kevin_standlee | Sour Notes

Current Mood: angry
Current Location: Australia

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As difficult and problematic as the MPC issues are, I don't think it's fair to reflect them on AussieCon4 - these issues would have been the same regardless of where Worldcon had been held this year, regardless of who held it.

That you and Ben Yallow apparently have the opposite approach to this issue is unfortunate - you're both voices I look to for solid info - both voices that I trust. I think I can project an understanding of his concern - "Caesar's wife" and all - but my concern is that if no one who could plausibly get a Huge in the following year can participate on the MPC committee or subs, it means only NON active writers/publishers/editors are working on the committees - which seems upside down to me. I know Ben is concerned about outsiders thinking there was "undue influence" and all that - but if only people who *can't* win a Hugo next year are involved, you're either talking about people NOT working in the field or beginners who don't have their first contract yet (so no chance of Hugo nom in the coming year) - and that's slim pickings from a field of people sufficiently interested in Worldcons to actually take the time to serve. Losing Cheryl (and however many other folks they lost) is a HUGE blow to the committee given the amount of work she puts in. I don't imagine she's the only one either.

How very frustrating...

Oh, I don't blame the convention for the sour notes. It's just that the back-room maneuvering that ignores the expressed will of the members of WSFS is going to be something I associate with the event, just as I might remember if I had (say) broken a tooth like poor Mike Scott did or something like that.

I want to say that the MPC was within its rights to do what it did. It's not obliged to pay attention to the results of membership election, no matter what a member's manifesto was. I do, however, find it highly ironic that I was accused of not being responsible to the membership last year, and so when I cleared that argument, the same people who preached at me about how important it was to consult with the Business Meeting turned around and ignored what should have been an obvious and clear signal from that same electorate they accused me of ignoring.

I do hope people remember this when the people who did the deed come up for re-election to the MPC over the next two years.

Not having been privy to much of the particulars this year (been out of touch on this level for awhile now), I don't remember - who votes for MPC and how does one go about it?

Short version: the WSFS Business Meeting.

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.

So,
#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?

Business meeting business is always by direct democracy. But that's only for electing the MPC members.

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.

Yes to #1

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.)

Edited 2011-08-10 02:53 (UTC)

I think that the new policy is absolutely ridiculous, and I don't blame Cheryl for refusing to be on the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee. What were the reasons put forward for wanting this policy and who proposed it?

Because, quite honestly, it makes it look even more like the majority of the "usual suspects" don't actually want the Hugos marketed. The people who best have the ability to market the Hugos are also the people who are active in things that would make them eligible for a Hugo.

Since I was not able to be in Australia, are any minutes of the MPC meetings taken, and are they posted anywhere online that I could read them?

There will be minutes once I finish writing them, as I acted as Secretary (the MPC's regular Secretary wasn't able to attend A4). I sent the MPC a precis of actions but not a full-blown set of minutes before saying anything in public. I will also push for the MPC to approve the minutes before next year so we can get this more publicity.

The way to air out smoke-filled rooms is to open the doors.

The MPC minutes have finally been published.

It is really too bad some people seem to want the Hugos to end. Yes, this is how I'm reading the actions of some people on that committee. And you're welcome to pass it on, with attribution.

They are definitely working hard at making them more and more irrelevant, playing to the impression that many already have that they are elitist and exclusionist.

I'd strongly suggest that someone OTHER THAN YOU take up the slack left by Cheryl's being forced out. If the committee members don't step forward, then it's THEIR problem (and fault). I know how you get and and feel responsible, but if they want to work so hard to kill the Hugos - maybe they should have the opportunity.

It may seem harder to rebuild from the ashes, but sometimes that's the best strategy when the house is burning.

but not closing off my being pissed.

The last line was supposed to start

/rant...

I have indeed considered walking away; however, doing so would be allowing a fractious minority who managed to gain a temporary sway — remember that swinging a single vote could have changed the entire result — to walk away with the main prize. For now, I'm going to do what I can. However, I am not the good writer and am mainly just a maintainer. Don't expect the advances in publicity that we've had over the past few years. Also, the new Chair of the HAMC, Rene Walling, is a friend of mine (although I disagree with him on this particular policy), and enthusiastic about marketing the Hugo Awards, so perhaps this is not a catastrophe. But it's nonetheless disheartening.

My apologies if I was construed to say you should walk away. I'm merely suggesting you do not take on extra duty (as I know you would like to try to do [we share that characteristic]).

They wanted the change, they can deal with what it means. You should not be expected, and should refuse, to do the work of more than one person or more than you have actually, willingly, offered to do.

The problem seems to be there are plenty of people who want and have power, but not plenty who are willing to do the work. That act could be seen as targeted against Cheryl... in fact, who else could it be aimed at? Unwittingly, a major volunteer on the Worldcon.org site is now also about to quit my team, and since I am writing again and do have some dreams, I might have to quit as well. We've just slashed an already too-small group of volunteers.

We appear to be shooting ourselves in the foot, hell, in the head, all because of destructive politics and stupid power plays. People seem to be putting themselves and their petty rivalries ahead of Worldcon. But here's the thing, only you and Cheryl have been willing to do the Hugo website work and the worldcon.org work has been a huge fight too. Those with the power are not doing this work and do not appear to be considering the repercussions. Further, if, as you say, the BM wanted you in charge, then they are also ignoring the membership. And is that not Worldcon Inc thinking? This seems to be the worst kind of self-sabotage.

I like Ben, but he predicted that Worldcons will not last much longer and that there is little that can be done about it. Now he's in charge of the MPC and I have to wonder if someone with a more constructive outlook was needed. WTF is going on? Where TF is Worldcon going?

Or am I misreading all this? If so, someone please, set me right on this.

Grant, I think you're pretty close to the right track here. And it will keep happening as long as the membership (and the appointing Worldcons) ignore the MPC. For all that it seems like a minor thing, the MPC has a huge potential power, since the responsibility to protect, defend, and register the WSFS marks logically includes the authority to promote said marks.

The MPC has effectively repudiated the last few years' work. Fortunately, some of that work is now sufficiently entrenched that they are unlikely to undo it; for instance, The new MPC Chair has asked me to move forward on the registration of the WSFS marks once I get home, in part because this year's Business Meeting gave initial approval to add the logo (and the rocket design) to the official list of claimed marks.

I guess the MPC can adopt such a policy for its sub-committees, which it appoints, but I don't see how it can refuse to allow an elected member to join the MPC itself if the member declines to follow this policy.

That's an excellent point! Remember this when it comes time to name an appointee to the MPC. (Seriously: your appointee should be someone who is actually plugged in to WSFS politics, not just randomly thrown at the committee.)

Are the meetings where the elections happen always held during a worldcon or are there meetings at other times of the year? If there are meetings at other times of the year (where one has to be present to vote) where are they held?

Only at Worldcons, which are, technically, the annual general meeting of WSFS. At a Thursday-to-Monday Worldcon, it's usually preliminary meeting Friday morning, main meeting Saturday morning, and site selection results announced Sunday morning.

The elections to the Mark Protection Committee always happen at Worldcon. Nominations are submitted at the Preliminary Business Meeting on the second morning of the Worldcon, and elections at the Main Business Meeting on the third morning.

There are no other WSFS meetings during the year. The MPC sometimes (rarely) meets in person at other times of the year, but I wouldn't expect that to happen this year.

Alright, enough rubbernecking on my part - from what Cheryl and Peter said it looks like uncoupling two sub committees that appear to have opposing mandates is a good start (so MPC and HAMC report directly to WSFS, thereby reducing bureaucracy).

I've never been involved in the politics of this - what's it gonna take for me to start on something like this?

I know it has to be offered at the Main Business Meeting, but would this be subject to the rule about having to be passed at two consecutive Worldcons before taking effect?

Edited 2010-09-08 17:15 (UTC)

If I had spare cycles I'd love to help with this, but I just don't. Read about it over at Cheryl's blog as well, rather annoyed on behalf of you both. That said, with R onboard the HAMC I feel a bit more hopeful than I might otherwise in this situation . . .

Thank you for keeping folks apprised. As I said to Cheryl over in her space, I applaud all of your efforts, so many of them against a prevailing wind of methane.

1. "3.2.11: The Worldcon Committee is responsible for all matters concerning the Awards." I believe HAMC is a good idea... but _all_ matters, including surely marketing?

2. As for the HAMC becoming a Committee of WSFS in the same way as MPC, it would have to be a constitutional amendment, hence subject to ratification. MPC is a committee partly elected by WSFS, HAMC is a sub-committee appointed by the MPC.

3. I agree with Mike that I don't believe the MPC can place any further restrictions on the MPC members after they've been elected or appointed, though the Business Meeting could. And I think the MPC can do whatever it likes to sub-committees, subject to the will of the Business Meeting.

4. I would be strongly opposed to making HAMC a separate WSFS committee for a long list of reasons.

There's a couple of motions in here, we should do something to tidy up this thing about whether WSFS officers, committee members etc are or should be eligible for Hugos themselves (what if someone nominated the BM minutes for example), and we should let the BM decide what to do with HAM - time to reactivate my smofs mailing list membership.

Julie and I are looking quite likely to make Reno now, neither of us seem likely to be fired in the next six months :)

So... I see where this suggests that Cheryl (and others who don't want to remove their eligibility for Hugos) not serve on the HAMC. But where does it say that the only people who can help maintain the hugo awards web site are people on the committee? Is that written down someplace?

It's surely the intent, even if it's not encoded. It's incredibly clear that there are members of the MPC who are officially convinced that whoever maintains the Hugo Awards Web Site has an unfair advantage regarding his/her Hugo Award eligibility, even if that person doesn't actually take credit for his/her work.

The fact that they crafted a general rule that is only practically applicable to a single individual should be indicative of something, I think.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sour Notes

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

3.2.11

no subject

no subject