I don't really think you can have conversation about reasonable limits absent a conversation about goals and priorities. Why do we give out the Hugos? Who are they for? What are our priorities in making this award? One of the things the latest kerfuffle was about was the on-going argument about whether or not fannish projects are second-class citizens in the Hugo award ecosphere, or if they are central and part of what it is we are doing when we make these awards. If fannish projects are not a priority, then it makes sense to pay no attention to how often those projects are collaborative. If they _are_ important, then asking questions about what we are honoring, who we are honoring, and how we balance that against finite resources is a different conversation.

The field has changed a lot in the last ten years. It makes sense that this has created some new strains on the system. I think that a frank and difficult conversation about goals and priorities would help us find our way to a reasonable set of standards about who gets trophies and how many are awarded.