90 thoughts on “MACII Business Meeting August 19

  1. I attended; it was my first business meeting and I have done a lot of con since then but let me see if I can remember what happened…

    We set the agenda, including setting the amount of time allowed for debating all the old and new business–each item gets a certain amount of time (set separately for each item, so something that seems simple might get 4 minutes for debate and something complex might get 20.). We don’t have to use it all but we can’t use more without the meeting as a whole agreeing to the change. We spent most of the meeting thrashing out what those time limits were going to be.

    The Additional Finalists item (administrators add more finalists if they believe slating has significantly affected the outcome for the top 5) got Postponed Indefinitely which means it won’t be voted on this year. I think this was the one where we did a serpentine vote, which went quicker than I thought it would.

    The proposal to have only members of the current WorldCon nominate also got nixed. I forget if they Postponed Indefinetly or Objected to Consideration but for our purposes it doesn’t matter. They’re still going to consider reducing the nominating pool to current plus previous year Worldcon members.

    There was an attempt to Posptone one of the EPH variants I think, though it might have been 3SV. (I *think* it was EPH+)? But it has been a busy day and I am not sure anymore. That one went down emphatically in flames, which is why it didn’t make it into the newsletter and I can’t double check which one it was.

    I didn’t get the sense there was any packing with Puppies going on, though there was one guy in a trilby who said it was his first Business Meeting but sure kept popping up a lot, seeming to do his level best to make the debate times all as long as possible. Toward the end of the meeting I was sensing a certain exasperation among the assembled members, though maybe I was just projecting my own feelings.

    Anyway, it looks like Sunday is going to be a VERY LONG DAY, as we will be considering EPH, 4 and 6, and EPH+ that day. The hope is that the data for this year’s Hugos, which can’t be released until after the Hugo Ceremony Saturday night, can be used to test both EPH and EPH+ to give the assembled members a bit more of an indication of how well they would work.

    Now to bed so I can get up and do this again tomorrow.

  2. Oops; I just saw this and didn’t realize it was intended to start with Friday’s Business Meeting. The above is about Thursday’s Business Meeting; my bad.

  3. I know Trilby guy, if you mean who I think you mean, and I think he was just a newbie speaking up rather more than is usual for newbies.

    My notes say there were attempts to postpone indefinitely for 3SV (attempt failed), Additional Finalists (attempt succeeded), and YA Award (attempt failed). In addition, there was an attempt to substitute One Year for Two Years in the proposal to reduce eligible nominators, but the argument that many people have not joined worldcon by the nomination eligibility deadline, and would not get to nominate the following year, either, under this rule, proved persuasive, and the attempt failed.

    There was some frendly wrangling over the Best Series proposal (an amendment to omit the re-eligibility provision was sent to committee, to be considered tomorrow), and also the Retrospective Improvement proposal was divided into 3 parts, consisting of its 3 paragraphs.

    In addition, the 3 elected members of the Mark Protection Committee with expiring terms were renominated, and no other nominations were made, so that a vote on that will be unnecessary tomorrow.

    As to the Sunday items, Dave McCarty said this year’s Hugo Administrators already have a report ready based on this year’s data (both Hugos and Retros), which will be provided Sunday. I thought he said that the reports based on 2014 and 2015 (and I thought he mentioned one other) are linked from the Midamericon Business Meeting page, but I couldn’t find them there, so I must have misheard.

    I do hope this isn’t repeating what’s on another page. It is 1am here so I am not going to check!

  4. 2 years ago I didn’t know that there even was a WSFS business meeting. Now it’s oddly fascinating…

  5. Thank you for the reporting, Cat & Lenore.

    You (and others), please keep up the good work.

    Kevin, thanks for the vids.

    Mark, thanks for the EPH link.

    I’ve now read Quinn & McCarty’s conclusions, Whyte’s and Felapton’s commentary and comment thusly:

    EPH is not the answer we were looking for and, even though it means yet another year of potential shenanigans (which may be tempered by more European participation), I think 3SV is the way to go.

    If slates are in operation – enough to be affected by EPH – I think it will be obvious to nominators and with that being the case, No Awarding slated nominees would solidify, which means that most categories would eventually come down to a choice between one or two finalists. Votes during the nominating process then become the finalist vote, in effect.

    I want to see 4, 5 or 6 legitimate finalists on the ballot in each category, not a referendum on picking the most popular non-puppy nominee.

    Camestros’ commentary makes good and valid points, but it addresses the minutiae of the report. Overall, despite those good points, I think it is clear that EPH does not do nearly enough: We should not be tolerating any slate picks on the final ballot, let alone 80% of the final ballot.

  6. We should not be tolerating any slate picks on the final ballot, let alone 80% of the final ballot.

    I agree totally with this (slates do not deserve representation, even proportionately, because they are not real preferences): EPH is not an adequate solution. But for reasons I set out in the other thread, I don’t think 3SV is an adequate solution either; it doesn’t plug the gap in EPH, but addresses a different aspect of the problem.

    Last year there was a stampede towards EPH; this year I’m worried that there may be a stampede towards 3SV – in both cases motivated by the thought that this must be the right answer, because there is nothing else. But I don’t think we have a right answer yet.

    We shouldn’t reject EPH because it’s imperfect, and hope that 3SV will save us. Ratify both, with term limits, and go on thinking.

  7. [ticky]

    Thanks everyone for the reports and recaps. I never knew parliamentary procedure could be so fascinating.

  8. Mark: The report from prior to this year that McCarty refers to is here(pdf).
    Nicholas Whyte and Camestros have both posted their takes on it.

    It looks as though the report was put together hurriedly and not reviewed and proofed as it should have been. I note that the report for 2014 mistakenly omits the fact that the following entries would not have made the longlist under EPH:
    – John Ringo Novel
    – Matt Fraction Graphic Novel
    – Marc Simonetti in Pro Artist
    – GigaNotoSaurus and Electric Velocipede Semiprozines
    – Angela Rizza in Fan Artist
    – Madeline Ashby in Campbell

    the following entries actually remained on the longlist under EPH:
    – On-Spec Semiprozine
    – D. West in Fan Artist

    and the Finalist line in Semiprozine is drawn in the wrong place.

    In 1939 Fan Writer William F Temple would not have made the longlist.

    I would welcome seeing any additional corrections that other people may find.

  9. Andrew M: We shouldn’t reject EPH because it’s imperfect, and hope that 3SV will save us. Ratify both, with term limits, and go on thinking

    Agreed. And probably 4 and 6 as well, possibly modified to 5 and 6.

  10. EPH may not be the magic bullet we had hoped for, but it’s certainly a band-aid that will allow the current bleeding to slow or stop. And it has a built-in expiry.

    So it gives us time to fix the problem more effectively and then bows out of the way.

  11. I’m here in the meeting. I had said I’d be here early in order to talk to some people, but my ride got badly lost; so, if you wanted to talk to me then, sorry.

  12. I am here and will try but have heard the WiFi is terrible. We will see how it goes.

    Currently hearing report from YA committee–sounds quite reasonable. Committee was reappointed to consider possible names (and award designs?); sounds like they will solicit suggestions and research possibilities (perhaps to prevent the whole Lovecraft effect).

  13. So far it’s been reelection of Mark Protection Committee members, committee reports (the committee chair of the Long List committee declined to give a verbal report, but others summarized their written reports) and now we’re moving to Business Passed On.

    The first item is Best Fancast, which has just been reratified. The next item is The Five Percent Solution and I highly recommend Rachel Acks’ live blogging for this one.

  14. I’m not sure if if I should be concerned what this says about my mental state, but I am finding my first bussiness meeting quite soothing.

  15. Currently hearing report from Best Series committee.

    Re-eligibility of series (if it wins in 2017 can it win again in 2019 if the author writes a new book(s)?) is in question.) Report points out that Flowers For Algernon can win as a short story and again later as a novel because it has been substantially altered and proposes that series that add books should be in the same boat.

    Accepted some committee reports as written? Query about Lone Star Con having 2 financial reports–one is from Lone Star Con, one is from parent organization that received the extra funds and considered itself bound to report on them.

    Various thank you’s–sorry they are going by too fast.

    Financial stuff for some previous con is wrapped up; everyone seems happy about that.

    First Item of business passed on (from Chicon). Best Fancast. Debate time 6 minutes.

    Best Fancast was reratified quickly and with a large majority.

    5% solution–eliminating 5% rule for short story to appear on ballot.

    Kevin Standlee speaking against, wants to get rid of 2nd clause (getting on longlist) because change would make no difference there. (He is not speaking against the rest of the amendment.). Motion passed–part about longlist is removed.

    Now handling 5% solution itself. Speaking in favor–vote divided too many ways, so that too few stories are reaching 5%; it’s not because of lack of good stories or interest, it’s because of too much of this.

    Speaking against–Ben Yalow says that the signal to noise ratio is poor below 5%. He says this could be something to consider.

    Jameson Quinn points out that the difference between 5% and 6% can also be a statistical fluctuation and favors 3SV as a solution.

    Someone points out that if too few people nominate something maybe it isn’t Hugo worthy.

    Next speaker points out that the width of the field is the problem, not the poor quality of the stories.

    Non statistics person suggests having 3 year sunset clause and re-evaluating when we have data.

    Statistics person points out longlist is data for lots of years.

    Calling question. Sunset clause yes or no? No Sunset clause.

    5% Solution passes with heavy majority. Section 3.8.5 is removed.

    Multiple nominations. Passes quickly and with heavy majority–work can only be nominated in a single Hugo category

    Nominee Diversity –limits an author or series to 2 works in a given category.

    Quite a lot of speech about this.

    Okay having a serpentine on referring to committee. These actually go pretty fast.
    (The issue is that authors with 4 things on the ballot might not be told they had 4 things and allowed to pick which to withdraw; some people hate this idea and want it referred to committee to change it.)
    73 in favor of referring

    73 to 60 motion passes. 10 minute recess.

    Trying to post when I get a page–sorry about weird format.

  16. I apparently came into contact with something to which I am allergic last night; I woke up this morning with horribly swollen and painful eyes. So thanks to all the people who’ve been live posting from the Business Meeting this morning.

    There were at least 32 attendees at the Filer Meetup last night (thanks again to Hampus for making arrangements!) and I did take photos. However, I crashed immediately afterward, in hopes of feeling good enough today to last from the Business Meetings to the parties tonight, and I have not yet had a chance to crop and tweek the photos and post them — but I will do that as soon as I am able to do so.

  17. Tasha, I took a Benadryl and I’m hopeful that will help. I did finally stagger into the Business Meeting this morning, and Cheryl S. is being nice enough to let me use her wifi hotspot again today.

    Kurt Busiek is here, too!

  18. Recess over; Electronic Signature for Hugo Site Selection. Provides ability to do it; doesn’t force it.

    Speaker points out there is overwhelming desire for this.

    Apparently the anonymity of site selection votes is ? More important than the anonymity of the Hugos?

    Speaker concerned that it will lead to Hugo nomination style packing.

    Speaker points out that stamps are not hard to get. Such packing could happen now.

    Speaker points out some real world jurisdictions are requiring electronic now.

    Speaker points out that friendships can break up over site selection (? Okay–this is obviously a community thing).

    Speaker points out that mundane courts use electronic documents and maintain privacy so why not conventions?

    Speaker points out he has been involved in site section–believes that the privacy issues are real and different from those of a court which enter the public record.

    Speaker points out that electronic signatures can be dissociated from ballots in multiple ways so that no living human sees them together.

    Now voting–electronic signatures is ratified.

    Some kind of parliamentary thing I do not understand… I think they are trying to make it possible to delay ratification by an extra year, but they are referring it to the nitpicking and flyspecking committee.

    The committee voted against, everyone else voted for, motion passes; delay method is referred to nitpicking and flyspecking committee.

    New Business:
    Best series. Report of committee detailed to solve re-eligibility issues. Committee things award is like hall of fame for series, so winners should be excluded. However if all nominees were excluded, you’d run out of series pretty quickly. So they want winners excluded but nominees still eligible in following years.

    Sounds very sensible as far as it goes.

    Phone working better I think.

  19. JJ: In case it’s something to do with the detergent the hotel uses, or the pillows, maybe try using one of your teeshirts as an outer pillowcase to protect your face from direct contact with the hotel pillows? Dunno if it would help, but it can’t hurt….

  20. Cat said:

    Apparently the anonymity of site selection votes is ? More important than the anonymity of the Hugos?

    Speaker points out that friendships can break up over site selection (? Okay–this is obviously a community thing).

    Site selection entails much, much higher financial and emotional stakes than the Hugos. Bid committee members individually invest thousands of dollars of their own money and hundreds if not thousands of hours of their time in the process of campaigning. The winning bid is not taking home a shiny trophy but the very stewardship of the community. It is therefore treated as a much lower-trust process already. (For instance, all the bids get to observe the counting of ballots.)

Comments are closed.