The issue of Worldcon committee members being nominated for a Hugo Award is precisely why the current rule that allows the Worldcon committee to firewall off the Hugo Administration Subcommittee was adopted in the 1970s. The Treasurer of a Worldcon was nominated for a Hugo Award and was going to decline nomination, but instead the committee "fired" him: Hal Clement.
It's not that odd to have Hugo Award nominees on your convention committee. I see at least five of this year's nominees on Renovation's Staff Page, including at least one past winner. (I didn't look that hard; there may be more than I overlooked.)
Two of the five Mark Protection Committee members (that's who imposed this rule, not the HAMC itself) are up for re-election this year. Just as I asked the members of WSFS last year to make my election a vote of confidence in my actions as leader of the MPC and HAMC during the previous three years (and was overwhelmingly re-elected), I'm going to ask the members to consider those members' past actions when they vote this year.
If there really was a WSFS Inc. whose board of directors was the membership of the Mark Protection Committee, and who administered the Hugo Awards, there would be a much more plausible argument for disqualifying the MPC members (and any subcommittees). But we go out of our way to insist that every Worldcon is totally independent of one another and that the body that holds the service marks is weak and nearly powerless and merely a custodian of the intellectual property and a source of publicity because that body nominally owns the common web sites (worldcon.org, thehugoawards.org, etc.). You can't have it both ways: either those committees are the real powers behind the throne or they aren't.
no subject
It's not that odd to have Hugo Award nominees on your convention committee. I see at least five of this year's nominees on Renovation's Staff Page, including at least one past winner. (I didn't look that hard; there may be more than I overlooked.)
Two of the five Mark Protection Committee members (that's who imposed this rule, not the HAMC itself) are up for re-election this year. Just as I asked the members of WSFS last year to make my election a vote of confidence in my actions as leader of the MPC and HAMC during the previous three years (and was overwhelmingly re-elected), I'm going to ask the members to consider those members' past actions when they vote this year.
If there really was a WSFS Inc. whose board of directors was the membership of the Mark Protection Committee, and who administered the Hugo Awards, there would be a much more plausible argument for disqualifying the MPC members (and any subcommittees). But we go out of our way to insist that every Worldcon is totally independent of one another and that the body that holds the service marks is weak and nearly powerless and merely a custodian of the intellectual property and a source of publicity because that body nominally owns the common web sites (worldcon.org, thehugoawards.org, etc.). You can't have it both ways: either those committees are the real powers behind the throne or they aren't.