal, not for this amendment.

1156: Mr Cronengold spoke and I just missed it because Kate gave me tea ILU KATE ;_; because the table was out of tea and I was just trying to survive on coffee.

1156: Dr Adams agrees main motion is overly prescriptive; this is a fast-changing area. It should be left to the committee with the guidance that’s in this amending motion.

1157: No one else wants to speak on substitute. Are we going to adopt the substitute?

1158: Yes we are.

1158: Now we’re going to debate on B.3.1.

1158: We’re going to add 12 more minutes of debate on this. Guess people are going to have a lot to say about it. (I had no idea souvenir books were such a big deal.)

1200: I’m not sure what’s going on here, sorry.

1200: It’s a motion to amend the resolution by taking the last bullet point on page 7 and inserting it into the end of the motion. This is moving something from B3 and into B.3.1. The bullet point is “The option to sign up for the printed version of either or both publications should be included on the Site Selection ballots, and through the convention’s electronic Registration process.”

1201: Mr Harris against says it’s a bit pandora’s to do this. We inherit the supporters from the previous year, and we don’t get their preferences. This gets messy because are we going to start having differential voting fees at site selection? Because we’re not collecting the extra fees then. We tend to let people get what they want and just worry about collecting the extra funds from the new members. Would rather not put this into the rules without proper consideration and probably not even then.

1203: Mrs Dashoff for and notes there are supporting members who do not have email, so contacting them to ask their preferences is impossible. You need to have that option on the site selection form so you can contact people later.

1205: Mr Walling notes that WorldCon can purchase stamps and send letters. Proposes to suspend the rules to remove the “electronic”  from “electronic registration process” since there are a lot of registrations still done via paper.

1206: Passes easily, we remove electronic and get back on track, because that does make sense!

1207: There’s only 30 seconds for left, none against. No one seems hot to trot to use that 30 seconds.

1208: IT IS TIME FOR A SERPENTINE and I don’t even know why oh god help i’m so confused

1209: oh okay this is on adding the bullet point, thanks kevin

1210: We are having serpentine teething troubles. Just figuring out the best way to count the room.

1211: The nays are going to have this one.

1212: Inquiry about the fee for the paperwork — this doesn’t sound like a parliamentary inquiry, debating the underlying subject. There’s some back and forth, no one speaking for so he can actually go with the debate and say what he’s gonna say. Instead of extra fee, propose discount for people who want electronic publications.

1215: Chair needs better wording, since the proposal is too diffuse.

1215: Mr Eastlake proposes “Worldcons may provide a refund to members who choose to receive publications electronically.”

1216: Chair thinks this needs to be referred to a committee to report back tomorrow.

1216: Nope, no committee for us, the motion fails!

1216: An alternative wording is offered by Mr Tredaway “Worldcons may offer a discount to members who choose to not receive print publications.”

1218: Ms Neal has question – does the constitution not already have a provision that allows the charging of fees? Seems the answer is no.

1219: Mr Matthews has a parliamentary inquiry – just a little clean up, sounds like, striking out some stuff for consistency. Housekeeping.

1221: Parliamentary Inquiry from Kate Secor – does the amendment as proposed conflict with 1.5.8 in the constitution. (This is the section that says you can’t sell a membership for less than the cost of a supporting membership.)

1222: Kevin: …oh boy.

1222: This means the amendment is out of order. We are back to the original un-amended resolution! Clapping abounds.

1224: Inquiry from Bruce Allbrecht (???) – is the program guide part of the publications as contemplated here. Chair rules it is. People immediately want to appeal the ruling.

1225: Mr Harris opposed to the rule. Custom and practice and practical impact say no. What do conventions historically choose to mail out. Historically, pocket programs are NOT mailed out unless there’s an excessive print run or a lot of extra money.

1226: So is the chair’s ruling right? The chair’s ruling is overturned by the meeting.

1226: And the members don’t want to extend debate, which has run out of time. And we are adopting B.3.1.

1227: One minute recess.

1229: My love is for sale and the price is tea.

1229: Kevin would like to note that this meeting is NOT the forum for complaints on how any individual WorldCon is run. Then we return to order.

1230: We’re not going to get to committee reports today. We need nominations for the Mark Protection committee next.

1231: John Coxon, Linda Deneroff, and Dave McCarty have their terms ending on the MPC, and they have agreed to be re-nominated. There was an additional nominee whose name I missed, all are accepted and nominations close.

1232: Vincent about the Hugo Committee: the YA Hugo will not be considered. People can contact him. Wants meeting at 0930 tomorrow in this room.

1232: Now we are in the debate time setting period for the constitutional amendments.

1233: None of the constitutional amendments pending ratification can be postponed indefinitely. These are ratifications from last year. (Response to PI.)

1234: Suggested debates: 10 min for best series, 4 min for amendment to it, 8 min for December Is Good Enough, 8 min for Two Years Are Enough, 20 min for Three Stage Voting, 20 min for EPH+. All accepted without objection.

1236: There is a motion to suspend regular EPH until 2018. Moved by Ben Yalow, seconded.

1237: Now it has been moved to postpone indefinitely, also seconded.

1238: Debate is on whether we will kill the motion to suspend EPH until 2018. Mr Dunn thinks EPH worked fine, why suspend it and then bring it back, just squash this bug right now.

1238: Mr Yalow points out that we specifically said we would put EPH up for debate in 2017 when we adopted it last year. We have a right to make decisions about it, and we should not quash the ability of this body to make a decision about it.

1239: Mr Cronengold says EPH is working, it’s too soon to suspend it.

1239: Question from Mrs Dashoff how many years have we had EPH? One year.

1240: Dr Adams says that we agreed we should debate EPH yearly and proposes to postpone definitely until Saturday so we can get past the Hugos this year. And postponing definitely supersedes indefinitely, which makes the indefinite postponement go POOF.

1241: It go poof.

1242: I have no freaking idea what people are arguing about now. There is shouting back and forth.

1243: Oh, apparently people are mad C6.1 is not on the slide. This is an oversight. Is there a problem with the default five minutes? No. Okay.

1244: Oh, and for C5 (EPH) as well. Is 10 minutes of debate okay since we suspended definitely? Sounds good.

1246: Oh thank god the next slide.

1246: No objections to debate time limits. I’m not going to be able to get you the numbers, but they’re reasonable. (YA Award is going to get 20 minutes of debate btw)

1248: 5 and 6 has a motion to suspend, similar to EPH, and like EPH we have postponed definitely to Saturday pending Hugo results. That gets ten minutes.

1248: Now onto the new constitutional amendments. We are running out of time y’all and might have to do a ton of stuff tomorrow. “This is what happens when you want to spend all your time debating resolutions.”

1249: Ticking right along until we get to the naming of the YA Award. There is objection to the proposed 16 minute debate. But hey Kevin’s motion is privileged so we can vote on it and move on THANK YOU.

1252: Motion to Postpone D4 definitely to Saturday as well so they can come up with a ballot and an instant runoff vote if the YA Award is adopted.

1253: Chair suggests we postpone definitely to right after the YA award and dealt with then. Chair would really prefer this, not wanting to worry about nominations until after we know if there’s even going to be an award ratified. There doesn’t seem to be an objection to handling it this way?

1256: Motion to PostPone Requiring Electronic Payments indefinitely from Ms Neal. It imposes a weird and strange burden on committees. It should be brought up next year when there’s been more time to beat it.

1257: Mr Cronengold that sounded like a speech for sending it to committee.

1257: Mr Yalow believes this is taking a short-term approach; we can kill this now, and the original maker doesn’t object to us killing it. Gives him more time to consider implications.

1258: Requiring Electronic Payments is postponed indefinitely.

1259: Committee reports are getting postponed until later. And we are adjourned.