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

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I've seen these complaints, and I don't think they wish to advocate for another system, just that they dislike being around the present one. So I think their solutions would be any one of the following:

1) very small cons (so no rules needed for governance)
2) no direct democracy (elect continuing committee; let them do it all, and then we can all bitch about that)
3) continue doing it, but don't make us watch (but we can continue to bitch about it anyway)

[billroper]

Now is this a question of changing the rules for the Hugos and Site Selection or changing the process for determining the rules?

As far as the rules for the Hugos go, I don't think that there's anything that can be done there other than tweaking around the edges.

Site selection is a different problem. I'm still convinced that the current exclusion zone is way too big, but I grew up fannishly in the Midwest where physical distances between different fannish groups are smaller. Things may look different from either edge of the North American continent.

I also think -- contrary to the view of those who believe that Worldcon should spend more of its time out of the U.S. -- that sending the Worldcon out of the country as often as has happened lately is bad for the long-term viability of Worldcon. I understand that this may be a minority view on my part.

If the question is about the governance process itself, then the biggest single change that could be made would be to allow for a member at the Business Meeting to carry proxies, either for Supporting Members (who can't attend the meeting) or for any member who cannot / chooses not to be there for one reason or another.

Obviously, this would complicate the counting of votes. :)

There's a secondary problem with allowing a single member to be swinging too many proxies. Limiting the number of proxies that a single person could carry to, say, ten would help reduce that problem.

[totient]

There are shades of grey between direct and representative democracy. For instance, most of the US has some form of citizen-initiated petition ballot measure system whereby some things are put to the masses and others worked out in a smoke filled room. Parts of the US even have ballot measures which don't themselves contain law but simply direct the representatives to draw something up (business meeting measures not having to also contain all of the followon renumbering is a baby step in this direction). One expectation of ballot measures is that you'll have a reasonable amount of time between when the final form of the measure is known and the vote; amendments that substantially change the meaning of a measure can't happen.

Concretely, a bunch of things we could do that wouldn't mean throwing out everything we're doing now:

- Allow participation in the BM by proxy
- Disallow amendments that are "hostile to, or even defeat, the spirit of the original motion" (RR11 163:18)
- Second ratification of constitutional amendments by mail (with ballot distributed in a PR for the next Worldcon, as with the Hugos) instead of at the next BM
- Require new business to be referred to a committee appointed at the relevant BM, perhaps with only single ratification (and no amendments) if a committee reports positively
- Generally do more business in committees, reserving the BM or paper mail for providing direction to the committees and not for specific spelled out rules changes

Keeping the BM short is currently at odds with having any debate, and so the BM procedure is fundamentally at odds with letting people feel they have been heard. We have a few adaptations that might help people get that out of their system beforehand except that arcane wording is a barrier and then the amendment system twists things beyond all recognition. If we weren't working out the wording of motions in the meeting there'd be more time for talking about whether we liked them or not. This could happen by committees working out that wording for us, or it could happen by letting motions be general ("Moved to direct the Hugo committee to bring an amendment introducing a best YA Hugo") so that we could talk about the substance instead of the form.

(edited to change userpic)

[ceemage.livejournal.com]

Personally, the one bit of Roberts Rules I feel needs adjusting for WSFS is to reduce the scope of Object To Consideration.
Only allow OTC on other procedural motions, or items raised at the meeting.
If it's on the agenda, it gets discussed. Minimum 5 minutes.
After that, people can move "Next business" if they want, as a 2/3rds or 3/4ths procedural motion.

As a quid pro quo for this, I'm prepared to increase the number of "assentors" needed to get something on the agenda from 2 (proposer & seconder) to something higher, probably between 10 and 50.

Basically, it just feels wrong that something can be on the published agenda, pre-discussed (probably with much misunderstanding) on all the fannish e-lists, and then the proposer doesn't even get a chance to make their case, due to a pre-emptive OTC "nuclear strike."

[timill]

Charge admission to the BM ;-)

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Gladiatorial combat, preferably with the classic Trek fight music.

Fan 1: (raising longsword) "I come to establish the YA Fiction Hugo!"

Fan 2: (raising his paired Franciscas) "Never! I will die to prevent the dilution of the writing categories!"

Fan 1: "So be it, traditionalist dog!"

Kevin: "Enough! Two fans enter, one proposal wins! Combat is to submission or unconsciousness. If neither combatant can continue, the item is tabled unless a motion to recombat is passed by a simple majority. All decisions made by Kuma Bear are final, as prescribed by Conan's Rules of Order. If there are no further motions, BEGIN!"

You have to admit, it would make the business meetings a bit more interesting.

[randy-smith2.livejournal.com]

The one change I would make would be to have mail ratification, using a process similar to what is currently used for Site Selection. This could also include at-con voting, a la Site Selection, rather than Business Meeting voting. Results could be announced on Sunday, also a la Site Selection.

[pwilkinson.livejournal.com]

OK - a system that meets every criterion in your final request except, almost certainly, "better". The British Eastercon system.

No direct equivalent to WSFS, but a number of the things that WSFS handles get done but differently.

Hugo Awards? BSFA Awards - the difference here is that the awards are run by a completely independent organisation, the British Science Fiction Association, which traditionally not only ballots its own members for the awards in advance by post and email but also allows attending members of Eastercon to vote at the convention in return for Eastercon providing a prime-time programme slot for the awards ceremony. But only BSFA members are allowed to nominate for the awards, and the BSFA could choose to withdraw from the arrangement at any time.

Site selection? Done as a programme item during Eastercon. Voting by show of hands or ballot during the item. Of course, the current Eastercon is under no formal obligation to provide a slot (and probably a chair) for it, but in practice it always happens.

Trade mark? Nothing done until about ten years ago, when a fan, with informal agreement at one Eastercon, registered it in order to make sure that nobody outside fandom did so. No problems so far - the right to use the trademark has always been freely granted to successive Eastercons, and I believe that arrangements are in place for when the fan concerned dies or gets too old to continue with it - but it obviously requires a fair degree of trust.