More About WSFS Structure

[kevin_standlee]

I was talking with cherylmorgan this evening about the discussion about WSFS structure on hollister2008.

In that discussion, this question was asked:

Why there isn't a President of [WSFS], a Vice President, a Secretary or Treasurer for the Society?

My response was that such positions weren't necessary and wouldn't have anything to do. Cheryl pointed out that this is only if you were stupid when you added the jobs. That's true; if we created the positions, we would feel a need to give them some jobs to do. We could, for instance, make them responsible for making sure Worldcons happen and giving Worldcon committees orders.

Which those committees would probably refuse to follow. Worldcon committees are individually much like members of the United Nations, sovereign within their own borders. A Worldcon committee can to a great extent tell WSFS, to the extent that WSFS exists, to go climb a tree with no repercussions other than the potential for their individual convention members complaining about it.

We're a volunteer organization. We can't compel people to do anything. (And if you say, "You could sue them," then you just lost the game, and thank you for playing. Lawsuits are among your last resorts, not your first.) As Cheryl noted, local conrunning groups are, on the whole, run by local fans who have some respect and prestige and are worked by people who respect the individuals and organizations involved sufficiently to take instructions from them. That's fine within a local context. But what happens when a group of primarily American, Canadian, and British conrunners tells an Australian Worldcon how to run their convention? I can imagine it, but I won't print it here. And how could this hypothetical WSFS Inc. enforce their edict?

While there might be advantages of a centralized, permanent, incorporated WSFS, the primary reason it doesn't happen is political, in that fans are fractious and independent-minded and don't like other people telling them what to do. It's something of a wonder we get as much accomplished as we do now.

Comments

[nitroace.livejournal.com]

Loscon does. While it is overseen by the Board of Directors of the LASFS, a new convention chair is elected each year by the members of the LASFS in a bid process. The chair need not be a member of the Board of Directors. That chair decides the theme and chooses a committee. Often it is the same people, but not always. People change positions around from year to year. The committee chooses their staff. The LASFS Board of Directors does very little to interfere with the Chairman's or Loscon Committee's decisions. If it were apparent that the current chairman was doing his/her best to run the convention into the toilet, then the board would step in. So far, I don't believe this has happened. I believe most local/regional conventions are run in this manner. There is no permanant committee, although the committee is drawn from mostly the same pool of people each year. Worldcon is not that much different in that regard. I'm sure Kevin can explain the "Permanent Floating Worldcon Committee"TM better then me. One local exception to this is the Gallifrey One conventions here in Los Angeles. Gallifrey has a permanant committee that rarely changes from year to year. It's a smaller convention and most of us have been doing it for almost 2 decades. We can do it in our sleep now. And often do.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

But it's still overseen by a board of directors, even if they haven't actually used their powers and I would assume that since it is run by the same club from year to year that it would be taking place under the same incorporation. The structure looks more like a corporation (board and shareholder elections) rather than a succession of individuals or small groups assembling a team each year out of variously experienced people with the goal of getting one event run.

Meanwhile in Denver Linda Nelson has been con chair for 16 years (and she'd been con chair twice before that). At this point though theoretically someone else could bid no one would and if she decided to step down I rather think that the con runners would meet to select a new chair rather like a papal conclave from one of their own or she would have been grooming a successor.

And most cons I've heard of have a corporate structures and incorporations in some fashion that continue year after year until the con dies.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

It is very Libertarian in organization. As a Learn more about this, it makes sense to do it this way. It lets the local bid committees make the decisions and that is crucial to the floating con.