![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeThe Second Main Business Meeting is also the Site Selection Business Meeting. Site Selection business comes first, after which we finally got to work on the new constitutional amendments. For the summary, see my report to Chicon's online newsletter.
Here's the meeting video. The first 90 minutes or so was Site Selection Business: results of the 2024 Worldcon Site Selection (Glasgow running unopposed won handily) and their initial presentation, 2023 NASFiC (Winnipeg, running unopposed after Orlando withdrew, also won their race) and their initial presentation. After that, the Chengdu 2023 Worldcon made a very long presentation and answered a few questions.
After a break, we very nearly had parliamentary fireworks. There was a motion to Suspend the Rules to allow the introduction of a motion censuring the Chengdu 2023 Worldcon committee for dereliction of their duties. WSFS rules allow motions to be introduced after the advance deadline if either the Chair of the meeting allowed it (he did not), or by a 2/3 vote. The motion to Suspend the Rules is neither debatable nor amendable. Had it passed, it would have allowed the consideration of the motion, but that would have been at the Monday meeting. In any event, there was vastly less than 2/3, and thus the matter dropped.
So now we could deal with the constitutional amendment ratification referred to committee yesterday. After Jesi Lipp's explanation to the membership that the constitutional amendment, along with a small amendment to it proposed by Donald Eastlake, had the same effect as the standing rule on which it is based. The meeting ratified the motion by an uncounted show of hands, nearly unanimously.
Now we at long last could start debating the new proposed constitutional amendments. As with my earlier write-ups, consult the Business Meeting Agenda for the item references. Items were not considered in agenda order due to more than one procedural maneuver to rearrange the running order.
Items F.1 and F.2 were two proposals touching on the same issue: the prospect of a Hugo Award category being "No Awarded" should it poll less than 25% of the total number of final Award ballots cast in that election. They conflicted with each other, so the meeting elected to try and reconciling them by referring them both to a Committee of the Whole, which allowed for test votes and somewhat less formal debate. Business Meeting Deputy Chair Jesi Lipp took the chair and ran the committee meeting. The COTW decided to recommend that F.2 be rejected and F.1 passed, and did so by such an overwhelming margin that when the committee rose and reported the recommendation to the main meeting, it was a foregone conclusion that the meeting would do just that.
F.3 also touches on the matter of Hugo Award categories that poll very few votes compared to the total votes cast, and would require that a proposal to remove that category be placed on the Business Meeting agenda when such a thing happened. The constitutional amendment was converted to a Standing Rule, and then adopted. I contributed something to this debate, pointing out that making it a Standing Rule was more appropriate because it was related to the agenda of the Business Meeting rather than the administration of the Hugo Awards.
F.4 creates a new Best Game or Interactive Work. It was debated and then passed by an uncounted show of hands. As with F.1, it will have to be ratified next year to take effect.
F.5 was skipped and consequently will be considered at the Monday meeting.
F.6 was a motion to modify the definitions of Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist. After a lot of debate that in my opinion showed a significant disconnect between what well-meaning members mean by "pro" and "fan," the meeting kicked this one to a committee to hash out the philosophical and technical issues, voting 49-36 to not try to keep wordsmithing it this year.
We ran out of time before getting to F.7 and F.8.
Just before 1 PM, we adjourned for the day, but not for the convention. Three items, F.5, F.7, and F.8, remain to be considered. We'll need an "overflow" third main business meeting on Monday. I think we have a good chance of getting through these last three items. Fingers crossed that the members won't decide to dawdle. We have a hard deadline that forces us to either deal with the motions or let them drop entirely.
I actually got a chance to look at more of the Worldcon this afternoon before changing in to my Sunday-go-to-the-Hugo-Awards-Ceremony this evening. I live-Tweeted the ceremony for TheHugoAwards.org, while Cheryl Morgan (who took a nap earlier today so she could stay up late to watch the Awards online from her home in the UK) updated the website.
I'd love to write more, but with another Business Meeting on Monday morning, I have to try and get at least some sleep.
Here's the meeting video. The first 90 minutes or so was Site Selection Business: results of the 2024 Worldcon Site Selection (Glasgow running unopposed won handily) and their initial presentation, 2023 NASFiC (Winnipeg, running unopposed after Orlando withdrew, also won their race) and their initial presentation. After that, the Chengdu 2023 Worldcon made a very long presentation and answered a few questions.
After a break, we very nearly had parliamentary fireworks. There was a motion to Suspend the Rules to allow the introduction of a motion censuring the Chengdu 2023 Worldcon committee for dereliction of their duties. WSFS rules allow motions to be introduced after the advance deadline if either the Chair of the meeting allowed it (he did not), or by a 2/3 vote. The motion to Suspend the Rules is neither debatable nor amendable. Had it passed, it would have allowed the consideration of the motion, but that would have been at the Monday meeting. In any event, there was vastly less than 2/3, and thus the matter dropped.
So now we could deal with the constitutional amendment ratification referred to committee yesterday. After Jesi Lipp's explanation to the membership that the constitutional amendment, along with a small amendment to it proposed by Donald Eastlake, had the same effect as the standing rule on which it is based. The meeting ratified the motion by an uncounted show of hands, nearly unanimously.
Now we at long last could start debating the new proposed constitutional amendments. As with my earlier write-ups, consult the Business Meeting Agenda for the item references. Items were not considered in agenda order due to more than one procedural maneuver to rearrange the running order.
Items F.1 and F.2 were two proposals touching on the same issue: the prospect of a Hugo Award category being "No Awarded" should it poll less than 25% of the total number of final Award ballots cast in that election. They conflicted with each other, so the meeting elected to try and reconciling them by referring them both to a Committee of the Whole, which allowed for test votes and somewhat less formal debate. Business Meeting Deputy Chair Jesi Lipp took the chair and ran the committee meeting. The COTW decided to recommend that F.2 be rejected and F.1 passed, and did so by such an overwhelming margin that when the committee rose and reported the recommendation to the main meeting, it was a foregone conclusion that the meeting would do just that.
F.3 also touches on the matter of Hugo Award categories that poll very few votes compared to the total votes cast, and would require that a proposal to remove that category be placed on the Business Meeting agenda when such a thing happened. The constitutional amendment was converted to a Standing Rule, and then adopted. I contributed something to this debate, pointing out that making it a Standing Rule was more appropriate because it was related to the agenda of the Business Meeting rather than the administration of the Hugo Awards.
F.4 creates a new Best Game or Interactive Work. It was debated and then passed by an uncounted show of hands. As with F.1, it will have to be ratified next year to take effect.
F.5 was skipped and consequently will be considered at the Monday meeting.
F.6 was a motion to modify the definitions of Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist. After a lot of debate that in my opinion showed a significant disconnect between what well-meaning members mean by "pro" and "fan," the meeting kicked this one to a committee to hash out the philosophical and technical issues, voting 49-36 to not try to keep wordsmithing it this year.
We ran out of time before getting to F.7 and F.8.
Just before 1 PM, we adjourned for the day, but not for the convention. Three items, F.5, F.7, and F.8, remain to be considered. We'll need an "overflow" third main business meeting on Monday. I think we have a good chance of getting through these last three items. Fingers crossed that the members won't decide to dawdle. We have a hard deadline that forces us to either deal with the motions or let them drop entirely.
I actually got a chance to look at more of the Worldcon this afternoon before changing in to my Sunday-go-to-the-Hugo-Awards-Ceremony this evening. I live-Tweeted the ceremony for TheHugoAwards.org, while Cheryl Morgan (who took a nap earlier today so she could stay up late to watch the Awards online from her home in the UK) updated the website.
I'd love to write more, but with another Business Meeting on Monday morning, I have to try and get at least some sleep.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-05 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-09-05 08:28 pm (UTC)They ARE in a bit of a mess with only four months to go until Hugo nominations open and not being able to take non-Chinese memberships yet. But, Ben Yalow's presentation to the BM that they have a US corporation, are sorting out bank accounts and will be able to take memberships soon, should have been sufficient for people.