San Jose Wins 2011 Westercon

[kevin_standlee]

San Jose received 79 of the 93 votes cast in the 2011 Westercon Site Selection (the remainder spread over a raft of write-ins, None of the Above, and No Preference) and will host Westercon 64, July 1-4, 2011, at the Fairmont Hotel, San Jose, California. (Those who attended ConJose will remember this as the 2002 Worldcon's headquarters hotel.)

Guests of Honor are Patricia A. McKillip, Kaja & Phil Foglio, and Mike Willmoth. Convention Chair is Glenn Glazer.

Membership is $45 if you neither voted in Westercon Site Selection or pre-supported the SJ2011 Westercon bid. Discounts apply to those who voted/pre-supported.

More details, including online registration, will be available in a day or two on the convention's web site, http://www.westercon64.org/

Comments

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Coincidentally, I've just received an e-mail from Val Grimm, pointing out the deadline for voting by mail is just 10 days away.

I'm kinda surprised Anticipation and/or the WSFS hasn't introduced online voting.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Actually, there are important people in WSFS who will tall you at great length that online voting for site selection is prohibited and would require a constitutional amendment to permit it.

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

So..? Isn't that why the business meetings are held every year?

It's just a little odd that we can vote for the Hugos online, but not for site selection. In many ways, if done properly, it's more secure than using the postal service (when I cast my Hugo ballot, I received an immediate receipt, listing how I'd voted; use the mail, and I have no idea if the envelope even reached its destination).

These "important people" need to take note of which century we're in.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yes, there is a Business Meeting every year. Someone planned on introducing a change to specifically allow (but not require) online Site Selection voting at this year's meeting, but was persuaded to withdraw it. There is a strong sentiment out there against introducing any non-trivial changes this year on account of the ratification will be in Australia, and thus likely to be a very lightly-attended Business Meeting.

The key difference is that with Hugo voting, you don't have to pay money at the time you vote; you have to be a member, but there's no additional fee to vote. To vote for Site Selection, you not only have to be a member, but you have to pay the Advance Supporting Membership ("Voting") Fee. Online voting effectively forces Worldcons to have credit card/PayPal acceptance. This disturbs certain significant members of WSFS Business Meeting fandom.

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Fascinating -- I really appreciate the time you've taken to take a relative layman behind the curtains, as it were.

Despite the misgivings of these "certain significant members", any future worldcon which cannot accept online payments for all its services is going to operate at a hefty disadvantage. I can only speak for the UK, but cheques are rapidly becoming a thing of the past here; indeed, many major retail chains will no longer accept them.

The system Anticipation has of issuing a PIN for use with ballots seems the best way to go. Whether the ASM payment is made by cheque, or cash, or even online, simply issue the PIN by e-mail or post. That can then be used to validate the selection vote.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

While I agree that Worldcons should maintain such facilities, there are people who think it's "unfair" to "force" Worldcons to have to have such things, and to force them to set up credit card/PayPal acceptance accounts for the benefit of another organization. Remember that the money paid for the ASM does not belong to Worldcon N, but to Worldcon N+2. Usually Worldcon N sets up a separate bank account in the name of N+2, but that generally doesn't cost any significant amount of money. Credit card accounts cost money on every transaction. Who pays the fees? There are a raft of practical implementation details that can derail the process.

As far as explaining goes -- I rarely mind doing that. The more people who understand how things work, the better. Informed voters and all that.

[katster.livejournal.com]

My first answer to the credit card fee problem would be "Then why do they allow it as an option on the site selection ballots?" And now that I think about it, I used my card when I voted in person last year and the charge came from Denvention.

I suppose it would be a bigger problem if we went online where that's about the only way of paying for things and thus more fees would be incurred, but it strikes me that "who pays the credit card fees" is already somewhat of a moot point.

As for the bit about it being unfair to force Worldcons to have such things as Paypal and credit card machines, it strikes me that, despite being the folks who embrace a genre that's highly future-oriented, we're an awful bunch of Luddites at times.

(Sorry, was staring at the Worldcon site selection ballot (well, and reformatting the NASFIC one to fit on two pages -- why is there not a PDF of the NASFIC ballot?) and noticed the credit card option. I'm not trying to be annoying; I'm just grumbling a bit.)

-kat

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

My first answer to the credit card fee problem would be "Then why do they allow it as an option on the site selection ballots?" And now that I think about it, I used my card when I voted in person last year and the charge came from Denvention.

That's because that particular combination of administering Worldcon and bid committees were able to reach an agreement over use of the merchant account and payment of fees. That's not because they were forced to do so, and there's no guarantee that any given such combination would agree to it. For instance, if one of the bids disagreed with the amount the administering convention wanted to charge in merchant fees, then credit cards wouldn't be accepted.

This proposal would force such an arrangement, in practice, which would complicate matters.

I suppose it would be a bigger problem if we went online where that's about the only way of paying for things and thus more fees would be incurred, but it strikes me that "who pays the credit card fees" is already somewhat of a moot point.

Right now, bids have the option of rejecting paying the fees if they don't want to do so.

As for the bit about it being unfair to force Worldcons to have such things as Paypal and credit card machines, it strikes me that, despite being the folks who embrace a genre that's highly future-oriented, we're an awful bunch of Luddites at times.

You won't get disagreement from me on this.

why is there not a PDF of the NASFIC ballot

Because the webmaster can't get the PDF to upload to the site for some reason. I don't know why, but I saw him complaining about it.

[katster.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay, that makes more sense, in regards to credit cards. I guess I can see the point about not forcing folks to do it, but it still seems kinda strange in the world we're in now. But I can see there being a possible problem in coordination. Thanks for explaining that, Kevin.

As for the PDF, doh! Stupid technology. :) Anyway, I managed to get Word to cooperate with me enough to get it all on two pages, and they're both sitting here waiting for me to write the checks and get them out the door. Which I should probably do here in the next couple days, or the fifteenth will sneak up on me. Wish I could file it in person, but it's not to be.

And I don't say it enough, but thanks for putting up with me even when I'm whining or otherwise being annoying.

-kat

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

It's okay. I do like explaining things.

If you want a PDF, e-mail me at my LJ handle@livejournal.com -- I don't seem to have your e-mail at hand and I don't know if the LJ handle works for you -- and I'll send one to you.

[katster.livejournal.com]

Naw, I managed to beat the Word document into submission (although, I admit, the margins are somewhat odd) that I think it'll work.

And yeah, for future reference, the LJ handle works as an email, and my actual address is on my profile page. :)

-kat

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

But I can see there being a possible problem in coordination.

Whenever thinking about any WSFS governance question, remember your American history and the government under the Articles of Confederation. That's how WSFS works. Efficiency is dangerous. Individual independence is paramount.