Salon Futura on the Hugo Awards

[kevin_standlee]

As I fill out my 2024 Hugo Award ballot (deadline in a few days), I note that Salon Futura is eligible for Best Fanzine.

Cheryl Morgan has written an article in the latest issue ("Chengdu Revisited") that I think is well worth a look. She did give me an advance look at it, but I hasten to add that I've revealed no "insider information" to her, unless you think pointing people at the published minutes of WSFS MPC/WIP meetings is Revealing Sekrit Information. I did point out that a few places in the USA still use the Town Meeting form of government that we use for WSFS, although as she points out, few places (or none at all of which I'm aware) try to do the day-to-day governance of a town with thousands of residents using it, and that's what people who seem to think have a constantly-in-session, round-the-clock (except during Worldcon itself) online WSFS Business Meeting appear to want. Even a rules geek like me would get tired of that pretty quickly.

I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I have previously speculated that the Ad Hoc Congress of Free Luna was something that Heinlein was inspired to write after attending a WSFS Business Meeting. Note that even in the hyper-libertarian society posited there, they eventually ended up with an elected legislature.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

I never thought of MIAHM that way, but it does make sense.

[calimac]

Another problem with the elected representative system, besides the likelihood that only SMOFs will run for office, is that most of the voters will have no basis on which to choose candidates. At the last election here, I faced the choice of 6 out of 15 candidates for a party central committee. I'd only ever heard of one of them, and it was dashed difficult to find much info on the others, even with thorough Googling. I wound up relying on the advice of a friend who is involved and au courant on these things.

[kevin_standlee]

I think that candidates should get the right to publish a statement. Since it's likely almost everything will be online anyway, this should not be difficult.

[calimac]

I've read candidate statements in general election ballots. They don't help much, being mostly filled with piffle. I amuse myself by crossing off my list any who make glaring grammatical errors.

[kevin_standlee]

Worldcon is a smaller community. As it happens, you're probably not more than 1 person away from most likely candidates.

[calimac]

I'm not - but that wouldn't be true of most of the voters in a large WSFS election.

Even so, there's a big difference between knowing someone who can advise you on the candidates and already knowing who they are or something about them. I was well plugged into this 30 years ago but quite detached now. I've met Ben Yalow and conversed with him a few times, but not for many years; and if he remembers who I am I'd be surprised. But although Dave McCarty has been several times administrator and also Worldcon chair, his name was unfamiliar to me until the Chengdu controversy exploded, and the same is true of most of the others caught up in this.

[kevin_standlee]

Understood. But what is better: electing representatives, or demanding that we must meet online round-the-clock (but not during Worldcon itself) and that every single person must be allowed to speak for as long as they want? Because that's what I think the alternatives are -- except that the ones demanding that we must meet forever and ever and ever and only adopt rules that they personally want and that anyone who has ever worked on a Worldcon in the past must be forever banned from attending so that Real Fans will get what they want are not that likely to show up to push their agenda.

In 2015, I was fretting over the possibility of hundreds of Rabid Puppies showing up to burn everything to the ground in person (even as it was, we had one of the larger meetings in my memory at ~400 people). Can you imagine what it would be like if the meeting was required to be held online, that every member including WSFS (supporting) members must be included, and that if we don't allow every member to speak for an unlimited amount of time, it's unfaaaaaaaaaaair?

[calimac]

It's a mistake to definite those as the alternatives. The current WSFS governing system is not what caused the problem, and consequently the proposed changes wouldn't fix it. (See my earlier post on that subject.)

[kevin_standlee]

I know that it won't fix it. But people are clamoring for the latter in particular, because nobody trusts anyone else, and there are in particular people who want to burn everything to the ground. Also, there are a bunch of people who appear to think that it's Unfair to charge people attend anything, and the "tickets" should be free, and the people running the show should obey the orders of those people who want everything for nothing.

[calimac]

Which itself illustrates why the system should be left alone.

[kevin_standlee]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there are well-meaning people who appear to be pushing for remote participation by all members including supporting. And it may not be obvious, but assuming this year's BM repeals the standing rule adopted last year on this subject, remote participation only requires the administering Worldcon to establish their own rules of order superseding Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (which is only the default rules) and simply ordering it to happen.

[jonesnori]

The proposals I've seen for online meetings do not match what you describe. I wish you wouldn't do this sarcastic exaggeration thing, Kevin.

[kevin_standlee]

The things I've seen on FB include people saying that we should be holding the Business Meeting at any time (as long as it's not Worldcon), and I've also seen people complaining about how horrible it is that people should have to pay to vote. And I've seen people complain that they aren't given time to say what they want. And it's surely the case that if they don't get their way, it's wrongly wrong wrong. And then there's those people who say that it's Wrong that the meeting should happen during Worldcon, too. It should only be held when it's convenient to them -- that is, to whoever says the time is wrong; nobody else's opinion matters.

What I see -- and this is a broader problem in society, not specific to WSFS -- is more and more people convinced that Democracy is the Rule of the People, and that they (that is, the individual person) Is The People. In other words, only whatever they personally want is the only thing that should ever happen. That's the only Rule that the meeting should follow: do what they tell you to do.

And of course, there are those who demand that nobody who has ever been part of any Worldcon committee should ever be on one ever again, so that Real Fans can run things. And tickets should be free. Charging people for anything is Bad. After all, Any Fule Kno that those people running Worldcons are making millions and millions of dollars, and the Real Fans are being left out.

Sarcasm aside, I personally have had people tell me to my face that they thought I was making Big Bucks chairing Worldcon. When I offered to show my tax returns and those of the convention's parent non-profit corporation, they said, in effect, wink-wink-nudge-nudge and everyone knows you fake that stuff. I'm not kidding. It makes me absolutely furious. These people who assume that of course everyone except them is Getting Paid are the kind of people who discover that the only way to make a small fortune running SF conventions is to start with a large fortune.

[jonesnori]

FaceBook is full of silliness, it is true. (The money suggestion is ridiculous and offensive.) There are serious fans having serious discussions about this, though, and making much more reasonable suggestions. By the time something makes it to an actual Business Meeting, you may still disagree, but it should not be a silly suggestion.

[kevin_standlee]

I certainly hope that serious solutions actually make it to the Business Meeting. But you know, I've been proposing ways of giving the entire membership a share of the decision-making process for years, and I have been told I was a dangerous lunatic for doing so. I'm afraid that this latest is going to be the opening for those people who really do want to burn everything to the ground to do so.

[jonesnori]

It may be that the time has come for your public approval plan to be accepted.

[kevin_standlee]

Maybe. However, when ever I bring it up, people say that it's still Bad and that the only way to run things is for every single person to attend the Business Meeting, so it must be held at times and places that are convenient to [insert person complaining; who cares about anyone else], and that if you don't have a computer, you're not a real person, so who cares about you, etc.

Essentially, you have a lot of very loud people who are convinced that everyone except them individually are Wrong, and that the only proper form of government is a circular firing squad. And Rules are bad. The only rule should be "Do whatever I order you to do!"

I wish I could be more optimistic, but with the large number of people complaining that All Rules Are Evil unless the result it whatever they personally want, I'm really worried.