Worldcon 2021 Day 4: Final Business Meeting Results
[Backdated entry. I did not have time to do this yesterday.]
The Site Selection Business Meeting opened with the Site Selection Administrator presenting results. But if you watched the video, you will see that he was in a poor state and had difficulty with reading them. Here is a photograph of the detailed results.
As I said earlier, Robbie Bourget gave what amounted to a concession speech, I moved the destruction of the ballots, and that was that. Here's Chengdu's initial flyer — what most Worldcons with which I am familiar call "Progress Report Zero."
In answer to a question, they said their dates were August 23-29, 2023, which is seven days, not the traditional five. I'm not sure that's correct. Perhaps this will be clarified later.
After Question Time and other Site Selection Business, and a recess to allow the roughly 50% of the people in the room to leave, we got down to business. If you want to follow the results, go download the Agenda and turn to page 34 as I go through the seven items of new business. When I mention a show of hands, that means an uncounted show of hands. "Unanimous consent" means that nobody objected. Counted votes were taken by "serpentine" voting, where people rise (or make alternative arrangements with the floor manager) and count off one at a time with the count going back and forth through the room.
F.1 One Episode per Series
This proposal would modify the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category. Currently, no more than two episodes per series may be on the final ballot. This proposal would reduce this to one work per series. This item failed on a show of hands.
F.2 30 Days Hath New Business
Currently, WSFS Business Meeting Standing Rule 2.1 requires that new business and committee reports are due 30 days before the current Worldcon. However, there is an argument that the Standing Rules cannot bind committees created through the WSFS Constitution, so this proposal would promote the rule into the Constitution. However, the technical reason for doing this seemed sufficiently opaque to the members that there was debate and objections to it, even though the Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee that proposed it thought it had no substantive impact other than to remove the objection about WSFS committees being bound by it. In the end, though, it passed 34-15.
F.3 The Statue of Liberty Play
The WSFS Constitution currently requires that each Worldcon share contact information with their successor. This is a practical matter, because we allow all of the members of this year's Worldcon nominate for the following year's Hugo Awards. The following Worldcon needs the previous year's information so that when members of that Worldcon vote, the current Worldcon can confirm the voters' eligibility. Some people don't like this; therefore, the proposed change would only allow the information to be passed on if the member permits it. This does mean, however, that if you refused such permission, you would not be able to nominate for the Hugo Awards unless you joined the current Worldcon, because the current Worldcon would not be able to confirm your eligibility. This proposal passed on a show of hands.
F.4 Shut Up and Take My Money
Currently, Worldcons are required to turn over voter information from site selection elections that they administer to the winning bid. There have been people who object to this. The original proposal would prohibit the Worldcon from passing on information unless the voter gave permission. This was sent to the Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee. Because we as a committee thought that the consequence of this was that people could vote but that the winning Worldcon could end up with members whose identity and contact information they couldn't have, and that we though this did not make sense, we submitted an alternative that would require that in order to vote, you would have to agree to allow your contact information to be passed on to the winning bid. The alternative was selected by the Preliminary Meeting as the one that would be considered at the Main Meeting. After a bunch of argument back and forth, the entire matter was referred to a special committee with instructions to report back with a better version next year.
The debate on this proposal included the closest vote of the whole meeting, which was on an amendment to the motion to refer to committee. The first motion was originally to refer this back to the Nitpicking committee. Someone moved to amend by striking out "Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee" and inserting "a Special Committee appointed by the Chair". The motion to amend passed 26-21. After the motion to amend passed, we voted again, this time on the amended motion to refer to committee. That passed on a show of hands, so the matter is sent to committee for a report next year.
F.5 A Matter of Days
There are a number of places in the WSFS Constitution that have deadlines specified in months, such as "within two (2) months." However, "months" can be ambiguous, so this proposal takes every "month" as thirty days and substitutes according. For example, "within two (2) months" becomes "within sixty (60) days." This proposal was adopted by unanimous consent
F.6 Non-transferrability of Voting Rights
This proposal reads as more complicated as it is, I think. Currently, we have "Supporting Memberships" and "Attending memberships." The former gives you all of the rights of membership in the World Science Fiction Society: nominating and voting on the Hugo Awards, voting on Site Selection (subject to paying the Advance Supporting Membership voting fee), and convention publications. The latter has all of the former, plus the right to attend the Worldcon, which is annual meeting of the World Science Fiction Society. This proposal would redefine the existing Supporting membership as a "WSFS membership," making it somewhat more obvious that you are joining a club called the World Science Fiction Society. There would also be the "attending supplement," which is the difference is cost between the current supporting and attending membership, and represents the extra cost to actually attend the Worldcon.
Under this proposal, the WSFS membership (the current supporting membership) could not be transferred. That is, if you join WSFS for a given year, you could not sell that membership. However, you could transfer the right-to-attend portion of what we currently call an attending membership to someone else. To actually attend the annual meeting of the World Science Fiction Society (that is, the Worldcon), you would have to have both an attending supplement and a WSFS membership. If you transferred a supplement to someone who already had a WSFS (supporting) membership, nothing else would be needed; you could attend that Worldcon. If you got someone's attending supplement but were not yet a WSFS member, you would have to buy a WSFS membership in order to actually attend.
This is much like many organizations have annual meetings that are open only to their members, but they also charge an additional amount to attend that convention. For example, Lisa's father was a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, but in order to attend the AVMA conference, he had to pay an additional supplement.
The debate on this demonstrated something that I've noticed before, which is that existing constitutional language, when shown in proposals like this, sometimes makes people think that it's something new even when it's describing exactly what happens today. One attendee, reading the rules about how long you have to convert your membership to an attending one, seemed to think the wording was saying the conventions couldn't sell attending memberships at all 90 days or more after they were selected. This is obviously nonsense, but there's no explaining things to some people.
In any event, after a long debate, this proposal was adopted on a 35-22 vote
F.7 Best Audiobook
This proposal would add a new Best Audiobook Hugo Award category. By the time we got to this point in the agenda, we were getting perilously close to the 12:30 hard stop, and there was the chance that we would have had to come back on Sunday to debate only a single motion. The meeting decided to punt and referred the proposal to the Hugo Awards Study Committee on a vote by show of hands.
The meeting adjourned sine die at 12:26 PM, saving us from an "overflow" session.
The Site Selection Business Meeting opened with the Site Selection Administrator presenting results. But if you watched the video, you will see that he was in a poor state and had difficulty with reading them. Here is a photograph of the detailed results.
As I said earlier, Robbie Bourget gave what amounted to a concession speech, I moved the destruction of the ballots, and that was that. Here's Chengdu's initial flyer — what most Worldcons with which I am familiar call "Progress Report Zero."
In answer to a question, they said their dates were August 23-29, 2023, which is seven days, not the traditional five. I'm not sure that's correct. Perhaps this will be clarified later.
After Question Time and other Site Selection Business, and a recess to allow the roughly 50% of the people in the room to leave, we got down to business. If you want to follow the results, go download the Agenda and turn to page 34 as I go through the seven items of new business. When I mention a show of hands, that means an uncounted show of hands. "Unanimous consent" means that nobody objected. Counted votes were taken by "serpentine" voting, where people rise (or make alternative arrangements with the floor manager) and count off one at a time with the count going back and forth through the room.
F.1 One Episode per Series
This proposal would modify the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category. Currently, no more than two episodes per series may be on the final ballot. This proposal would reduce this to one work per series. This item failed on a show of hands.
F.2 30 Days Hath New Business
Currently, WSFS Business Meeting Standing Rule 2.1 requires that new business and committee reports are due 30 days before the current Worldcon. However, there is an argument that the Standing Rules cannot bind committees created through the WSFS Constitution, so this proposal would promote the rule into the Constitution. However, the technical reason for doing this seemed sufficiently opaque to the members that there was debate and objections to it, even though the Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee that proposed it thought it had no substantive impact other than to remove the objection about WSFS committees being bound by it. In the end, though, it passed 34-15.
F.3 The Statue of Liberty Play
The WSFS Constitution currently requires that each Worldcon share contact information with their successor. This is a practical matter, because we allow all of the members of this year's Worldcon nominate for the following year's Hugo Awards. The following Worldcon needs the previous year's information so that when members of that Worldcon vote, the current Worldcon can confirm the voters' eligibility. Some people don't like this; therefore, the proposed change would only allow the information to be passed on if the member permits it. This does mean, however, that if you refused such permission, you would not be able to nominate for the Hugo Awards unless you joined the current Worldcon, because the current Worldcon would not be able to confirm your eligibility. This proposal passed on a show of hands.
F.4 Shut Up and Take My Money
Currently, Worldcons are required to turn over voter information from site selection elections that they administer to the winning bid. There have been people who object to this. The original proposal would prohibit the Worldcon from passing on information unless the voter gave permission. This was sent to the Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee. Because we as a committee thought that the consequence of this was that people could vote but that the winning Worldcon could end up with members whose identity and contact information they couldn't have, and that we though this did not make sense, we submitted an alternative that would require that in order to vote, you would have to agree to allow your contact information to be passed on to the winning bid. The alternative was selected by the Preliminary Meeting as the one that would be considered at the Main Meeting. After a bunch of argument back and forth, the entire matter was referred to a special committee with instructions to report back with a better version next year.
The debate on this proposal included the closest vote of the whole meeting, which was on an amendment to the motion to refer to committee. The first motion was originally to refer this back to the Nitpicking committee. Someone moved to amend by striking out "Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee" and inserting "a Special Committee appointed by the Chair". The motion to amend passed 26-21. After the motion to amend passed, we voted again, this time on the amended motion to refer to committee. That passed on a show of hands, so the matter is sent to committee for a report next year.
F.5 A Matter of Days
There are a number of places in the WSFS Constitution that have deadlines specified in months, such as "within two (2) months." However, "months" can be ambiguous, so this proposal takes every "month" as thirty days and substitutes according. For example, "within two (2) months" becomes "within sixty (60) days." This proposal was adopted by unanimous consent
F.6 Non-transferrability of Voting Rights
This proposal reads as more complicated as it is, I think. Currently, we have "Supporting Memberships" and "Attending memberships." The former gives you all of the rights of membership in the World Science Fiction Society: nominating and voting on the Hugo Awards, voting on Site Selection (subject to paying the Advance Supporting Membership voting fee), and convention publications. The latter has all of the former, plus the right to attend the Worldcon, which is annual meeting of the World Science Fiction Society. This proposal would redefine the existing Supporting membership as a "WSFS membership," making it somewhat more obvious that you are joining a club called the World Science Fiction Society. There would also be the "attending supplement," which is the difference is cost between the current supporting and attending membership, and represents the extra cost to actually attend the Worldcon.
Under this proposal, the WSFS membership (the current supporting membership) could not be transferred. That is, if you join WSFS for a given year, you could not sell that membership. However, you could transfer the right-to-attend portion of what we currently call an attending membership to someone else. To actually attend the annual meeting of the World Science Fiction Society (that is, the Worldcon), you would have to have both an attending supplement and a WSFS membership. If you transferred a supplement to someone who already had a WSFS (supporting) membership, nothing else would be needed; you could attend that Worldcon. If you got someone's attending supplement but were not yet a WSFS member, you would have to buy a WSFS membership in order to actually attend.
This is much like many organizations have annual meetings that are open only to their members, but they also charge an additional amount to attend that convention. For example, Lisa's father was a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, but in order to attend the AVMA conference, he had to pay an additional supplement.
The debate on this demonstrated something that I've noticed before, which is that existing constitutional language, when shown in proposals like this, sometimes makes people think that it's something new even when it's describing exactly what happens today. One attendee, reading the rules about how long you have to convert your membership to an attending one, seemed to think the wording was saying the conventions couldn't sell attending memberships at all 90 days or more after they were selected. This is obviously nonsense, but there's no explaining things to some people.
In any event, after a long debate, this proposal was adopted on a 35-22 vote
F.7 Best Audiobook
This proposal would add a new Best Audiobook Hugo Award category. By the time we got to this point in the agenda, we were getting perilously close to the 12:30 hard stop, and there was the chance that we would have had to come back on Sunday to debate only a single motion. The meeting decided to punt and referred the proposal to the Hugo Awards Study Committee on a vote by show of hands.
The meeting adjourned sine die at 12:26 PM, saving us from an "overflow" session.