Popular Ratification ("2+1")
As I've mentioned, a revised version of the Popular Ratification proposal got past the WSFS Business Meeting. It is not the same version that I posted and that is on the Loncon 3 web site. The WSFS BM voted on Saturday to adopt a substitute version that made the following principle changes:
- Two WSFS BMs still have to pass changes, with the passed and accepted proposal being submitted to the members of the third year's Worldcon for ratification
- The proposal no longer acts upon itself; if ratified by the 2015 WSFS BM, it does not have to pass its own PR process the following year. Because anything first passed by 2015 would be under the old rules, the first time there could possibly be a ratification election is 2018 (passed 2016, accepted 2017, submitted for ratification 2018).
- The 2022 WSFS BM must re-ratify Popular Ratification, and if they do not do so, the popular-vote process ends that year; anything passed in 2021 and accepted in 2022 by the BM would be ratified without reference to the members of the 2023 Worldcon, and there would be no future popular ratification elections
From the questions I've been fielding, there clearly have been many people who don't understand all of these permutations, and I understand that. However, I'm still on vacation in London and will be through tomorrow. (I fly home on Tuesday, unless a volcano interferes.) I therefore do not have enough time to do a full-blown entry with the full revised text of the proposal here, and I do not know when next year's Worldcon will have a copy of the Business Passed On with the final version of the proposal to review.
I do have the MS Word file with the final text of the document. (That's because I was the one taking the notes for the special committee that drafted it, and I have what I submitted to the Secretary.) Sometime after I get home and get some rest, I will post the version that passed the business meeting and go into yet more detail about what each section means.
OTOH, based on the questions that were asked at the Preliminary Business Meeting at Loncon, I'm sort of wondering why I should bother, because clearly there were a lot of people who didn't actually read either the text of the proposal or any of the explanatory material. When we were considering the proposal in quasi-committee of the whole (a process I'll explain if anyone asks), I answered many of the questions by simply reading back the proposal or the commentary, where the exact same question was asked and answered. Current Mood: confused