Tag: wsfs

Categories
worldcon

With Regards to “No Award.”

Edit at 0820 on 8/25: Due to writing this post at the end of an extremely long day, I misunderstood section 3.6 and got a few things wrong. It should be corrected now; thanks to Cheryl Morgan and Kendall for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

This post is only intended to examine the potential for “No Award” to structurally damage the Hugo Awards, because I’ve now witnessed this odd rumor in a couple different places. I have less than zero interest in debating the righteousness or wrongness of people voting No Award, or discussing my own votes, or pontificating about how it might or might not affect the reputation of the awards. But matters of fact? Let’s get those straight.

Basically, voting No Award in the Hugos has zero effect on the inner workings of the awards themselves. The end. Votes of No Award over successive years might arguably have some kind of negative effect on the voting population, but will not affect the continued existence of the categories or anything like that.

Quick summary: The Hugo categories themselves are enshrined in the WSFS constitution. The only way to add, remove, or alter them is with a constitutional amendment, which takes two years to accomplish. The amendment has to be proposed one year and passed at the business meeting, and then ratified at the next year’s business meeting. You can see this process in action with the proposal of the “Best Series” category for this year. Nothing in the results of the Hugos can actually alter the existence of the awards themselves.

If that’s good enough for you, stop there. Otherwise, I’ll go ahead and get granular.

Let’s take a quick look at the places “No Award” appears in the WSFS constitution. Please note that as of this writing, this is the 2014 WSFS constitution. I don’t think it contains anything we ratified during the business meetings this weekend. But I promise, there was nothing related to “No Award” in the amendments we did ratify.

Section 3.6: “No Award”. At the discretion of an individual Worldcon Committee, if the lack of nominations or final votes in a specific category shows a marked lack of interest in that category on the part of the voters, the Award in that category shall be canceled for that year.

Note the phrase “marked lack of interest.” Lack of interest would be indicated by lack of voting/nominating; a vote of “No Award” still counts as an actual vote.

Under 3.8: Tallying of Nominations: 

3.8.3: Any nominations for “No Award” shall be disregarded.

Pretty self explanatory; nominations for no award will be disregarded when it comes to tallying the nominations. It’s always an option on the final ballot, after all, as we’re about to see.

Under 3.10: Voting:

3.10.3: “No Award” shall be listed in each category of Hugo Award on the final ballot.

Also pretty self explanatory. “No Award” is always an option for voting.

From Section 3.11: Tallying of Votes:

3.11.1: In each category, tallying shall be as described in Section 6.4. “No Award” shall be treated as a nominee. If all remaining nominees are tied, no tie- breaking shall be done and the nominees excluding “No Award” shall be declared joint winners.

3.11.2: “No Award” shall be given whenever the total number of valid ballots cast for a specific category (excluding those cast for “No Award” in first place) is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of final Award ballots received.

3.11.3: “No Award” shall be the run-off candidate for the purposes of Section 6.5.

This determines how “No Award” is tallied from the ballots. So hey, you could technically win jointly with “No Award.” That’s… a thing. Also, this makes it so that categories that are very small and ignored relative to the total number of ballots get an automatic No Award. Note this doesn’t eliminate a category through lack of apparent interest, just makes “No Award” automatic if very few ballots are received. The categories still exist as required by the constitution.

That’s it. Those are the only places “No Award” is even mentioned in the constitution.

Fun fact: Worldcon committees are allowed (but not required) to make one and only one special Hugo category that will just exist for that year:

3.3.17: Additional Category. Not more than one special category may be created by the current Worldcon Committee with nomination and voting to be the same as for the permanent categories. The Worldcon Committee is not required to create any such category; such action by a Worldcon Committee should be under exceptional circumstances only; and the special category created by one Worldcon Committee shall not be binding on following Committees. Awards created under this paragraph shall be considered to be Hugo Awards.

I don’t believe this has happened during the time I’ve attended/paid attention to WorldCon, which has only been since 2008, but it sounds cool. (And has been used in the past to experiment, such as in 1988 when Watchmen won “Other Forms.” Wikipedia also has a list, though some of those categories were once in the WSFS constitution and then subsequently removed.) Anyway, notice with this, it’s also in line with 3.6; the concom has some discretion when it comes to administering the Hugo categories, but its choices are not in any way permanent. The categories themselves make up sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.17 of the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society. And the constitution can’t just be changed on a whim:

Section 6.6: Amendment. The WSFS Constitution may be amended by a motion passed by a simple majority at any Business Meeting but only to the extent that such motion is ratified by a simple majority at the Business Meeting of the subsequent Worldcon.

So if anything were to be changed structurally about the awards themselves, the administration, the categories, anything, the only way to do that is to get an amendment to the constitution passed by a simple majority at the business meeting, and then ratified the next year.

This would be why there was so much excitement about E Pluribus Hugo and 4 and 6 this year; both will structurally change how nominations are done and finalists are decided for the Hugos. Both got a majority vote at this year’s meeting, but will have no effect unless and until they are ratified in 2016–at which point they will change how things go in 2017.

The conclusion is, the Hugos can’t be structurally destroyed by a single messy year. Or two. Or ten. It would take a majority at two consecutive business meetings to do that. Destroyed socially? Rendered a travesty because they delivered results you personally dislike and thus the Hugos Are Over? That’s for people to argue who have a lot more patience, endurance, and time to waste than me.

Categories
worldcon

Brief(?) Summary and Commentary on Saturday and Sunday WSFS Meetings

As before, here I’m going to be free with my commentary instead of limiting myself to mostly parenthetical statements. Amendments will be referred to by name. For details and summary, please see the Sasquan agenda.

Liveblog for Saturday here.

Liveblog for Sunday here.

Playlist for all segments of the business meeting here.

Saturday Meeting

This meeting was relatively short, because the room was needed for other programming at 1300, and plus they wanted to have the WorldCon chairs photo session. Important points:

  • The meeting started off with the official site selection for 2017. Helsinki won, and presented the con heads and their website. They received a check for $23,000, passed on from the last of Millenium Phillcon’s funds.
  • The “Story by Any Other Name” amendment from LonCon 3 was passed and added to constitution. This will close the audiobook loophole, for example, allowing stories that originally appeared as audiobooks to be considered with their fellow works of fiction instead of as podcasts or related works.
  • “WSFS Membership Types and Rates” amendment from LonCon 3 passed without objection and was added to the constitution.
  • “Hugo Finalist” amendment from LonCon 3 passed without objection and was added to the constitution. This was just a word term change.
  • Starting on new business for this year–this is stuff that if passed will go on to be ratified (or not) next year in Kansas City. This is where things started getting contentious.
  • The 5% Solution passed. (Thank fuck.)
  • The Multiple Nominations amendment passed.
  • Nominee Diversity was laid on the table to be taken up on Sunday after EPH was considered.
  • Tom Monaghan (apologies, I believe I have been spelling his last name wrong this entire time in my liveblogs, mea culpa) attempted to permanently adjourn the business meeting for this year and thus kill all remaining business. I found this personally very aggravating, as it seemed to be a very transparent attempt to get rid of all potential discussion and fixes with regards to the Hugo issues. Monaghan had already made it pretty clear to anyone who could overhear him arguing that he was a “puppy” of some stripe, including complaints about people defaming puppies in debate, which were for the most part not supported by the chair. The motion was ultimately disallowed due to arcane parliamentary stuff, but I think that it would have failed anyway if put to a vote.
  • The meeting ended with a motion, unanimously approved, that when the business meeting did finally adjourn on Sunday, it would be in memory of Bobbie DuFault and Peggy Rae Sapienza.

Sunday Meeting

This is where things got really contentious.

  • E Pluribus Hugo was taken up immediately via suspension of the rules. Passed via serpentine.
    • Ramez Naam, who is a writer, made the point beautifully about why slates are pieces of shit (my words, not his) by naming a sampling of works and authors who got screwed by the slates this year.
    • The point was made again and again that it’s total bullshit that 10-15% of the electorate can entirely control who shows up on the ballot.
    • Dara Korra’ti (I hope I spelled her name right) made the point beautifully across EPH and 4/6 that in a system without parties, an organized party will prevail. And she had every right to indicate that this was political because it’s been made so explicitly political by the people who started it.
    • A lot of people complained that EPH is complicated and that will alter how people vote. Considering it is about how nominations are counted, not indicated by members, I don’t really buy this argument. Also, the current system is complex in its own right as well. If you asked me to explain preferential voting to someone, I don’t think I’d be able to do a good job of it.
    • Anyway, I’m glad EPH passed. What I’m really hoping is that once they’ve got the nomination data they requested, we’ll get a good presentation about how it would have changed things this year, and we can move forward.
    • Also a point to consider: anything we voted affirmatively on this year is not yet part of the constitution. Nothing changes unless and until these are ratified next year. So by the time we take up this business at next year’s meeting, we’ll be well aware if the Hugos are once more covered with puppy shit.
    • I still believe that if EPH stops Doctor Who from dominating short form drama, that is a feature and not a bug.
    • EPH has a built-in five year sunset clause by amendment.
  • 4 and 6 also passed on a serpentine vote. This one made me kind of crazy because we spent a ridiculous amount of time noodling about if we’d use the numbers 4 and 6 or something different, and then just used 4 and 6 anyway. Much like how 90% of the time we just use the chair’s suggested debate time after 10 minutes of arguing about allowing more or less. Hrngh.
    • So noted that supposedly, this system can work in conjunction with EPH just fine. Though in my opinion, if we were to ratify EPH next year, I’ll feel a lot less compelled to ratify this one as well unless someone makes a compelling argument as to the contrary.
    • Just another shout-out to Dara, whose points on this as far as 4 and 6 doing nothing to discourage slating, were totally on point. This method could defeat one slate if it didn’t have great discipline. But if we start getting in to slates and counter slates (very likely if things continue in this year’s melodramatic style) it’s going to be a fucking mess for anyone who doesn’t want to slate.
    • This one lacks a sunset clause. I think at this point, everyone was getting pretty tired and we just didn’t manage to get the timing right on amending it.
  • Nominee Diversity passes on a serpentine vote. Not much to say here other than I was in favor of it because I’m in favor of anything that spreads the love, so to speak.
  • Best Series, by request of its originator, was moved to a committee, to report back next year. (I think he realized that everyone was getting very tired and cranky and things were not looking that friendly for a contentious subject.)
  • Electronic Signatures returned with new language from the committee. This then became a giant clusterfuck that took 30 minutes to resolve and I still don’t know why. Eventually, this too passed. It should be noted that this allows the use of electronic signatures but the means are at the discretion of the WorldCon.
  • Meeting was then adjourned in memory of Bobbie DuFault and Peggy Rae Sapienza.

PLEASE NOTE: I am now going to start going through my previous liveblogs and try to correct some name misspellings. Please bear with me.

I also have some thoughts on the Hugos, and maybe I’ll type those up at some point. But this post is already 1K words long, and my liveblog from today was almost 3K. I’m getting pretty worded out, here.

See you in Kansas City next year, space cowboys.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #4 (Sunday): Liveblog

1334: Freedom indeed. This is Rachael, signing off.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #4 (Sunday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog

1153: Meeting is adjourned until 1000 tomorrow.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

Brief(?) Summary and Commentary on Thursday and Friday WSFS Meetings

Just what it says on the tin. As a note, for my liveblogs I generally try to keep my commentary to standalone statements or parenthetical statements. I do my best to summarize fairly from what I can hear and process while pressed for time. This post is all me.

I have no intention of reproducing the summaries of the resolutions and amendments here. Please see the Sasquan agenda, I will refer to them by name.

Playlist of all the 2015 meetings on youtube is here.

Preliminary Business Meeting (Thursday)

Liveblog here.

So the entire point of the preliminary meeting is to set the agenda and debate times for the main meetings, which is actually extremely powerful and should not be discounted. This is a great place to strange resolutions and amendments in the cradle, so to speak.

The big take-homes:

  • The two year eligibility amendment got killed
  • All other proposed amendments (E Pluribus Hugo, 4 and 6, the 5% Solution, Best Series, Nominee Diversity, Multiple Nominations, Electronic Signatures) made it through with varying amounts of debate time set
  • All amendments originally voted on at LonCon last year were assigned debate times, to be ratified or not in the main business meetings.
  • The electronic signatures amendment, which is supposed to make remote site selection easier, got referred to a short-term committee to come up with language that didn’t suck.
  • E Pluribus Hugo (referred to hereafter as EPH) and 4 and 6 (4/6) were specifically assigned to be debated and voted on for Sunday. This is unusual because there isn’t normally a Sunday meeting. But this takes the two most contentious amendments (the ones that will affect Hugo nominating/voting) and attempts to give them a day of their own. Assuming we manage to get everything else done by the end of business on Saturday.

This meeting was pretty rowdy for a preliminary meeting. I expect things are only going to get more energetic as time goes on.

Business Meeting Number One (Friday)

Liveblog here.

The start of this meeting was devoted to taking care of business that should have gotten done at the preliminary meeting and didn’t. Here are the highlights:

  • The YA Hugo Committee reported that a YA-focused award is a proper request and necessary, but a YA award may not fit in with the normal Hugo methodology. So we should think perhaps something more Campbellian. The committee wants to continue study of the topic for another year and was granted permission.
  • All of the eligibility extensions were passed.
  • The resolution requesting anonymized nomination data for this year’s Hugo’s be provided was passed and Sasquan’s Hugo administrating team expressed their intention to comply with the resolution, which is technically non-binding. Hard data for this year’s clusterfuck will be provided before the Sunday meeting to the people (presumably EPH) who requested it. Other people can request the data, but it will not be simply posted publicly.
  • There was a “Committee on the Whole” regarding EPH and 4/6. This wasn’t for substantive debate, but rather consideration of technical issues. EPH presented their methodology and I was honestly impressed. They’ve converted me to their side and convinced me that they can help deal with the administrative issues; the 2016 Hugo administrator stated that he would also be working with the EPH people no matter what to help them refine their method. For 4/6, it was decided that the actual numbers (number of nominations you make versus number of nominees per category) would be decided on Sunday by fill in the blanks voting rather than burn the limited time today.
  • Just as a note, I consider the potential of EPH to break accidental Dr. Who domination slates a feature, not a bug. I am really fucking tired of seeing one show completely dominate a short form category that should rightfully even have podcasts in it.
  • Millenium Philcon (2001 Worldcon) finally has distributed the last of its funds and been formally discharged from duty.
  • We took up the Popular Ratification amendment from LonCon3 for voting. This amendment would have put WSFS business up for popular ratification (vote by all members of WSFS, which literally means all members of Worldcon, attending and supporting) after passing two rounds of the Worldcon-based WSFS business meetings.
    • This would have made amending the WSFS constitution a three year process, which I wasn’t wild about, but also had a five year sunset clause, after which it would have required re-ratification.
    • One of the main concerns about this seemed to be the power of mob voting by supporting members, thanks to the ample demonstration by the puppies this year. This is not a fear I’m that convinced about, considering popular ratification doesn’t allow for anything passed by the business meeting to be modified, etc. Just voted up or down. Word case scenario, nothing gets done for five years if the trolls are that dedicated.
    • It should also be noted that anyone has a right to present new business to the WSFS meeting, whether they are in attendance or not.
    • Kevin Standlee made the point that it’s time for supporting members to get treated like actual members. I tend to agree with this.
    • This would also have been, in my opinion, an important measure for keeping the WORLD in WorldCon; it would have given power to people remotely and internationally. There are plenty of reasons people can’t make it to the WSFS meeting even if they attend WorldCon; there are many more people who would like to participate in the community who are continually blocked by the stranglehold that America holds on the convention.
      • ETA: Point well-made to me by David Clements just now. One problem that does need to be considered is the language barrier. Having voting on resolutions available is not really inclusive if people can’t understand what they’re being asked to vote on. Even a “plain language” explanation of an amendment would be American English. So this is something that needs to be addressed by another attempt at this kind of proposal.
    • Also, one would hope that this would encourage broader involvement by making voting more accessible. The harder you make participation, the fewer people participate. We see that again and again. Make it easier, you’ll get more people who will become interested and get involved.
  • But anyway, you’ll note that all this is in past tense, because Popular Ratification got voted down in the business meeting, 69 for to 99 against. Which I am, as you might imagine, very unhappy about.
  • The open source software resolution failed after a lot of linguistic nitpicking.

What I’m most disappointed about is the failure of the Popular Ratification. I also really, really didn’t like a sort of implied insult to all non-attending voters; people brought up again and again that these resolutions were just too complicated, etc. People just wouldn’t care. While I admit there’s an argument to be made there (please see voter ennui in the US) the implication that no one could possibly care of understand what’s going on at the business meeting so it’s okay to exclude them is pretty upsetting to me. Particularly because if we want to continue to pretend we are an internationally-minded body, it behooves us to make the proceedings accessible internationally. And not just to people rich enough to attend.

Final note: Even the Worldcon chair acknowledges I am dapper as fuck. Thank you.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog

1247: Meeting is adjourned.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog”
Categories
science fiction worldcon

Looking forward to WSFS meetings

I ended up browsing a bit on File770 and saw the latest collection of news, which included this astounding example of hollering before you’re hurt from David Pascoe writing on Sarah Hoyt’s blog:

While there’s a good deal of speculation over whether such a motion will even get approved (what then, would supporting members get for their hard earned filthy lucre? How could WorldCon possibly garner any kind of diverse, international support by shutting out anybody who can’t afford to fly across an ocean to come to the majority of conventions?), that it’s not reduced to backroom rumor mills is a sign of how strong the desire is to keep out the undesirable types.

A few points after reading the post:

  1. As a queer pinko liberal SJWer hell bent on destroying everything that makes America great(TM) I would stand against that kind of resolution so fast that the air displacement would break the sound barrier. In reality, I (and I surmise a lot of my filthy brethren and sistren) want supporting memberships to be cheaper. Because greater accessibility to voting is a good thing, always.
    1. I don’t have a problem that the self-named puppies want to nominate things they like. I never have, because I’m an actual adult human being who isn’t threatened by people disagreeing with me. It’s okay to not like things as long as you’re not a dick about it!
    2. I do have a problem with the fact that the puppies aren’t acting like puppies–they’re acting like seagulls. As in making a lot of noise and shitting all over everything. Which is, by the way, a classic example of being a dick.
    3. It’s also okay if things I don’t like get awards! Things I don’t like get awards all the time! Almost nothing I ever think should get an Oscar gets an Oscar, for example. I might grumble, but I haven’t made it my mission to personally destroy the Academy Awards because it’ll make people who have sinned by disagreeing with my taste upset.
    4. Considering the go-to whinge on the puppy side seems to be the ceaseless butthurt over If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love, the hypocrisy is just astounding.
  2. As a note, I’ve heard a couple suggestions that there should be some kind of test to force people to prove they’ve read the works they’re nominating/voting for. I would also vote against that so fast I might injure myself. Making voting less accessible doesn’t help anyone. Or at least not anyone I’d want to help.
  3. If there is a more lovingly self-pitying way to characterize those who disagree with one’s position than calling them “puppy kickers,” I have yet to hear it. Barf.
  4. Speaking of making life hard for anyone who can’t fly across the ocean to attend a convention, how about we stop holding so many WorldCons in the US? Helsinki in 2017. Just sayin’.

If I wasn’t clear enough, the ego-stroking conspiracy paranoia about limiting voting memberships? Appears to be just paranoia. The lovelies at File770 helpfully provided the supporting link for current business on the WSFS agenda for this year, and destroying all those who dare disagree with my taste in escapist fiction being a giant dickbag about voting memberships isn’t on there as of yet. Since there’s some new items on there, a quick run through of thoughts:

  • 4 and 6: still in favor of this
  • The Five Percent Solution: YES STILL IN FAVOR
  • Best Series: They’re no longer trying to destroy novelette to make room for this category. I generally tend to be of the mind that more rocket ships to go around is a good thing, but on the other hand, I have no desire to sign myself up for that amount of reading. On a third hand (because I’m an alien creature) maybe it would encourage people to finish up their goddamn series in a timely manner instead going on and on for like 20+ books. Probably not, but I could hope. On the fence, still thinking about it.
  • E Pluribus Hugo: Still can’t wrap my brain around this. Still think it’s needlessly complex. Still willing to be convinced, but as that might well require a powerpoint presentation, I doubt that will happen.
  • Multiple Nominations: Ensuring that a work can only be in one category? I’m in favor of that. Spread the rocket ships around, etc. I also consider it necessary if Best Series if going to be a thing.
  • Nominee Diversity: I’m so goddamn tired of the dramatic presentation short form being the Best Doctor Who category. Also, whether the author is someone I personally like or not, I don’t think any one person needs to have a lock down on all or most of the slots in a category. Stop being greedy. (Though I think some clarification is likely necessary when it comes to authors, for example, how that works in a co-author situation, etc.)
  • Two Year Eligibility: The part of me that never has enough time to read thinks sure, why not. The part of me that understands math points out that if there’s a two year range of eligibility, you’re really just doubling your field. Not in favor. Could potentially be argued around, but not bloody likely.
  • Electronic Signatures: Seems like a no-brainer. Will hopefully help give site selection another little boost when it comes to trying to diversify Worldcon geographically.
  • I Remember the Future: Sure, why not.
  • Hugo Eligibility Extension for Predestination: Again, sure, why not.
  • Hugo Nominating Data Request: It would certainly cut down on the speculation in all quarters. I’m in favor of more data being available–so long as anonymity is guaranteed.
  • Open Source Software: Sure, why not? Is there a reason to not?
  • MPC Funding: Another sure, why not?

NOTE: I will be attending all of the WSFS meetings at Sasquan unless something actively prevents me from doing so, since it’s been asked a couple of times. And if there is wifi to be had, I will be liveblogging at this space. If there isn’t wifi, I’ll livetweet from @katsudonburi. I just type a lot faster (and more coherently) than I can swype tweets into being, so keep your fingers crossed for wifi that won’t make my wallet cry.

Categories
worldcon

…best saga? Seriously?

Guess I missed some WSFS excitement while I was at Weddingpalooza over the weekend. (Weddingpalooza, ie two weddings in one weekend) went swimmingly, by the way. I looked dapper as fuck and danced (including the Time Warp) until I could dance no more because my back wasn’t being an asshole this weekend. Shocking, considering I spent three nights on a fold-out couch bed belonging to my best friend, which she fondly calls “the iron maiden.”

Geek weddings are the best, by the way. Just in case you forgot.

Anyway, these amendments. I was already planning to get my ass to all the WSFS meetings at Worldcon this year–and if there is wifi to be had, I will liveblog them. Otherwise, expect a lot of tweeting. Some of the proposed amendments are really interesting, but let me get this one out of the way:

Best saga? Are you fucking serious? And this is worth killing the novelette category over? WHAT?

Honestly, I wouldn’t even care if the proposal was to just add this “best saga” category. Hell, I’d probably even vote for it then, as long as the eligibility process made sense. (Which I’m not convinced it does as worded, by the way.) I’d think hey, that’s fun, and probably then never cast an actual vote in the category because I don’t have time to read an entire goddamn series, let alone multiple ones, in the time between the nominees being revealed and voting closing. And that’s fine. If you have more time than me to read, more power to you. Hell, I’d also support a Best YA Hugo and Best Interactive Story (ie video game) as well because I think there’s some great art going on that’s not getting recognized. (And while I’m writing a wish list, I’d also like a puppy and for someone to fix the Best Fancast so it’s just Best Podcast.)

But why the fuck is this proposed at the expense of the novelette? Was someone savaged by a novelette as a child or something? Supposedly this is to reflect changes in publishing, but I honestly don’t buy that premise at all. There are a lot of series today, sure. But there are also a lot of novellas and novelettes being published stand alone by people trying to hold on to the cutting edge of electronic publishing. The industry is still shifting, and we know not where it’ll end up.

I also think it’s pretty goddamn unfair to lump novelettes in with novellas, just because there’s a certain amount of detail and complexity of plot one can develop per wordcount, and a story that’s 10k words is going to set about things very differently than a story that’s 30k words. I’ve written (and had published) short stories, novelettes, and novellas. Yes, there’s a sort of spectrum at the borders between the categories (welcome to the hell I experience as a geologist every day, kids), but a 5k story is very different than a 12 k story is very different from a 25k story in structure and technique and let’s not pretend otherwise.

And seriously, if the idea of adding yet another Hugo is impossible and some category has to fall under the ax, why novelette? Why not best long form editor? Most regular readers probably have no idea who edited their books and no good way of finding out.

Finally, it’s a bit bullshit that if series are special and need their own hugo, the individual novels within can still be nominated for best novel. As far as I can recall, there is no other category like that. Spread the love if you’re going to spread the love. Yes, nominating a novel from the middle of a series is a tough row to hoe because a lot of people (like me) will give it a go and then drop it if reading the rest of the series is necessary to understand its supposed good qualities due to the required time commitment; that said, is giving series their own category really going to help that issue out? Or are you just going to basically pit dedicated fans of one series against dedicated fans of another?

Admittedly, I’d pay to watch a brawl between Jim Butcher fans and GRRM fans. Bonus for costumes worn.

(Anyway, yes. I will be voting against this amendment.)

Other proposed amendments:

4 and 6: I really like this one, actually. Allowing fewer nominations than there will be ultimate nominees makes total control of a ballot via logrolling much more difficult, and then expanding out to 6 nominees instead of 5 will hopefully provide for a wider array of nominees! Yes please.

The Five Percent Solution: Getting rid of the fucking 5% rule THANK YOU. This rule has acted to the detriment of the short story category since its addition, and it needs to go. I think we’re getting a mini Renaissance of short stories (and novelettes, THANKS) thanks to a wide array of well-edited paying markets, so vote spread is going to happen. More riches for us to read!

E Pluribus Hugo: This amendment is too complex for me to understand on a Monday morning after only one cup of tea. This does not bode well, but I will attempt to read it over again when I’m not suffering serious post-wedding fatigue.

It’s going to be an interesting WSFS meeting. I better bring an umbrella to shield myself from the intensity of the rules lawyering.

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] YA Hugo and Worldcon Membership committees

Hey guys, I made the last half an hour of the WSFS Sunday business meeting. There was some site selection stuff for bids 2016+, if you’re interested in that check my Twitter right now before I get all tweet happy and run the tweets I did about that off the page. I wasn’t intending to do anything further, but the committees have been announced for the YA Hugo and Membership issues we referred to committee yesterday.

The names were listed on powerpoint slides. Per Donald Eastlake, these ought to be going up online on the LoneStarCon 3 website in relatively short order. You can also ask for a copy of the slides by e-mailing Donald at bm@lonestarcon3.org.

However, for your viewing pleasure, the names of those on the committees, as typed by me. My apologies for any misspellings caused by fumbling during my frantic typing.

YA Hugo study committee: Dave McCarty as Chair

Members: Jodie Baker, Adam Beaton, Warren Buff, Johnny Carruthers, Martin Easterbrook, Chris Garcia, Helen Gbala, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Tim Illingworth, Farah Mendlesohn, Sue “Twilight” Mohn, Helen Montgomery, Cheryl Morgan, Kate Secore, Kevin Standlee, Adam Tesh, Peter De Weedt, Tehani Wessely, Clark Wierda, Lew Wolkoff

[Looks like my volunteerism was quite unnecessary, I can’t say I’m sorry. Honestly I was kind of scared out of my mind, though part of me insists it would have been super interesting and an opportunity for learning, etc.]

WSFS Membership Types and Rates Committee: Colin Harris as Chair

Members: Eemeli Aro, Adam Beaton, Gary Blog, Ken Bloom, Warren Buff, Donald Eastlake, Martin Easterbrook, Janice Gelb, Kevin Hewitt, Tim Illingworth, Kevin Maroney, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Mary Kay Kare, Priscilla Olson, Mark Olson, Howard Rosenblatt, Kevin Standlee, Ian Stockdale, Adam Tesh, Leslie Turek

And a couple other committee notes, just in case you’re interested because why not I wrote it down anyway. I just recorded the chairs for these, though.

Mark Protection Committee members listed on slide, and when their terms end.

Nitpicking and Flyspecking – Kevin Standlee as chair

HEROW – Perrianne Lurie as chair

FOLLE committee – continues unchanged

WSFS business meeting was adjourned at 1132.

ALSO! Worldcon 2015 will be in Spokane! (Apparently it will be known as “Sasquan.” Well okay then.) Kevin Standlee tweeted the GOH list. They beat out Helsinki by 35 votes. I don’t know anything more about it, since I missed that part of the meeting because I was at the Broad Universe RFR. I went second and kicked all the ass, thanks for asking.

Have a fun rest of Worldcon everyone!

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] A couple quick WSFS notes

Guys at Worldcon, there is one more WSFS business meeting left for the weekend. Which is (oh god technically today, being Sunday) at 10:00 AM. This one is largely to do with site selection, but I’m guessing there’s a bit more business going on as well, perhaps?

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I’m not going to be able to be at the first hour of the meeting, because I am taking part in the Broad Universe rapid-fire reading which is also at 10:00. So if you’re not interested in the WSFS business meeting, you should totally come support us broads. Our dulcet tones and awesome stories cure hangovers, I swear.

But the other point is I WILL NOT BE LIVEBLOGGING THE SUNDAY WSFS MEETING. Or at least not the first hour. I’m planning to head over there after the RFR is done, and if anything interesting is still going on I’ll pick up with the liveblog there, but Donald’s been keeping things ticking right along so for all I know it’ll all be over with.

If you’re interested in more detailed information about what’s been going on, you should go to Kevin Standlee’s livejournal. Since he knows what he’s talking about (unlike me) he has much more coherent write-ups of the business than what you’ll find on my minute by minute attempt to keep track of what the hell was happening. He also has links to the various videos of the meeting, uploaded onto youtube.

For a roundup of other related issues, there’s a good set of links at File 770. I want to specifically mention Jo Rhett’s criticism since it came up in a conversation I had today withShaun Duke and Jen Zink of the Skiffy and Fanty show. From where I was sitting, staring at the backs of everyone’s heads and typing furiously in a futile attempt to keep up with the rapid fire of what was happening at the meeting, I… did not observe this at all. And apparently neither did the woman mentioned. I actually felt like Donald did a pretty good job of answering questions as they were brought up; I just found the meeting pretty overwhelming in generally because it was conducted at a very rapid clip (there was a lot of business) and it was also kind of like watching a D&D game when you have only a passing acquaintance with the rules. But obviously YMMV, we don’t all hear with the same ears.

Yet again, I would like to renew my call for volunteers to participate in the committees that have been formed to research various issues, most importantly the YA Hugo and the Worldcon memberships. I cannot give you definitive answers on who is and is not qualified to be on various committees, but guys, the only way to have a chance of effecting the course of these issues is to be involved. Contact info for the chair here. I’m not sure if at this point it’s too late to volunteer, but the worst you can get is a no, hey?

And also remember this, guys, for future Worldcons. If you are in favor of a particular issue, even if you are not financially (etc) able to attend Worldcon you can still roll up your sleeves and try to make a difference. The biggest determining factor for anything is who can actually be bothered to show up to the WSFS business meetings. Considering the number of people at Worldcon, there is a relatively small percentage that actually goes to the meeting (a bit over 100 people were there yesterday, for example, in a convention over well over 1000 people) and from what I hear this year it was even unusually well attended. You have the chance to make a huge difference just by lobbying your fellow fans who are attending Worldcon and will therefore be WSFS members, and most importantly convincing them to attend the meeting to support your cause.  (And not just once, but two Worldcons in a row since any amendment passed in Worldcon must be ratified at the next before it can take effect.)

I know particularly the YA Hugo issue gets a lot of people frustrated, because it feels like an uphill slog and people are passionate about it. But just with how I saw the news being spread this year I think we could all do a much better job of raising awareness and making compelling arguments. It’s actually a very, very positive step that a committee has been formed on the matter, and there’s now basically another year ahead where support for such a measure could actually be organized for next Worldcon.

I’m planning to attend the WSFS meetings from now on whenever I’m at Worldcon because they are important, vital even, when it comes to shaping the future of the convention and this part of the fandom. I’m hoping that next time around it’ll be a little less dizzying as far as the rules go.