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

[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."

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Objection to Consideration is allowed only on main motions. It is never allowed on subsidiary motions. That's because you can get to where you want on a procedural motion a lot faster by simply voting it down.

But for the rest: I think I like the idea of a certain minimum number of co-sponsors guaranteeing a motion can come up for a guaranteed minimum amount of debate. Possibly a mixed case, whereby anything that gets less than that minimum could still make it to the Preliminary Business Meeting, but would be subject to OTC as currently applies.

I think 50 is a good number. It would have been about 1% of LoneStarCon's attendance (a smaller percentage of the total membership). It would complicate the Business Meeting's life by having to more carefully validate co-sponsors. (Currently we tend to take people at their word.) But it might at least get people a way to be able to say they got what they consider a fair chance.