kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Worldcon 75 Helsinki has published the 2017 Business Meeting pages (also available from the front page by selecting "WSFS & Hugos" then "WSFS Business Meeting"). My great thanks to Linda Deneroff for pulling together the information from the past two years' Business Meetings and working with Helsinki's web team to get this going.

The part that I think most people who care are more interested in right now is the first Agenda document. This will of course keep changing as new material is submitted. There's already new business there, including proposals to change the Standing Rules, a Hugo Award eligibility extension, and new Constitutional amendments.

It's already a long agenda, what with twelve pending ratification (or related subject) items besides any new business. I'll be surprised if we can get through it all in only three days, and I'm expecting to have to into Overtime for the third year in a row.

One thing I'm proposing we do this year differently with the agenda is to put Standing Rule amendments first. That's because the meeting has the ability (by a 2/3 vote) to make standing rule amendments take effect immediately. It would be pointless to put the vote on such things after most of the business affected by it. In particular, there's a proposal regarding the setting of debate times that, if adopted to take effect immediately, would significantly affect how the rest of the Preliminary Business Meeting runs.

I'm also putting Resolutions (which can be dealt with at the Preliminary Meeting) up front as well, before we get into the debate-limit-setting for Constitutional Amendments. This should, I hope, allow us to get through the agenda more efficiently.

Again, thank you Linda and thank you to Helsinki's web team and WSFS division manager Michael Lee for their help and support here. I've been working at Day Jobbe at a pace that has left me with not as much time as I would like to do this myself, so Linda is a life saver here.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Ben Yalow has pointed out to me that, in the context of a discussion that happened a few days ago about when WSFS Constitutional amendments take effect and the somewhat esoteric and nearly theoretical question of whether a vote in favor of ratification can be considered, the following Ruling of Continuing Effect, from 2002:

CH-2002-4: The Chair ruled that amendments to the Constitution become part of the Constitution at the moment of ratification, although they generally do not take effect until later; therefore, they are subject to amendment as any other part of the Constitution.
So what does this mean in practice, particularly regarding the YA Award with its problematical blanks and provisions, up for ratification this year? I've been argued around to the following:

1. If the YA Award as it currently stands is ratified, it becomes part of the WSFS Constitution the moment it is ratified, but it does not take effect (including its provision) until the end of Worldcon 75.

2. Item 1 means that that as it currently stands, the Worldcon 75 WSFS Business Meeting does not have the authority to name a YA Award. However, the 2018 WSFS Business Meeting could apply a name to the Award in a single vote because of that provision. (Of course, this is all moot if the base proposal fails to be ratified.)

3. Should the 2017 Business Meeting decide to ratify that YA proposal without the provision, the 2017 Meeting could then move as a new amendment to insert a name into the Award, with the name being something that could be passed in 2017 and ratified in 2018, like any other WSFS Constitutional amendment. That means the YA Award would have no official name in 2018, but (assuming 2017 passes a naming amendment that is ratified in 2018), it could get an official name for 2019 and beyond.

4. I would rule an amendment to strike out the special provision in the YA Amendment to be a reduction of scope and thus subject to immediate ratification. That's not because it reduces the number of words in the proposal. (You can increase the scope of change while simultaneously reducing the word count of a given proposal.) It is because striking out the special provision brings the proposal closer to the existing Constitutional rules; that makes the scope of change smaller, and we can ratify anything between the existing Constitution and the fully-scoped proposal up for ratification.

Now CH-2002-4 is a Chair's Ruling that has never been overturned either by a contrary ruling, a Standing Rule, or a change to the WSFS Constitution; therefore, it has significant binding force over WSFS procedures, although the Business Meeting could decide to set it aside. As part of the body of "Customs and Usages of WSFS," it has higher precedence than the parliamentary authority, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, although in fact I contend that it's quite consistent with RONR anyway.

The embarrassing thing about having to have CH-2002-4 pointed out to me is that I'm the one who made the ruling back at the 2002 WSFS Business Meeting. Oops. Oh, and because I'm the one who wrote the procedural end-run about naming, I'm setting myself up to, in effect, overrule myself. It wouldn't even be the first time that I, as WSFS Business Meeting Chair, have overruled an action that I, in some other role, took in WSFS.

Nothing I have said in this post should be taken as my expressing an opinion on the merits of a WSFS-sanctioned YA fiction award, or on the merits of any name (or lack of a name). I'm neutral on the merits. I'm only interested in making sure the process is correct.

Oh, and I still don't think you can reconsider an affirmative vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment.
kevin_standlee: (Business Meeting)
Some months ago, I gave a prospective opinion regarding whether the WSFS Business Meeting in Helsinki this year would be able to apply a name to the proposed YA Award (not a Hugo Award) without having to go through the re-ratification process. At that time, I said that attempting to apply a name to the award would increase the scope of the constitutional amendment and require re-ratification. Since then, I have given the issue more thought, studied the wording of the constitutional amendment, and discussed it with the other members of the WSFS Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee, and I have come to a new conclusion. I have changed my mind, but only in a limited way.

I now currently intend to rule that the WSFS Business Meeting in Helsinki can apply a name to the YA Award, but only if it does so after ratifying the pending proposal, and not before voting on ratification.

Here's the Reasoning )

I advise the proponents of this proposal, should they wish to propose a name for the proposed YA Award, to submit any naming resolution as a new constitutional amendment, with a provision that it only be considered after the YA Award ratification is voted upon, and of course only if the YA Award is ratified.

As I said, I've discussed this with the other members of the WSFS Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee, and all of the members who expressed an opinion agree with my reasoning. Of course, this is still likely to be controversial, and (like the original proposed ruling), I anticipate that it will be appealed, so ultimately, a majority of the members present and voting in Helsinki will decide. As with my original opinion, I think it's sufficiently important that I'm getting this announcement out here now rather than dropping it out of the blue in Helsinki.
kevin_standlee: (Business Meeting)
Expect to see something from me in the next few days about how I plan to handle a proposal coming before this year's WSFS Business Meeting. No, I'm not saying anything else today, because I'm too tired to write about it tonight.
kevin_standlee: (OMG Puppies)
As part of my Hugo Award web site tasks, I see a lot of pings against stuff we post to the Hugo Awards site. Today I saw one (no, I won't link to it; they don't deserve the traffic, and there's no way to reply anyway) complaining about how the Hugo "voting committee" gave out No Award to a bunch of things. The fact that there is is no "voting committee" in the form of a tiny, select, probably secret cabal doesn't even cross this poster's mind. Presumably the fact that every member of WSFS — thousands of them, and not difficult to join — can vote, and a huge (relative to previous turnout) proportion of them did so, doesn't mean anything to the poster.

The most generous thing I can think of with willfully ignorant posts like that is such people's minds can't even process the possibility of an award like the Hugo Award being open to vote of anyone who wants to join WSFS. It's a blind spot to them. They assume that of course a tiny group of Bad People make all of the decisions, because of course that's how Things Really Work. In fact, I reckon that this says a lot about how they would run things if you put them in charge.

The really sad and even dangerous thing is that this probably reflects the opinions of a lot of people in a more general sense. Participating in politics is irrelevant. Voting is irrelevant. All decisions are made in secret, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We just need Strong Man to save us from Bad People. Oh, and Strong Man will never hurt me, because I am Good People.
kevin_standlee: (WSFS Plate)
An afterthought about the 2020 NASFiC: Assuming that Dublin wins their 2019 Worldcon bid and New Zealand wins its 2020 Worldcon bid, we will have an interesting case regarding the 2020 NASFiC election. The 2020 NASFiC will be selected in 2019, and the 2019 NASFiC, not the Worldcon, will administer the election. Only members of the 2019 NASFiC will be eligible to vote on the 2020 NASFiC site. Members of the 2019 Worldcon will not be eligible to vote unless they also join the 2019 NASFiC as at least a supporting member. I am trying to make this clear because, based on the past times a NASFiC has selected a NASFiC, it's likely that Worldcon members will think that they are eligible when they are not, and some of them are going to get testy about it.

Anyone bidding for the 2019 NASFiC should consider that they'll be running one official WSFS voting function: 2020 NASFiC Site Selection. There are no Awards. There is no Business Meeting. But there will be Site Selection. Bear this in mind if you consider throwing your hat in the ring to host the 2019 NASFiC.
kevin_standlee: (Hugo Logo)
Last night the Hugo Awards/WSFS web sites got a brief flurry of questions about an author describing himself as a "Hugo Award nominee" and asking for clarification about the term. No work by the author in question has been shortlisted for the Hugo Award. Whether the author received at least one nomination for a Hugo Award is not something that can be proved or disproved, inasmuch as Administrators do not release individual nominations, only those works/people placing in the top 15 positions. The particularly claimed work didn't make the "We Also Heard From" list.

Complicating matters were claims that someone from the "Worldcon PR Department" had sent e-mail confirming the "nomination." Well, there is no such thing as a "Worldcon PR Department," the e-mail came from an address that is now shown as invalid, was signed by someone who has never to my knowledge (which is rather extensive) been involved with administering any Hugo Awards and is certainly not a member of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee and the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee. (HAMC could at least conceivably be misinterpreted to be the "Worldcon Marketing Department" by people unfamiliar with how Worldcons, WSFS, and the Hugo Awards work.) The e-mails also had references to "" which is an organization that has nothing to do with WSFS or with the World Science Fiction Convention.

I answered the e-mails (one of which was from the author in question), and after doing so, posted a clarification post to the Hugo Awards web site. (This post was also there to try and confirm that e-mails from me are actually from one of the few people who actually is authorized to speak officially on behalf of WSFS and The Hugo Awards web sites.)

Colloquial usage (and official usage until recently) used the term "Hugo Award nominee" to mean "a person or work that appeared on the final Hugo Award ballot." However, a few years ago, some people started calling themselves "Hugo Award nominees" because a single person nominated them for the Award. Such claims generally were made by people who knew the Hugo Award was prestigious, but who had no idea how it worked. (I suspect many such people assumed that there was a Select Group of Judges who made the decisions.) I tried for a while to respond to such claims, but mostly got abuse for my trouble, as people informed me that the "plain meaning" of "nominee" included "anyone who received even one nomination." While technically true, it certainly subverted the intent of the term "nominee" as used at that time. Furthermore, we saw news reports taking such claims at face value, with reporters not particularly interested in any sort of nuance. After all, if you're "nominated" for the Academy Award, that means you're on the short list. Presumably it means the same thing with the Hugo Awards, right?

Reacting to this abuse of terminology, WSFS a few years ago officially deprecated the term "nominee," except in a very narrow technical sense dealing with the counting of nomination votes and the determination of eligibility. The official term for a person or work shortlisted for the Hugo Award is "Hugo Award Finalist." This can be objectively determined, of course, and there is the actual list of finalists for each year on the Hugo Awards web site. The term "Hugo Award nominee" has no official meaning. Hundreds and probably thousands of people and works are "Hugo Award nominees" every year. It only takes one nomination to be a "Hugo Award nominee," and of course you can always nominate yourself. (No Administrator I know would ever want to have to enforce a restriction against self-nomination.) The WSFS Mark Protection Committee ignores claims regarding being a "Hugo Award nominee," because they have no official meaning. At best, they are overly enthusiastic reactions by authors to fans who really like those authors' works.

I suppose we should be grateful that the Hugo Awards have gained sufficiently in stature that someone saw value in pretending to be an official "PR Department" for the World Science Fiction Society. Nevertheless, it does feel somewhat strange to find people making such claims. Possibly there are people out there convinced that WSFS is a Big Media Corporation with lots of money and Big Bucks to be had. The reality, which is that there are a bunch of volunteers putting in lots of time and no small amounts of money, to put on an event and to help perpetuate an organization that they love, may be simply too difficult for some folks to comprehend.
kevin_standlee: (Hugo Trophy)
Today we learned of the death of Peter Weston, fan, Worldcon chair, Worldcon guest of honor, editor, writer, and of particular importance to the Hugo Awards, owner of a custom auto parts foundry in the 1980s, which led to him offering to make a mold for casting the Hugo Award trophy rockets. Every metal Hugo rocket since 1984 (normally chrome-plated zinc, but twice gold-plated) has been cast from the one mold held at the foundry, which Weston later sold upon retirement. (There have been non-metallic Hugo Rockets, but they reproduce the design.)

Pete was a nice person who I only met a few times, but I can say that fandom is diminished by his departure. However, every Hugo Award preserves his legacy, which was written in to the WSFS Constitution when we credited his specific implementation of the original McKnight/Jason design as the definitive version.
kevin_standlee: (OMG Puppies)
It's remarkable that so many people who insist, loudly and often, that the Hugo Awards are dead and have been for many years, spend so much effort trying to convince other people (but not themselves because they can't be bothered to buy a WSFS membership in order to vote) to participate in them. There are echos of the "Worldcon is doomed, doomed I tell you!" conversations that were old hat before I even found the convention in 1984.

Why don't these people who are so completely certain (or so they say) that the Hugo Awards are washed up, finished, dead, pushing up daisies, etc. concentrate on the awards that they so confidently insisted would overwhelm the entire field and be the One True Awards That Real Fans Give for Real Good Stuff So There Will Be No Need For Any Other Awards Ever Again? They seem pretty unhappy that the members of WSFS continue to hold their convention and present their awards just like they have been doing for many years, including arguing over the rules (which, for those who have been paying attention, was a running theme long before the Puppies showed up).

"Sad" is a good description for people for whom, as far as I can tell, think that the amount of happiness in the world is a finite quantity, so that the only way they can be happy is to make other people unhappy.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Notwithstanding that I've been the instigator of more than one floor fight at WSFS on procedural issues, I actually would prefer to avoid them whenever possible. We have so little time for substantive in-person debate during the few hours of the WSFS Business Meeting that I'd like to reserve more of it for discussion of substantive issues. And I've been known to avoid such issues myself.

An Example of Evading the Issue )

As I said in a comment to my discussion of the YA Hugo Name issue, I've decided that what the KC Business Meeting did was attempt to write a blank check to the following year's Business Meeting, in contravention of a constitutional provision. Even had the KC meeting adopted the proposal unanimously (which it did not), blank checks are not permitted, because without a specific provision otherwise, you cannot suspend your own constitution.
kevin_standlee: (Business Meeting)
Edit, April 23, 2017: I have changed my mind about the ruling below and now intend to rule that if the meeting first ratifies the proposal with the blank in the name and with the temporary provision, any WSFS Business Meeting (including the one in Helsinki) can name the YA Award in a single year's vote, but that once named, any change would require the usual two-year constitutional amendment process.

One of the items that has been forwarded to Worldcon 75 Helsinki for ratification is the Young Adult Award proposal, which adds a WSFS-sanctioned "Campbell-like" non-Hugo Award to the awards that would appear on the Hugo Award ballot. If ratified, the first Worldcon that would present this award is Worldcon 76 San José in 2018. The name of this award (which is not a Hugo Award) was left blank. There have been many electrons spilled over whether actually naming the award would be a "greater change" to the proposal, and thus require an additional year of ratification. As Chair of the 2017 WSFS Business Meeting, it will fall to me to make the initial ruling on whether such a change is a "greater change."

I currently intend to rule that filling the blank in the proposal increases the scope of change of the proposal, and therefore would require an additional year of ratification.

Further Discussion of the reasoning )

Of course, the Helsinki Business Meeting could overturn my ruling, but now you have some idea of how I stand on the subject and can plan accordingly.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Thanks to the stellar work of [ profile] lindadee in slogging through 145 pages of minutes, and [ profile] cherylmmorgan in getting the web site set up so that it's much easier to update than it used to be, I'm pleased to announce that the WSFS Constitution/Rules Page is now updated with the versions of the official papers current as of August 22, 2016, effective as of the end of the 2016 Worldcon, MidAmeriCon II. That includes the current WSFS Constitution, Standing Rules (there were no changes passed to them this year), Resolutions and Rulings of Continuing Effect, the Minutes themselves (a new record for length, breaking last year's record, ouch), and the Business Passed on to next year's Worldcon, which forms the nucleus of the 2017 WSFS Business Meeting Agenda.

It is my hope that from now on, we'll be able to keep this page current, and Worldcons won't have to keep "local" copies of the Official Papers on their own web sites, but will instead be able to point to the WSFS site for the WSFS documents. (The individual convention's site will of course continue to have information about the specifics of that Worldcon's meeting arrangements, but will no longer have to host the rules.) This should lead to being the one-stop-shop for questions about what the organization's rules are. Also, as we find them, we will add documents from past Worldcons and build up the historical archive.

Based on some of the feedback (essentially people wondering why the page wasn't updated the day after Worldcon ended), I anticipate that in the future, as soon as Worldcon is over, the documents from the just-ended year will move to the Archives, and the "Current Year" page will have no documents linked, but will more prominently say something like "The documents as of the end of [Worldcon N/Year] will be published here as soon as they are available."


Oct. 2nd, 2016 04:29 pm
kevin_standlee: (Kreegah Bundalo)
The cold I have picked up is fairly mild — I'm ambulatory — but I'm not working very hard, and have mostly stayed home and tried not to work too hard. I did feel good enough this morning to go have breakfast at the Wigwam Restaurant/Casino and try once again to win a free breakfast (no winner for the third time in a row on what amounts to a coin-flip), but otherwise it was a quiet day. I listened to the San Francisco Giants beat the Los Angeles Dodgers in order to get into the post-season (a one-game playoff against the New York Mets), and worked with [ profile] lindadee to start getting the WSFS documents as of the end of the 2016 Worldcon online. That's about as ambitious as I want to be.

This coming week, I'm working from home. I'm glad I won't be contaminating my co-workers.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
It's been way too easy to go into hibernation about WSFS stuff after Worldcon; however, for people like me (chairing next year's meeting), it's already time to get the material together for next year's Worldcon, if we're going to get the web site updated and the correct material into the progress reports. I've been too tired most evenings this week, but tonight I finally took the time to get some of that done. There's more to do, and expect to hear more in a few weeks.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Something that triggered a lot of discussion, both at this past WSFS Business Meeting and afterwards, was the concept of "lesser changes." Although those of us who have attended a bunch of WSFS meetings understand the concept, I think, it's clear from the discussion that people who are new to the process do not, and some of the questions I've fielded over the past few weeks suggest to me that I need to go into this in more detail.

Cut for Those Allergic to Parliamentary Procedure )

The arguments about what constitutes a so-called "lesser change" (that is, what sort of changes to a pending Constitutional amendment do not increase the scope of change) have become so difficult that there have been some serious suggestions that we abandon the concept entirely and simply require the ratification to be an up-or-down vote, with no amendments allowed; or that any changes to an amendment pending ratification require an additional year of ratification. As next year's presiding officer, I won't take any position on such proposals, of course, but I will as usual help people construct such proposals and in fact have already done so. Whether such proposals make it to the floor next year is an open question.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
Higher-resolution video recordings of the 2016 WSFS Business Meeting are now online at the Worldcon Events Channel:

Software to generate the higher-resolution video was provided by Wizards Tower Press.

The initial video uploads of the 2016 WSFS Business Meeting were in a relatively low-resolution video format and in roughly ten minute segments for technical reasons I will explain below. The ability to get the low-res-but-fast video is thanks to a grant from Detcon 1 to pay for the "proxy card" for the camera and for a grant from SFSFC to pay for the necessary bandwidth on the Kansas City Convention Center's wi-fi network.

Technical Background )

The higher-quality video files are in 3 to 4 segments per day. Each segment runs "gavel to gavel," that is, from call to order to first recess, then from reconvening to next recess, and so forth until the adjournment of that day's meeting. The breaks are thus "natural" rather than the abrupt cuts in the lower-quality "proxy" files.

I swear that it's only a coincidence that the thumbnail image is of me speaking.
kevin_standlee: (Gavel of WSFS)
I love Worldcon, I really do. But with a couple of exceptions, by the time we get to Day 5, I've had about all I can take and I'm ready to wrap it up. This year was one of those years.

Closing Time )

The final meeting did the following things:
  • Gave first passage to "3 Stage Voting," which, if ratified at Helsinki next year, will oblige San José and future Worldcons to include an additional Qualifying Round after the initial nominations, where the members of the current Worldcon only (not the previous/following years' members) will vote to accept or reject each of the top 15 nominees

  • Ratified "E Pluribus Hugo", the attempt to deal with slate voting tactics with voting mathematics. This becomes part of the WSFS Constitution and first affects next year's Worldcon.

  • Ratified "5 & 6" (originally 4 & 6), a proposal that originally would have limited voters to four (changed to five just before the final vote) nominations per category and expending the number of finalist positions on the ballot from five to six. The amendment to change "4" to "5" was a "lesser change" (and thus the proposal doesn't need to be re-ratified) because the current Constitution is effectively 5 & 5 and thus anything between or including the proposed new values of 4 & 6 and the original values would be a lesser change

  • Gave first passage to "EPH+", a "patch job" on the original proposal ratified today intended to improve its behavior based on how historical data behaved when run through the original model.

The items given first passage move on to Helsinki for adoption. As one of the co-sponsors of 3 Stage Voting, I'll have to recuse myself from presiding over it.

The Sunday Business Meeting videos (16 segments of roughly ten minutes each) start with this one.

The Business Meeting adjourned sine die about 12:45.

But Wait, There's More! )

As the MPC met, the Tech Team started tearing down all of the audio-visual tech. Lisa packed up the video camera. All that was left was my computers, as I couldn't do video uploads while running the MPC meeting. As quickly as I could, I finished the uploads (that's why Part 13 was initially private and part 15 was initially mislabeled), tore down the computers, and took them back to the hotel.

Stowing our gear in the minivan, we returned to the convention center as fast as our abused feet could carry us, claimed our groats (volunteer vouchers), and dashed off to redeem them for lunch at the convention food services. Except that the only one left was the hamburger stand, which was out of burgers and hot dogs and had only a few weak sandwiches. The pizza and BBQ stands were done. We redeemed the vouchers for what we could get — we had to eat now! — and made the best of it.

Tearing It Down )

I took a bunch more photos, and would like to write about them, but it's late and we're checking out in the morning to start driving west. If time permits tomorrow, I'll write the postscript of the post-closing ceremony part of the final day of the 2016 Worldcon.

I am knackered. Lisa and I spent six hours a day, four of the days of Worldcon, and then put in a full day (and full evening into late night) each day. It's no wonder that we wish we had scheduled an extra day here in Kansas City just to sleep.
kevin_standlee: (Hugo Trophy)
The WSFS Business Meeting ran the full three hours scheduled, and would have run longer if possible.

Getting Ready to Argue Hugo Rules )

We adjourned for the day just before 1 PM, leaving a whole lot of stuff left to argue on Sunday. For the second year in a row, we have a Sunday Business Meeting. After the 1 PM adjournment we rearranged the room for the Worldcon Chairs Photo Shoot.

Lisa video taped the chairs after the still photos were taken. I'll post still photos to Flickr later.

After getting the Business Meeting videos uploaded and the gear packed, we locked up the room, trudged to the hotel, stored our gear, then went back to the convention center to have lunch and spend the roughly three hours we had "free" today.

In The Exhibit Hall )

After a too-short time in the convention hall, I went back to the hotel while Lisa stayed with her friend [ profile] pcornelius. Knowing that I would get no dinner tonight, I grabbed a pulled pork sandwich from the food trucks lined up outside the convention center and inhaled it while getting dressed for the Hugo Awards Ceremony. I then returned to the Convention Center and the Grand Ballroom Pat Cadigan Theatre.

Stressful Hugo Awards Coverage )

I'd really like to write more including an analysis of the Hugo Awards results, but I'm exhausted and have to be up again at 6 AM for the fourth and final WSFS Business Meeting, plus a WSFS MPC meeting after that. I sort of wish we were staying Monday night as well as Sunday because then we could sleep in Monday morning rather than having to push on toward home.
kevin_standlee: (WSFS Logo)
Today was the First Main WSFS Business Meeting. Whereas yesterday was about arguing over debate time limits and trying to kill unpopular proposals, today's meeting was substantive business.

The View from the Videography Desk )

I thought today's meeting went much more smoothly than yesterday, although that is in part the nature of the Preliminary versus the Main Business Meeting.

Business Summary )

The first of Friday's WSFS Business Meeting videos was online about halfway through the meeting. The last posted perhaps 30 minutes or so after adjournment.

Later that afternoon I got e-mail from Jared Dashoff asking me to get the room locked up. I wrote back that I'd do so once I got back from lunch, which was off-site, and is another story.
kevin_standlee: (WSFS Crew)
Today was, relatively speaking, the least-scheduled of our five days of Worldcon. After the CanSMOF Board Meeting, I came back to the room, and instead of my WSFS Captain's uniform, got into my Colonel Chinstrap outfit, and Lisa and [ profile] travelswithkuma (Lt. Hayes and Pvt. Bear) and I set forth as the Imperial Airship Corps command team. Regrettably, I forgot to get anyone to take a picture of the three of us with my camera, although many other people did take our pictures. It was very entertaining. Lisa had a telegraph key strapped to her wrist that would make click-clack sounds from the relay on her belt, so she would send dispatches from the Colonel. Maybe we'll have a chance to get dressed up again sometime this weekend.

Opening Day )

After the Opening Ceremonies, the WSFS Mark Protection Committee had a short meeting to confirm that there was nothing more than what is in our written report that we submitted to the Business Meeting. Linda Deneroff and I then went and found Lisa and we headed off to dinner, and ran into Andrew Adams and Emeeli Aro who were also looking for dinner. We set out to use the free streetcar to take us uptown, where we ate at the Homestead Cafe. I had a nice blackened catfish. It's nice to get out for dinner. I'll be surprised if we do that very often. We walked back to the hotels and convention center.

Wednesday Night in the Fan Fair )

Earlier than we would have liked, we headed back to the hotel. Lisa and I got an early look at the room where the Business Meeting will be held, but the tech setup will not start until tomorrow morning. We have to be over there at 8 AM to get set up for a 10 AM start. Other days may be easier, but Thursday is likely to be a little frantic. And we're not the only people working hard on this. I left Business Meeting Chair Jared Dashoff and Secretary Linda Deneroff dealing with the copying of hundreds of copies of WSFS agendas. Everyone is working hard to make this event a success.

September 2017

     1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011121314 15 16
17 18 19 2021 22 23
24 252627282930


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 07:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios