Worst System (Except for All the Others)

[kevin_standlee]

The WSFS Business Meeting is taking a fair amount of abuse for using a parliamentary rules manual (Robert's Rules of Order, the most common, but not the only such manual) for its formal decision-making process.

WSFS actually manages only two things of significant importance: The Hugo Awards rules and the rules for selecting future Worldcon sites. (There are other things, which I can detail upon request.) Everything else about how Worldcons are run is done by the individual Worldcon committees.

So, before I hit the road for El Paso, I leave this question before you all: Direct Democracy as WSFS practices it is extremely messy. If you were allowed to change things to suit yourself (other than simply saying, "I'm King and You'll All Required to do what I say when I say it"), how would you change the governance process for the Hugo Awards and Site Selection rules?

Come up with a better system that doesn't have the flaws you perceive are present in the current system. Please.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

If I decide to bite the bullet and introduce Popular Ratification, I'm going to point out that there are a bunch of people demanding that we don't permit any unbundling of the non-attending membership rights, and that we already allow them to introduce proposals, just not vote on them because they're not allowed to attend. Giving them the right to nominate is a reasonable way to say, "Yes, they're all members, too." I am starting to think that maybe now is the time for it.