New Draft of Best Saga Proposal

Editor’s Introduction: the fans behind the Best Saga Hugo category have collated all the discussion and feedback they received on the original draft and have rewritten the proposal. Jared Dashoff asked me to post the latest revision so File 770 readers can make more comments. As he explains below, that may lead to ideas that will go into a final draft.

By Jared Dashoff: Thanks for offer to post the revision. I have attached what we’ve got. You’ll note there are two submissions, one to add Best Saga and one to deal with multiple nominations wherein the same work appears in multiple categories in the same year. This would stop a novel in a series from appearing on the same final ballot as the series, and, if a YA or other segment award ever shows up, a work appearing in that category and the category it fits in by length.

Please note in the post that we are asking for feedback on this, most importantly constructive criticism. We are still trying to find the perfect word count that incorporates a series built on short fiction, but doesn’t get overwhelmed by long novels with extra works tacked on. We are also refining our discussion points to mirror the word count and the final wording of the proposal.

We have submitted an older version of this to Sasquan (in the time it took to get that up, we made enough changes, we thought you should have an updated version) and, based on what we hear back, we’ll likely revise again before the cutoff for New Business.

Short Title: Best Series (revised June 24, 2015)

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution to change the written fiction Hugo Award categories by creating a Best Series award and correcting related references to the existing Hugo Award categories by adding words as follows:

  1. Insert words in existing Section 3.2.4 as follows:

3.2.4 Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible, except under Section 3.3.X. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.

  1. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.4:

3.3.X Best Series A work of science fiction or fantasy, presented as a single series with a unifying plot, characters, or setting, appearing in at least three (3) volumes consisting of a total of at least 240,000 words by the close of the previous calendar year, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year.  If such a work has previously been a finalist, it shall be eligible only if at least two (2) additional volumes consisting of total of at least 240,000 words have been published since its last appearance on the final ballot by the end of the previous calendar year, and provided it has not won under 3.3.X before.

  1. Insert the following before existing Section 3.8.3:

3.8.X For nominations of works under Section 3.3.X, if a work is eligible as both an overarching series and a subset of that series, and if the work receives sufficient nominations, either as the overarching series or as a subset, or  through the sum of the nominations for both, to appear on the final ballot, the Worldcon Committee shall determine how the work shall appear, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9.

Proposed by: Warren Buff, Jared Dashoff, William Lawhorn, Michael Lee, Pablo Vasquez

Discussion:The goal of this amendment is to provide Hugo categories more in line with today’s science fiction and fantasy publishing norms and to further create categories that compare like items. It accomplishes this by creating an award that recognizes works that appear in multi-volume series, a large and growing segment of the publishing sector and one unrecognized by the Hugos to date.  Furthermore, stories told in this format tend to consist mainly of books which are not ideal examples of novels, in part due to the presence of narrative arcs which remain unresolved between their covers.  While this narrative sweep is not to the taste of all readers, it nonetheless represents a stylistically distinct form of storytelling, and its exemplars deserve recognition.

The majority of original novels (somewhere around two thirds) in the genre being published today are part of larger series, if the new releases of Tor/Forge, Baen, Pyr, and DAW are any indication.  Yet for the past decade, the Best Novel category has been dominated by stand-alone works, with nine out of the eleven winners being such (and one of the two series novels is a first book in its series).  The distribution of Best Novel winners is badly out of step with the general shape of the market, even though the nominees run close to the market trend.  This could be a sign that while the Hugo nominators appreciate series work, the general voter pool prefers stand-alone novels when considering which should win Best Novel or that comparing stand-alone works to works in a series is difficult.  While series novels performed better in the past, the expansion of the voter pool has not been a kind era for them.

By setting the minimum for nomination at 240,000 words across multiple volumes, works are required to provide substantial material within the same saga to be nominated and substantial new material to be eligible for a second nomination. The number also reflects typical book contracts for newer SF authors, which often come in around 80,000 to 100,000 words.  Established authors, especially those working in high fantasy, sometimes deliver much longer works.

For reference, The Lord of the Rings was around 473,000 words.  Volumes in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time ranged between 226,000 and 393,000 words, which would have triggered new eligibility every other volume.While George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire has had volumes of over 400,000 words, and would have triggered fresh eligibility as many as three times in its five volumes to date on word count alone, the requirement to publish multiple volumes to gain fresh eligibility would restrict it to twice.  Among series which placed their third or later book onto Locus’s lists in 2013 and 2014, the majority had already crossed 300,000 words, while a few were close to the cut-off. The bulk of the series were in their third or fourth entry, while eight of the 31 were beyond their fifth.  The lowest total, around 150,000, came from Alan Garner’s Weirdstone sequence, consisting of two children’s novels from the 1960s and an adult novella.  The two middle-grade series to place a book on the list, Lois Lowry’s Giver and Catherynne Valente’s Fairyland series, came in below the threshold, while most of the young adult series came in above it.  Young adult series varied wildly, with trilogies ranging from about 230,000 words (Holly Black’s Curse Workers) to over 480,000 (Tamora Pierce’s Beka Cooper).  Several other series, most of which would tend to gain eligibility every two or three volumes, are documented at http://cesspit.net/drupal/node/1869/

The work need not be that of a single author, and collaborative efforts that hang together well enough for the voters and authors to consider them a single work are eligible. For reference, the Wild Cards Series has had numerous contributors over several decades, but each new novel or collection ties into all that has come before. The Ring of Fire Series has multiple intertwining stories that are linked by a common progressive storyline.

And, while the above discussion has focused on novel length works, the works need not be segmented into novel length volumes. Any work, presented in a series of multiple volumes, should be considered as eligible. For example, comics or graphic novels meeting the word count would qualify, assuming they are presented in a series of separate volumes. Novella or even Short Story length volumes summing to the word count would also be eligible.

Lastly, to lessen issues with the triggering work being part of both the overarching series and a subseries, as in the case of Discworld, for example, a clause has been added to give the Worldcon Committee explicit powers, that the sponsors and others believe the Committee already had by implicit tradition, to combine the nominations and place only the overarching series or the subseries on the final ballot, after discussion with the creator, when possible. The sponsors have also separately submitted a proposal entitled ‘Multiple Nominations’ that addresses the matter of a work being simultaneously eligible as part of a Series and in another category.

____________________________________________________________________________

Short Title: Multiple Nominations

Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution to change the written fiction Hugo Award categories by creating eliminating the possibility of a work appearing on the final ballot in multiple categories by adding words as follows:

  1. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.8:

3.2.X: No work shall appear in more than one category on the final Award ballot.

  1. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.8.6:

3.8.Y  If a work is eligible in more than one category, and if the work receives sufficient nominations to appear in more than one category, the Worldcon Committee shall determine in which category the work shall appear, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9.

Proposed by: Warren Buff, Jared Dashoff, William Lawhorn, Michael Lee, Pablo Vasquez

Discussion:The goal of this amendment is to ensure that no work appears on the final ballot in multiple categories. This means that a novel could not appear on the same ballot as a series of which it is a part, and provides for settling the placement of works receiving nominations in Best Related Work and other categories such as Fanzine or Fancast. Additionally, if a YA category were to be added, a novel could not appear in both the YA and Best Novel category. It would be the duty of the Worldcon Committee, via the Hugo Administrator and staff, in consultation with the author/creator, as possible, to determine in which the work would appear.

76 thoughts on “New Draft of Best Saga Proposal

  1. @Todd

    the fact that a long series can be viewed as many different, but related smaller series is one of the reasons that I think that a series should be able to win more than one Hugo (with a requirement for more good work) I think there will be fewer arguments over what’s part of what series if multiple wins are allowed than if they aren’t.

    If an author writes one trilogy and wins, then writes another trilogy and wins, then writes a third trilogy that reveals that the first two were actually related (and is even better than the first two) and you now have a 9-book series, you have a retroactively illegal win and no way to recognize the newest, best work.

    There are multiple existing categories where a continuing story/series can win multiple hugos

    Best Graphic Story i.e. webcomics
    Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) i.e. TV series
    Best Semiprozine
    Best Related work
    Best Fanzine
    Best Fancast
    arguably:
    Best Professional Artist
    Best Fan Artist

    not to mention things that can win under short story and then be extended to novel length and win again.

    If you want to start putting in rules preventing someone from winning more than once, it needs to be done across all categories. But I think that a better approach than an outright ban on future awards once something has won once is a ban on eligibility for a couple of years and a requirement for a significant body of additional work.

    As for the issue of adding a short story to Harry Potter making it eligible as a series. Yes, this could be done, and it would be eligible that year. But it would not be eligible again until a significant amount of additional material was released.

    This is actually much better than the graphic story category where a single GG post could make it eligible each year.

    As for requiring a complete series, it’s impossible to tell if a series in complete, some things have a beginning, middle, and end, and others have a clear “this isn’t finished yet” feel at the end, but still others (I believe most) are somewhere in between, where the end is more “and they lived on” but additional books could be written. Sometimes the publisher will kill a series, sometimes the author will die, etc. This uncertainty will frequently mean that the series would not be honored the year the final book came out because nobody would know at that time that it WAS the final book.

    As for wordcount vs number of works, with electronic releases, the number of works is hard to determine, and the same words may appear in serialized form and novel form (or meganovel/omnibus form), counting the number of works released gets rather messy. Wordcount is a much easier metric to track.

    As for tie-ins. The feeling that we don’t want to honor corporations is meaningless, we do that every year with the Best Dramatic Presentation categories. Even the massive series of Star Trek tie-in novels required that an Author write them. I agree that few, if any of them are worth winning a Hugo, but if an Author does an extremely good job with such a book (or series), why should they NOT be eligible, just because it’s a media tie-in? We have the Best Related Work category to explicitly recognize this sort of thing.

    Also, if you bar media tie-in novels, you then have to decide which is primary and which is secondary for the Game of Thrones once the series gets ahead of the books. Why borrow trouble?

  2. Jared:

    “… then it’s all that gets counted”

    Either I’m tired, or you are, but this last still doesn’t seem to scan. The Administrator certainly has the right to consult with the author(s). The author(s) have the right to decide which (if any) of their qualifying nomination(s) appear on the ballot. But you seem to be saying that the Admin can make a call _without checking the final tally_ as to whether to combine nominations. If that’s so, I think you’ve allocated too much authority to the Admin. If it’s just me reading it that way, then mea culpa; blame it in low blood sugar and client demands this afternoon.

  3. David Lang: Since Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist are “best people” rather than “best work” awards, nominees in those categories would not be disqualified by a work-based exclusion in another rule.

  4. David:

    I’m not sure who made the comments you respond to, but it wasn’t me; I’ve been staying out of this discussion as much as possible other than to critique my son’s wordsmithing talents (or failures).

    I’m not sure how I feel yet on repeat wins. The additional material criteria certainly keeps one entity (for lack of a better term) to win every year, but even if they start to win every “N” years, that might be too much.

    WRT to tie-ins, I think they should be allowed; if they can get enough votes to make the ballot, why shouldn’t they have a chance? And that’s the first time I’ve ever seen GRRM referred to (even indirectly) as a tie-in writer . In this case, since the books came first, I’d consider them as primary and the show as secondary; with most media tie-ins it’s the other way around.

  5. @todd

    We are working on a revision. This is what we have right now:

    3.8.X For nominations of works under Section 3.3.X, if a work is eligible as both an overarching series and a subset of that series, and if the both the subset and the overarching series receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot, the Worldcon Committee shall determine whether the subset or the overarching series shall appear on the final ballot, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9. If neither the subset of the series nor the overarching series receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot, but, in sum, their nominations would place a work on the final ballot, the Worldcon Committee may combine the nominations and, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9., determine how the work should appear on the final ballot.

    That means if both have enough nominations, one gets on, so as to not have a Discworld full ballot. If it would take the combination of Tiffany Aching and the Full Discworld nominations to get on, it can still get on, with the author deciding how. The latter being because it is obvious what the will of the nominators is, they just disagree on how to split the pie.

    Of course if it is the will of the Business Meeting that Tiffany Aching is NOT a subset of Discworld, and is its own entity (extrapolating to other series, too) then it can move to amend by stripping this section.

  6. As a voter, I’d be unhappy if a vote that I cast helped put something that I didn’t vote for on the ballot.

    For example, a few seasons back, South Park had a brilliant three-part episode about Coon and Friends. I loved it, and included it on my nominating ballot in DP, Short Form.

    But would I have been happy if that vote for Coon was turned into a ballot to vote the entire season on to the ballot as DP, Long Form? Not at all. The entire season wasn’t close to Hugo-worthy as a long-form dramatic production.

    I don’t think that you can arbitrarily decide that a vote for an episode of a TV series is equivalent to a vote for the entire season. If the voter wanted the entire season nominated, then that’s what the voter would have nominated.

  7. @John Lorentz

    Would you then simply scrap the last sentence? Still leaving it such that only one entity of Discworld (either DISCWORLD or Tiffany Aching) makes it on the ballot?

  8. Jared,

    That would make more sense. Up until that point, it sounded like it was simply codifying what seems to have been a common practice.

  9. John/Jared:

    I don’t think you can decide that the reverse is true, either. A vote for the series means that all of it, taken as a whole, is Hugo-worthy. It doesn’t mean an arbitrary segment of that whole is also Hugo-worthy, or if it does, you need to allow for both to be nominated. I’m not in favor of combining, nor am I in favor of _forcing_ the “author” to decide on which nomination to accept. If they want to go with one, fine, but we allow multiple nominations in a category in the short fiction categories, and before you say that those are different items, I say that i think that is the case here as well. I don’t like that this could end up in an all-Discworld ballot, but either you grit your teeth and accept it for the (probably) only time it will happen, or you trust that the electorate has enough other valid nominees to choose from that it won’t happen in the first place.

  10. @John Lorentz

    Fair enough. You would be one to know what common practice is.

    I am making a list in our discussion document of clauses and sentences to look at removing or noting that could be removed to the Meeting, depending on how the Meeting feels. As I noted, I think it is easier to leave it in and note it can come out, than to take it out when presented and have the Meeting want it in and have to come up with it on the fly.

  11. Since this site has been the most engaged (i.e. in providing thoughtful, helpful and constructive criticism), I thought it might be helpful to put what we have here with the list of the clauses that could be removed and what the effect of the removal would be so that people can consider that as we move closer to the Business Meeting and make amendments as needed or wanted. (I am leaving off the discussion text to shorten this.)

    Short Title: Best Series (revised June 23, 2015)

    Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution to change the written fiction Hugo Award categories by creating a Best Series award and correcting related references to the existing Hugo Award categories by adding words as follows:

    1. Insert words in existing Section 3.2.4 as follows:

    3.2.4 Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible, except under Section 3.3.X. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.

    2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.4:

    3.3.X Best Series A work of science fiction or fantasy, published as a single series with a unifying plot, characters, or setting, appearing in at least three (3) volumes consisting of a total of at least 240,000 words by the close of the previous calendar year, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year. If such a work has previously been a finalist, it shall be eligible only if at least two (2) additional volumes consisting of total of at least 240,000 words have been published since its last appearance on the final ballot by the end of the previous calendar year, and provided it has not won under 3.3.X before.

    3. Insert the following before existing Section 3.8.3:

    3.8.X For nominations of works under Section 3.3.X, if a work is eligible as both an overarching series and a subset of that series, and if the both the subset and the overarching series receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot, the Worldcon Committee shall determine whether the subset or the overarching series shall appear on the final ballot, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9. If neither the subset of the series nor the overarching series receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot, but, in sum, their nominations would place a work on the final ballot, the Worldcon Committee may combine the nominations and, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9., determine how the work should appear on the final ballot.
    ___________________________________________________________

    Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution to change the written fiction Hugo Award categories by creating eliminating the possibility of a work appearing on the final ballot in multiple categories by adding words as follows:

    1. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.8:

    3.2.X: No work shall appear in more than one category on the final Award ballot.

    2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.8.6:

    3.8.Y If a work is eligible in more than one category, and if the work receives sufficient nominations to appear in more than one category, the Worldcon Committee shall determine in which category the work shall appear, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9. The Worldcon Committee shall also determine, after consulting with the author of the work insofar as it is possible to do so under the provisions of Section 3.9, whether a work or a component thereof appears on the final ballot if both are eligible and receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot.
    _________________________________________________________________

    What can be stripped?

    Last clause of 3.3.X – Allows for multiple wins by a given series (after major additions)

    Last sentence of 3.8.X – Leaving the rule that only one part of a series could appear, either a subseries or the full series

    All of 3.8.X – All parts/subseries of a series could appear

    Last sentence of 3.8.Y – Leaves in potential YA vs. Best Novel break (if there is a YA category), but allows a Novel to appear against a series it is a part of

  12. Not everybody in fandom sleeps with a copy of Roberts Rules of Order under their pillow, so some of us could use some guidance. Can someone give us a few examples of series that might qualify? I assume the Charles Stross Laundry Series would and also Niven’s Known Space Series. Can someone come up with some examples that wouldn’t? Or does it depend on how some of the fine tuning issues mentioned in the above posts turnout?

  13. @ cat June 25, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Is the possibility that someone will get annoyed by unequal recognition at the award such a severe issue we should avoid awarding any of them instead?

  14. @Todd Dashoff on June 25, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    sorry, I started replying to you and then forgot to say @various after the first section or so

  15. re: combining/splitting nominations

    This is going to be a bit of an issue, There are too many times when different terms can be used to refer to the same series, and where a term at one point in time can refer to an entire series ends up just referring to part of a series as more things are written, but people’s use of the term doesn’t always change to match the Author’s new definitions.

    And it’s not going to be clear to the worldcon organizers if someone is intending to refer to only the narrowest interpretation or the wider interpretation. Are they trying to ‘game’ things my only nominating part of a series so that other parts can be nominated later? or are they only nominating part because they don’t think the rest is hugo worthy? similarly, if someone nominates the entire series, that doesn’t mean that they think that every possible subset of it is also hugo worthy.

    There is no way to read the voters minds, and there is no way that all voters are going to agree to unambiguous ways to refer to everything in every case. As a result, there is going to be a bit of a grey area.

    looking at Graphic Stories, if you have 5 people nominate GG January, 5 nominate GG March, 5 nominate GG 2015 how should these votes count? 5 votes each for three separate things, 15 votes for GG (something), 10 votes each for GG Jan and GG March? something else? At some point the Worldcon organizers need to try to reach a sane conclusion, even though it means that they will get someone’s intent wrong.

  16. @sanford, the intent is that this would let almost all trilogy or longer groups be recognized. The tweaking of the wordcount from the initial proposals of 300K-400K down to 240K is the result of Jared’s research into trilogy sizes. The reason that it’s not just # of works released is that with e-books, short stories can be released individually, books can be released a chapter at a time as serials, etc. So instead of trying to define “enough” by the number of releases, total wordcount is being used (especially since all other writing categories are defined in terms of wordcount)

    I don’t think anyone has examples of series that wouldn’t qualify, other than some trilogies or short story series that don’t have enough total words.

  17. @Sanford Meschkow and @david

    First off, not my research. I learned in grad school not to take credit for what wasn’t mine. The research was done mostly by one of my cop-proposers, Warren Buff, with assistance from Rachel Swirsky and others.

    As for actual examples of what might be eligible, take a look at what WOULD HAVE BEEN eligible here: https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/modelling-a-best-saga-hugo-award-part-1/

    That isn’t exhaustive as it is only series appearing on the Locus lists and only the novel length series, but it is a start.

  18. OK, here’s a messy one. Going back to Discworld, let’s say there’s a Tiffany Aching book out in 2015 (which, of course, there will be). Let’s say, for some unknown reason, Rhianna finds a 90% complete draft of a Sam Vimes focused book and decides to, after giving it a polish, have that published this year as well. In other words, two or more plausible subsets of a setting-based series each have a new bit in the same year. What can I reasonably put on my ballot? Not “Tiffany Aching” and Discworld, but it’d seem “Tiffany Aching” and “The Watch/Sam Vimes” could both be put on a nominating ballot…but not both applied to Discworld?

  19. @Tom

    If Sam Vines kicked it (and I’ve never read Discworld) then you could put Sam Vines and Discworld and then, under the current proposal, the Admin and Rhianna have to decide which appears. Or the Meeting dumps 3.8.X and lets them both appear on the final ballot.

  20. For me the desirability became apparent when ‘A Dance with Dragons’ failed to win ‘the Big One’. If GRRM can’t win with what all acknowledged to be a really good volume in the series, well, I would contend it can’t be done.

    My experience was the opposite of yours. Everyone I know thought that A Dance with Dragons was a severe disappointment and an ominous sign of the decline of the series. In fact, it’s a good example of why I feel uncomfortable with the Best Series Hugo. ASOIAF was a very good series at Volume 3 and has been falling apart ever since. I would’ve voted for it in 2000, but I wouldn’t vote for it now. ASOIAF is the best example of why I agree with Cat Valente and Nicholas Whyte that we should only be awarding Hugos to completed works. I would much rather see a Hugo for Best Mega-Novel (anything over a huge work count and completed) than best series.

    But how is a series complete? What if the author says it is, but then goes back and tacks on a prequel or another work at the end.

    We can trust the voters to recognise the ending when they see it, plenty of people this year are putting some of the novelettes under no-award because it’s obvious that they are excerpts from longer stories and not completed stories in their own right.
    A subsequent prequel may add to the universe but it doesn’t add to that particular story.

    It seems to me like the award, as currently proposed is trying to put in the same category ‘one very long story sold in seperate units’ and ‘very long series with lots of different stories in the same universe’ which is comparing apples and oranges. I think if we’re going to have a Series category, we also need a mega-novel category so that a self-contained trilogy (eg. Robin Hobb’s Farseer Trilogy) doesn’t end up competing against a sprawling universe (eg. Discworld).

  21. > It seems to me like the award, as currently proposed is trying to put in the same category ‘one very long story sold in seperate units’ and ‘very long series with lots of different stories in the same universe’ which is comparing apples and oranges.

    Well, to be fair, Eric Flint’s initial proposal did have different categories for completed mega-novels (i.e. trilogies) and ongoing series (Dresdon Files). But Jared and the other folks working to get this through the approval process are afraid of there being too many categories (which was part of the reason for them initially proposing removing the novelette)

  22. But Jared and the other folks working to get this through the approval process are afraid of there being too many categories (which was part of the reason for them initially proposing removing the novelette)

    Yeah, I think that’s a very fair point. The main reasoning that I see behind that is that people want to read everything nominated and then vote in every category. If we have mega-novel award and series award that would be way too much for a person to read in the short span between nominations and voting. But maybe… that’s ok?
    I mean, lots of people read and love huge series, and lots of people want to award larger works (and lots of people want to get stuff like WoT out of Best Novel). So maybe, if we’re going to satisfy all of them, we have to accept that the price we pay is a longer reading list.

  23. Eric Flint did propose separate awards for ‘meganovel’ and ‘series’ – and then dropped his proposal when he found out about this one. In my opinion, the awards would recognize different types of work and make sense. On the other hand, there is also the problem of getting something passed – which probably is best done with a single award.

    That said, I think that ‘lifetime’ achievement awards would also be fun.

  24. Who’s reading speed do you have to adapt to? 🙂

    I’m thinking that with the new Safehold book being released in September, I may want to go back and re-read the prior 7 just before it’s released. So I’m debating how many days I’ll need to allocate for this 🙂

  25. FWIW,

    The “final” version of the Best Series proposal has been sent to Sasquan and it has been posted.

    The proposers thank everyone for their comments and welcome more so that discussion can continue on the matter up until and through the Business Meeting.

Comments are closed.