Sour Notes

[kevin_standlee]

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.

Comments

[twilight2000.livejournal.com]

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...

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

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?

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

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.

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

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.

[drplokta]

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.

[irishkate.livejournal.com]

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?

[twilight2000.livejournal.com]

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?

[melopoeia.livejournal.com]

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.

3.2.11

[pcmcmurray.livejournal.com]

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 :)

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

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?