kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2010-09-06 11:53 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2010-09-06 11:53 pm
Entry tags:
Sour Notes
To me, Aussiecon 4 was an enjoyable symphony with some sour notes in the final few bars. I'm trying not to let those closing problems color my entire experience, but in light of how hard I worked on these things, I'm not feeling particularly good.
Those of you who follow me know that I made a big issue over the election to the Mark Protection Committee being a policy referendum on my own performance and leadership abilities. The attendees of the Business Meeting itself responded by returning me to office, apparently (I haven't seen the details) overwhelmingly.
The MPC itself, however, chose to ignore any signal this may have sent. The MPC has 14 members, and thus a quorum of eight. The MPC finally managed a quorum on Monday morning, just barely. I put forward my name for the Chairmanship, but the members voted 5-3 to give it to Ben Yalow.
The MPC then voted to adopt a policy (I certainly don't agree with it, but I'm outvoted) that says than anyone who accepts election/appointment to the MPC or to any of its subordinate committees (which includes the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee) must agree to decline nomination for a Hugo Award in the subsequent year.
Although the MPC continued the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee (HAMC), appointing Rene Walling as Chair, and although the MPC offered all of the incumbents re-appointment, I'm sure nobody is surprised the Cheryl was obliged to decline reappointment to the HAMC under those circumstances. This leaves me, the website assistant maintainer, responsible for doing all of the work. I don't blame Cheryl at all about this. The newly-adopted policy makes it impossible for anyone who is a potential plausible Hugo Award nominee to volunteer to help with the committee to market and promote the Hugo Awards or any other MPC subcommittee.
From my discussions with a number of the principle players in the little drama in the SMOF-filled backroom this morning, I think it pretty clear that a number of the individuals involved hadn't heard my speech on Saturday or anything else I'd said earlier. At least two of them appear to me to have been completely unaware of the issues. To that extent, I did a bad job of communicating.
Lest anyone claim I'm leaking privileged information, note that the MPC meetings are open to the membership (a couple of members attended), and that I've already sent the MPC (including the members not present at Aussiecon) a summary of actions taken in Melbourne, and I've also advised the members of the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee of the changes.
I'll have more to say about this when I've had more time to think about it, but I'm not at all happy. But right now, I need to repack my luggage and get some sleep.
Those of you who follow me know that I made a big issue over the election to the Mark Protection Committee being a policy referendum on my own performance and leadership abilities. The attendees of the Business Meeting itself responded by returning me to office, apparently (I haven't seen the details) overwhelmingly.
The MPC itself, however, chose to ignore any signal this may have sent. The MPC has 14 members, and thus a quorum of eight. The MPC finally managed a quorum on Monday morning, just barely. I put forward my name for the Chairmanship, but the members voted 5-3 to give it to Ben Yalow.
The MPC then voted to adopt a policy (I certainly don't agree with it, but I'm outvoted) that says than anyone who accepts election/appointment to the MPC or to any of its subordinate committees (which includes the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee) must agree to decline nomination for a Hugo Award in the subsequent year.
Although the MPC continued the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee (HAMC), appointing Rene Walling as Chair, and although the MPC offered all of the incumbents re-appointment, I'm sure nobody is surprised the Cheryl was obliged to decline reappointment to the HAMC under those circumstances. This leaves me, the website assistant maintainer, responsible for doing all of the work. I don't blame Cheryl at all about this. The newly-adopted policy makes it impossible for anyone who is a potential plausible Hugo Award nominee to volunteer to help with the committee to market and promote the Hugo Awards or any other MPC subcommittee.
From my discussions with a number of the principle players in the little drama in the SMOF-filled backroom this morning, I think it pretty clear that a number of the individuals involved hadn't heard my speech on Saturday or anything else I'd said earlier. At least two of them appear to me to have been completely unaware of the issues. To that extent, I did a bad job of communicating.
Lest anyone claim I'm leaking privileged information, note that the MPC meetings are open to the membership (a couple of members attended), and that I've already sent the MPC (including the members not present at Aussiecon) a summary of actions taken in Melbourne, and I've also advised the members of the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee of the changes.
I'll have more to say about this when I've had more time to think about it, but I'm not at all happy. But right now, I need to repack my luggage and get some sleep.
no subject
Longer: The MPC consists of nine elected members (three sets of three; three-year terms; I was just re-elected rather decisively for another term) and a variable number (currently five) from the previous two Worldcons, the seated Worldcons, and any NASFiCs in that time period. Nominations for elections happen at the Preliminary WSFS Business Meeting. Elections happen at the Main Business Meeting. You have to be present to vote; no proxies or voting by mail.
no subject
#1, Supporting members can't vote. Interesting.
#2, We've lost Cheryl - the biggest PR maven Worldcon has had in the last decade - because no one who could get a Hugo "next year" can serve. This effectively removes ANY writer/publisher/editor with Hugo aspirations in the "next" 3 years - leaving who exactly to run this show?
#3, This requires attending *two* meetings to vote?
no subject
MPC business is voted by present members of the MPC. It's conceivable that the MPC could have a quorum at SMOFCon and the argument could be made that, while protecting the MPC and HAMC from conflict of interest (because Hugo nominees might misuse their position on the HAMC to campaign) is a laudable goal, driving away potential Hugo nominees (particularly those with connections to the industry) is in direct conflict with the HAMC's mission to promote the Hugo Awards to the businesses who have the most to gain from the Hugo Awards.
no subject
Yes to #2 for the MPC, but not exactly for its subcommittees (you don't have to be on the MPC to be on one of its subcommittees, which are repappointed annually); in those cases, you can do what Cheryl did, which is decline reappointment.
No to #3; the MPC is elected annually, with three people each year serving three-year terms. (There are also appointed members from the past two and future Worldcons and NASFiCs.)