Kevin Standlee (kevin_standlee) wrote,
Kevin Standlee
kevin_standlee

Decoupling Publications Submitted

I have formally submitted the Decoupling Publications Amendment to the 2013 WSFS Business Meeting on behalf of its lead advocate, Lisa Hayes. As I hope y'all know by now, it removes the requirement that Worldcons must provide paper versions of their publications by default, but requires them to provide paper copies (at approximately their production and distribution cost) to members who request them.

I'm informed that there will be an amendment introduced to it at the Preliminary Business Meeting to strike out the words that it adds to the Constitution; that is, if the amendment passes, then all that will be left is striking out section 1.5.3. This would allow (but not require) Worldcons to drop paper publications as part of a membership's default package, but would not require them to provide paper publications if they decide to go all electronic. It would not require conventions to discontinue all paper publications, but it would permit it. Like many other things having to do with Worldcons, it would be up to the Worldcon to decide whether or not to do it.

Personally, I can live with it either way, and indeed, my original suggestions in this matter was do do exactly what this does: delete 1.5.3 and leave it up to Worldcons to decide what to do. But this motion is actually Lisa's, and she's concerned that Worldcons would immediately scrap all paper publications and say to people who don't have computers and e-mail, "Who cares? Stop bothering us." I don't know how she'll react to it.

I know that I will vote in favor of either the motion I've submitted on Lisa's behalf or the version that would be there if the amendment to be laid onto it passes, although as an interim transition to a speculated no-paper future, I think the proposal as it initially is written is better.

Note, however, that I haven't acted as if it were "shenanigans" to move amendments to the proposal I co-authored. I even consulted with the person who will be making the amendment to see if we can get it into the simplest parliamentary form. While the amendment is "hostile" inasmuch as it significantly changes the original proposal (to the point that it is possible the proposal's original author would vote against it), there's nothing unethical or underhanded about doing so. I say this because the author of the motion now titled "No Representation Without Taxation" accused me of "shenanigans" when I suggested amending her proposal to also include the deletion of 1.5.3 because I considered the two subjects deeply linked. She also informed me that it was all about my ego.

I make no secret that I will use the rules to attempt to get my way, and that I will encourage people who agree with me to come and support me. I will offer compromises to try and get some of the things I want in exchange for giving people some of what they want. But if your attitude is, "I don't have to compromise, because I Am Right" or somehow consider all forms of negotiation to be "politics," with the implication that "all politics of any form whatsoever is Evil," then you end up setting yourself up for all-or-nothing battles. Personally, I think that's a bad idea, but maybe you'd rather have no loaf than half of one.
Tags: business meeting, parliamentary procedure, politics, worldcon, wsfs
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment