It occurred to me that I need to clarify this statement. I appreciate the work being done to change Worldcon, and I've tried to participate in that. However, in Kuhn's model, the tenured don't make change; grad students and the untenured do. As much as I like and respect kevin_standlee, his position as a former Worldcon chair and veteran con-runner (at this point) puts him in the tenured camp in Kuhn's model. So when I say that change won't happen because of him, I don't mean that he or Cheryl or others will block change, but that within Kuhn's model, the source of change lies with folks other than SMOFs, so to speak.

In my case, what I'm trying to do is encourage more people to nominate and vote on the Hugos, which will, I hope, create a more diverse voting body. I've also tried to propose different panel topics and other kinds of programming -- though I get a lot of resistance about that. I think that Reno appears to be creating a great model for new programming, by making the interests of panelists visible to each other, so that we can add interests we hadn't thought of previously.