kevin_standlee | 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:

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.