kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2011-08-09 07:50 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2011-08-09 07:50 pm
Entry tags:
Business Meeting Papers Released
Renovation is starting to publish those reports and proposals that will be coming before this year's WSFS Business Meeting on their Business Meeting Page. Besides the current Constitution and Standing Rules, you'll find the 2010 Updates to the Resolutions of Continuing Effect, including for the first time resolutions passed by the Mark Protection Committee (MPC).
Also here is the minutes of the 2010 MPC Meeting in Australia, where a barely-quorate meeting managed to squeeze through a vote of 5 of the 14 total MPC members (8 present) that voted to prohibit MPC and MPC subcommittee members from being eligible for a Hugo Award. As I wrote last year, this resolution had the net effect of forcing Cheryl Morgan, the person who had done more work than anyone else on the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, to decline nomination to the HAMC. It was, in my opinion, a slap in the face to her and indirectly to me, and I continue to be angry about this. I think that the rule is actually unconstitutional because it applies eligibility rules to MPC members above and beyond that defined in the WSFS Constitution. The rule passed by the MPC is numbered MPC-2010-1 and is not only in those minutes but in the Resolutions of Continuing Effect.
The deadline for submitting new business is about 5 PM on Wednesday of Renovation (two hours after the Official Opening, and the Opening Ceremonies are at 3 PM), but some people have smartly submitted business in advance, and those advance submissions are also posted. Of relevance to what I wrote above is a resolution overturning MPC-2010-1 (the Business Meeting is superior to the MPC and can override it) and ordering the MPC to not adopt rules more restrictive than those imposed by the Constitution. If you think the action of the MPC in disqualifying Cheryl (and anyone else who might be plausibly eligible for a Hugo Award) from membership on the MPC or the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee was wrong, please come to Thursday's Preliminary Business Meeting (10 AM, Convention Center A02) and vote for this resolution.
But wait, there's more: I rather expect that there will be a motion to write MPC-2010-1 into the Constitution. That's a constitutional amendment, so unless two-thirds of the people at the Thursday meeting vote to squash such a motion without debate, it will be debated and voted upon at Friday's Main Business Meeting. It would have to pass at Reno and then be ratified at Chicon 7 to take effect. If you agree with me that disqualifying people who want to work for WSFS on the MPC or any of its subcommittees from being eligible for a Hugo Award is a bad idea, then come to Friday's meeting to vote against such a proposal. (Or even better, vote to spike it when it first comes up on Thursday.)
Friday's meeting (10 AM, Convention Center A02) is also where the elections for the Mark Protection Committee will happen. Two of the five people who squeezed through that motion in Australia are coming up for re-election. I hope you will vote for candidates who reflect your views. I expect there will be more than three candidates in the field this year.
Of course, besides this little sideshow for the hearts and minds of WSFS, we have the proposals that got first passage last year and that are up for ratification:
I am in favor of all of these except the expansion of Hugo nominating to the follow year's members. On that proposal, I am neutral. I haven't been convinced one way or the other.
There will definitely be proposals dealing with Semiprozines, as the Semiprozine Committee Report has been published, and it's likely to generate a lot of debate, especially with four minority reports attached as alternatives.
I also foresee two competing proposals to deal with the so-called "Podcast Problem," including the Best Fancast proposal.
And that's just the stuff I know something about. There's usually at least one proposal that surprises me.
Also here is the minutes of the 2010 MPC Meeting in Australia, where a barely-quorate meeting managed to squeeze through a vote of 5 of the 14 total MPC members (8 present) that voted to prohibit MPC and MPC subcommittee members from being eligible for a Hugo Award. As I wrote last year, this resolution had the net effect of forcing Cheryl Morgan, the person who had done more work than anyone else on the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, to decline nomination to the HAMC. It was, in my opinion, a slap in the face to her and indirectly to me, and I continue to be angry about this. I think that the rule is actually unconstitutional because it applies eligibility rules to MPC members above and beyond that defined in the WSFS Constitution. The rule passed by the MPC is numbered MPC-2010-1 and is not only in those minutes but in the Resolutions of Continuing Effect.
The deadline for submitting new business is about 5 PM on Wednesday of Renovation (two hours after the Official Opening, and the Opening Ceremonies are at 3 PM), but some people have smartly submitted business in advance, and those advance submissions are also posted. Of relevance to what I wrote above is a resolution overturning MPC-2010-1 (the Business Meeting is superior to the MPC and can override it) and ordering the MPC to not adopt rules more restrictive than those imposed by the Constitution. If you think the action of the MPC in disqualifying Cheryl (and anyone else who might be plausibly eligible for a Hugo Award) from membership on the MPC or the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee was wrong, please come to Thursday's Preliminary Business Meeting (10 AM, Convention Center A02) and vote for this resolution.
But wait, there's more: I rather expect that there will be a motion to write MPC-2010-1 into the Constitution. That's a constitutional amendment, so unless two-thirds of the people at the Thursday meeting vote to squash such a motion without debate, it will be debated and voted upon at Friday's Main Business Meeting. It would have to pass at Reno and then be ratified at Chicon 7 to take effect. If you agree with me that disqualifying people who want to work for WSFS on the MPC or any of its subcommittees from being eligible for a Hugo Award is a bad idea, then come to Friday's meeting to vote against such a proposal. (Or even better, vote to spike it when it first comes up on Thursday.)
Friday's meeting (10 AM, Convention Center A02) is also where the elections for the Mark Protection Committee will happen. Two of the five people who squeezed through that motion in Australia are coming up for re-election. I hope you will vote for candidates who reflect your views. I expect there will be more than three candidates in the field this year.
Of course, besides this little sideshow for the hearts and minds of WSFS, we have the proposals that got first passage last year and that are up for ratification:
- Raising the voting fee multiplier on site selection from 2x to 4x so that Worldcons could charge up to 4x the voting fee to convert from voting (supporting) to attending
- Clarification of the status of electronic voting for the Hugo Awards and Site Selection
- Allow electronic distribution of WSFS rules in lieu of paper distribution, when practical
- Expand Hugo Award nominating eligibility to include the members of the following year's Worldcon to nominate as well as the past Worldcon's members
- Technical Change: Clarify cross-references to "run-off candidate"
- Technical Change: Include the Hugo Award Logo and the design of the trophy rocket in the list of claimed service marks
I am in favor of all of these except the expansion of Hugo nominating to the follow year's members. On that proposal, I am neutral. I haven't been convinced one way or the other.
There will definitely be proposals dealing with Semiprozines, as the Semiprozine Committee Report has been published, and it's likely to generate a lot of debate, especially with four minority reports attached as alternatives.
I also foresee two competing proposals to deal with the so-called "Podcast Problem," including the Best Fancast proposal.
And that's just the stuff I know something about. There's usually at least one proposal that surprises me.
no subject
Remember that when Emerald City was first nominated, there were a bunch of people screaming that it wasn't a "real" fanzine because it was published primarily online and that only ink-on-paper fanzines were "real." (Yes, I know that seems absurd today, but it was common in the early days of e-zines.) Cheryl's been collecting brickbats from hidebound traditionalists for years. I think they've convinced themselves that "Since I don't like her or her work, and I'm obviously the Standard Fan And Everything Thinks Like Me, then clearly she must be doing something illegal and Must Be Stopped."
If anyone could be accused of using THA.org to put his own name forward, it would have been me. I signed my own posts on the site and happily made much of the site's existence. And I have been known to appear in the "they also ran" lists for Fan Writer. If being a notable SMOFS with a high-profile position running the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee was an automatic ticket to a silver rocket, it would be me. But no, I got my Hugo trophy the hard way — by chairing a Worldcon that had two leftover trophies. (And even then, I've tried to "give something back" by loaning that trophy out to a library exhibit, the SF Outreach Project at WonderCon, and to this year's Hugo Award Administrator because she needed a trophy rocket to use to help evaluate base designs this year.)
It's not as though Cheryl isn't aware of potential conflicts of interest. In 2002, when she was one of the people helping run the ConJosé web site, and in particular our version of online Hugo nominating and voting, she quietly took her name out of contention because there was too much possibility of her being accused of manipulating the Hugo results by means of the online voting process. But because she didn't make a big deal about it, hardly anyone knows and doesn't give her credit for doing something that, as far as I know, no other Worldcon webmaster has ever done. (Not that there have been too many Worldcon webmasters who are past Hugo Award nominees!)