Glasgow 2024 today opened online and mail voting for this year’s Hugo Awards, Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book, and Astounding Award for Best New Writer. All ballots must be received by Saturday, 20th July 2024, 20:17 GMT.
The Final Ballot is open to holders of Glasgow 2024 memberships in the categories of Attending Adult, Young Adult, and Teen Members, Online Attending Members, and WSFS Members. (Holders of Day Tickets, Online Attending Tickets, and Child/Infant Attending Tickets are not eligible to vote in the Final Ballot).
More information about the Hugo Awards, including full instructions on how to complete and submit a final ballot can be found on the Glasgow 2024 website. Also provided are PDF versions of the ballot in both English and Chinese. These printable ballots can be downloaded by members who prefer to submit their votes by postal mail. All ballots, whether submitted electronically or by postal mail, must be received by the deadline of 20.17 GMT on Saturday, July 20th, 2024.
Instructions have also been sent to all eligible Glasgow 2024 Members by email, using the email address associated with their membership. They encourage members to check their junk/spam/promotions folders for this email if they do not appear to have received it because voter notification messages may be flagged as spam by some email systems. Worldcon members who are uncertain of their status or who experience problems with the online ballot form should contact the committee at [email protected].
Only members of the 2024 Worldcon are eligible to vote on the final ballot. To join the convention, see the Glasgow 2024 Membership Page.
Any questions about the administration of the 2024 Hugo Awards should be directed to [email protected].
HUGO VOTER PACKET. Glasgow 2024’s Nicholas Whyte, in an online Town Hall session today, said the Hugo Voter Packet will be released a few weeks from now, during May.
BUSINESS MEETING. Whyte also said the Worldcon Business Meeting will be livestreamed and recorded. However, he reminded viewers, the rules do not allow virtual participation in the meeting.
Members of the current Worldcon committee are only eligible for the Hugo Award if authority over it has been delegated to a subcommittee[1]. Glasgow 2024’s subcommittee members are Nicholas Whyte (2024 Hugo Administrator and WSFS Division Head), Cassidy, Kathryn Duval and Laura Martins.
Glasgow’s Hugo Awards Eligibility Research Team, composed of Claire Brialey, Arthur Liu, Mark Plummer, Regina Kanyu Wang, Alissa Wales, and Fergal Whyte, were not part of the subcommittee explained Nicholas Whyte when asked by File 770. Therefore, it is not a conflict that Arthur Liu and Regina Kanyu Wang are named as team members of Best Fanzine Hugo finalist Journey Planet.
Whyte added for full clarity, “Kat Jones was a member of the subcommittee when it was set up, and resigned from it only after nominations had already opened. We determined that she too remained ineligible. All five of us were listed on the ballot as ineligible for nomination, and I don’t think it needs to be a secret that when the votes were counted, none of us had any.”
Whyte also gave these insights into the eligibility research process:
As for the research process, the word “team” may be misleading. There was no communication between researchers (other than Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer, who worked together); they all worked independently and each reported directly to the subcommittee. Individual eligibility researchers did not research the areas in which they themselves (or their work) might receive nominations.
For your interest, the research began early, almost as soon as nominations re-opened in February. Researchers were given alphabetized lists of the top twelve nominees in each category, as voting then stood, as long as they had at least 60% of the votes held by the currently sixth-placed nominee. These lists were updated as votes came in. (Some of them changed more than others.)
Eligibility issues that were flagged by the researchers were referred to the subcommittee, and discussed and decided by the subcommittee alone. We in turn referred one eligibility issue in the Astounding Award (which is not part of the WSFS Constitution) to Dell Magazines, who duly ruled on it. In several cases, including the three cases where nominees were disqualified, we were also able to get the views of the relevant creators.
We are very grateful to the researchers for their work.
[1]Section 3.13: Exclusions. No member of the current Worldcon Committee or any publications closely connected with a member of the Committee shall be eligible for an Award. However, should the Committee delegate all authority under this Article to a Subcommittee whose decisions are irrevocable by the Worldcon Committee, then this exclusion shall apply to members of the Subcommittee only.
The Glasgow 2024 Worldcon committee today announced the finalists for this year’s Hugo Awards.
1720 valid nominating ballots were received and counted from the members of the 2023 and 2024 World Science Fiction Conventions for the 2024 Hugo Awards. Voting on the final ballot will open during April 2024.
Only Glasgow 2024 members will be able to vote on the final ballot and choose the winners for the 2024 Awards. The 2024 Hugo Awards, the Lodestar Award, and the Astounding Award will be presented on Sunday evening, August 11, 2024, at a formal ceremony at Glasgow 2024. More information about the Hugo Awards is available here.
Best Novel
The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi by Shannon Chakraborty (Harper Voyager, Harper Voyager UK)
The Saint of Bright Doors by Vajra Chandrasekera (Tordotcom)
Some Desperate Glory by Emily Tesh (Tordotcom, Orbit UK)
Starter Villain by John Scalzi (Tor, Tor UK)
Translation State by Ann Leckie (Orbit US, Orbit UK)
Witch King by Martha Wells (Tordotcom)
1420 ballots cast for 576 nominees. Finalists range 91-172.
Best Novella
“Life Does Not Allow Us to Meet”, He Xi / 人生不相见, 何夕, translated by Alex Woodend (Adventures in Space: New Short stories by Chinese & English Science Fiction Writers)
Mammoths at the Gates by Nghi Vo (Tordotcom)
The Mimicking of Known Successes by Malka Older (Tordotcom)
Rose/House by Arkady Martine (Subterranean)
“Seeds of Mercury”, Wang Jinkang / 水星播种, 王晋康, translated by Alex Woodend (Adventures in Space: New Short stories by Chinese & English Science Fiction Writers)
Thornhedge by T. Kingfisher (Tor, Titan UK)
962 ballots cast for 187 nominees. Finalists range 106-186.
Best Novelette
I AM AI by Ai Jiang (Shortwave)
“Introduction to 2181 Overture, Second Edition”, Gu Shi /〈2181序曲〉再版导言, 顾适 translated by Emily Jin (Clarkesworld, February 2023)
“Ivy, Angelica, Bay” by C.L. Polk (Tor.com 8 December 2023)
“On the Fox Roads” by Nghi Vo (Tor.com 31 October 2023)
“One Man’s Treasure” by Sarah Pinsker (Uncanny Magazine, JanuaryFebruary 2023)
“The Year Without Sunshine” by Naomi Kritzer (Uncanny Magazine, November-December 2023)
755 ballots cast for 212 nominees. Finalists range 40-117.
Best Short Story
“Answerless Journey”, Han Song / 没有答案的航程, 韩松, translated by Alex Woodend (Adventures in Space: New Short stories by Chinese & English Science Fiction Writers)
“Better Living Through Algorithms” by Naomi Kritzer (Clarkesworld May 2023)
“How to Raise a Kraken in Your Bathtub” by P. Djèlí Clark (Uncanny Magazine, January-February 2023)
“The Mausoleum’s Children” by Aliette de Bodard (Uncanny Magazine, May-June 2023)
“The Sound of Children Screaming” by Rachael K. Jones (Nightmare Magazine, October 2023)
美食三品 (“Tasting the Future Delicacy Three Times”), 宝树 / Baoshu (银河边缘013：黑域密室 / Galaxy’s Edge Vol. 13: Secret Room in the Black Domain)
720 ballots cast for 612 nominees. Finalists range 27-69.
Best Series
The Final Architecture by Adrian Tchaikovsky (Tordotcom, Orbit UK)
Imperial Radch by Ann Leckie (Orbit US, Orbit UK)
The Last Binding by Freya Marske (Tordotcom, Tor UK)
The Laundry Files by Charles Stross (Tordotcom, Orbit UK)
October Daye by Seanan McGuire (DAW)
The Universe of Xuya by Aliette de Bodard (Gollancz; JABberwocky Literary Agency; Subterranean Press; Uncanny Magazine; et al.)
677 ballots cast for 228 nominees. Finalists range 79-117.
Best Graphic Story or Comic
Bea Wolf, written by Zach Weinersmith, art by Boulet (First Second)
Saga, Vol. 11 written by Brian K. Vaughan, art by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
Shubeik Lubeik, Deena Mohamed (Pantheon); as Your Wish Is My Command (Granta)
三体漫画：第一部/ The Three Body Problem, Part One, adapted from the novels by 刘慈欣 (Liu Cixin), written by 蔡劲 (Cai Jin),戈闻頔 (Ge Wendi), and 薄暮 (Bo Mu), art by 草祭九日东 (Caojijiuridong) (Zhejiang Literature and Art Publishing House)
The Witches of World War II written by Paul Cornell, art by Valeria Burzo (TKO Studios LLC)
Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons written by Kelly Sue DeConnick, art by Phil Jimenez, Gene Ha and Nicola Scott (DC Comics)
457 ballots cast for 256 nominees. Finalists range 25-151.
Best Related Work
All These Worlds: Reviews & Essays by Niall Harrison (Briardene Books)
中国科幻口述史, 第二卷, 第三卷，(Chinese Science Fiction: An Oral History, vols 2 and 3) ed. 杨枫 / Yang Feng (8-Light Minutes Culture & Chengdu Time Press)
A City on Mars by Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith (Penguin Press; Particular Books)
The Culture: The Drawings, by Iain M. Banks (Orbit)
雨果X访谈 (Discover X), presented by 王雅婷 (Tina Wong)
A Traveller in Time: The Critical Practice of Maureen Kincaid Speller, by Maureen Kincaid Speller, edited by Nina Allan (Luna Press Publishing)
775 ballots cast for 246 nominees. Finalists range 36-343.
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
Barbie, screenplay by Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, directed by Greta Gerwig (Warner Bros. Studios)
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, screenplay by John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein and Michael Gilio, directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (Paramount Pictures)
Nimona, screenplay by Robert L. Baird and Lloyd Taylor, directed by Nick Bruno and Troy Quane (Annapurna Animations)
Poor Things, screenplay by Tony McNamara, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (Element Pictures)
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, screenplay by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller and Dave Callaham, directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers and Justin K. Thompson (Columbia Pictures / Marvel Entertainment / Avi Arad Productions / Lord Miller / Pascal Pictures / Sony Pictures Animation)
流浪地球2 / The Wandering Earth II, based on the novel by 刘慈欣 Liu Cixin, screenplay by 杨治学 Yang Zhixue, 郭帆 / Frant Gwo, 龚格尔 Gong Geer, and 叶濡畅 Ye Ruchang, script consultant 王红卫 Wang Hongwei, directed by 郭帆 / Frant Gwo (中影创意（北京）电影有限公司 / CFC Pictures Ltd, 郭帆（北京）影业有限公司 / G!Film (Beijing) Studio Co. Ltd, 北京登峰国际文化传播有限公司 / Beijing Dengfeng International Culture Communication Co, Ltd, 中国电影股份有限公司 / China Film Co. Ltd)
763 ballots cast for 189 nominees. Finalists range 69-212.
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
Doctor Who: “The Giggle”, written by Russell T. Davies, directed by Chanya Button (Bad Wolf with BBC Studios for The BBC and Disney Branded Television)
Loki: “Glorious Purpose”, screenplay by Eric Martin, Michael Waldron and Katharyn Blair, directed by Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead (Marvel / Disney+)
The Last of Us: “Long, Long Time”, written by Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann, directed by Peter Hoar (Naughty Dog / Sony Pictures)
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Those Old Scientists”, written by Kathryn Lyn and Bill Wolkoff, directed by Jonathan Frakes (CBS / Paramount+)
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Subspace Rhapsody”, written by Dana Horgan and Bill Wolkoff, directed by Dermott Downs (CBS / Paramount+)
Doctor Who: “Wild Blue Yonder”, written by Russell T. Davies, directed by Tom Kingsley (Bad Wolf with BBC Studios for The BBC and Disney Branded Television)
490 ballots cast for 318 nominees. Finalists range 46-115.
Best Game or Interactive Work
Alan Wake 2, developed by Remedy Entertainment, published by Epic Games
Baldur’s Gate 3, produced by Larian Studios
Chants of Sennaar, developed by Rundisc, published by Focus Entertainment
DREDGE, developed by Black Salt Games, published by Team17
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, produced by Nintendo
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, developed by Respawn Entertainment, published by Electronic Arts
334 ballots cast for 165 nominees. Finalists range 26-157.
Best Editor Short Form
Scott H. Andrews
Neil Clarke
刘维佳 (Liu Weijia)
Jonathan Strahan
Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas
杨枫 (Yang Feng)
530 ballots cast for 179 nominees. Finalists range 40-146.
Best Editor Long Form
Ruoxi Chen
Lindsey Hall
Lee Harris
Kelly Lonesome
David Thomas Moore
姚海军 (Yao Haijun)
254 ballots cast for 103 nominees. Finalists range 16-81.
Best Professional Artist
Micaela Alcaino
Rovina Cai
Galen Dara
Dan Dos Santos
Tristan Elwell
Alyssa Winans
270 ballots cast for 219 nominees. Finalists range 17-66.
Best Semiprozine
Escape Pod, editors Mur Lafferty and Valerie Valdes; assistant editors Benjamin C. Kinney, Premee Mohamed and Kevin Wabaunsee; hosts Tina Connolly and Alasdair Stuart; producers Summer Brooks and Adam Pracht; and the entire Escape Pod team
FIYAH Literary Magazine, publisher and executive editor DaVaun Sanders, poetry editor B. Sharise Moore, special projects manager L. D. Lewis, art director Christian Ivey, acquiring editors Rebecca McGee, Kerine Wint, Joshua Morley, Emmalia Harrington, Genine Tyson, Tonya R. Moore, sponsor coordinator Nelson Rolon
GigaNotoSaurus, editor LaShawn M. Wanak, associate editors Mia Tsai and Edgard Wentz, along with the GNS Slushreaders Team
khōréō, produced by Aleksandra Hill, Zhui Ning Chang, Kanika Agrawal, Isabella Kestermann, Rowan Morrison, Sachiko Ragosta, Lian Xia Rose, Jenelle DeCosta, Melissa Ren, Elaine Ho, Lilivette Domínguez, Jei D. Marcade, Jeané Ridges, Isaree Thatchaichawalit, Danai Christopoulou, M. L. Krishnan, Ysabella Maglanque, Aaron Voigt, Adil Mian, Alexandra Millatmal, E. Broderick, K. S. Walker, Katarzyna Nowacka, Katie McIvor, Kelsea Yu, Marie Croke, Osahon Ize-Iyamu, Phoebe Low, S. R. Westvik, Sara S. Messenger
Strange Horizons, by the Strange Horizons Editorial Collective
Uncanny Magazine, publishers and editors-in-chief: Lynne M. Thomas and Michael Damian Thomas; managing editor Monte Lin; nonfiction editor Meg Elison; podcast producers Erika Ensign and Steven Schapansky.
338 ballots cast for 82 nominees. Finalists range 32-159.
Best Fanzine
Black Nerd Problems, editors Omar Holmon and William Evans
The Full Lid, written by Alasdair Stuart and edited by Marguerite Kenner
Idea, editor Geri Sullivan
Journey Planet, edited by Michael Carroll, Vincent Docherty, Sara Felix, Ann Gry, Sarah Gulde, Allison Hartman Adams, Arthur Liu, Jean Martin, Helena Nash, Pádraig Ó Méalóid, Yen Ooi, Chuck Serface, Alan Stewart, Regina Kanyu Wang, James Bacon and Christopher J. Garcia
Nerds of a Feather, Flock Together, editors Roseanna Pendlebury, Arturo Serrano, Paul Weimer; senior editors Joe Sherry, Adri Joy, G. Brown, Vance Kotrla.
Unofficial Hugo Book Club Blog, editors Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk
286 ballots cast for 80 nominees. Finalists range 20-70.
Best Fancast
The Coode Street Podcast, presented by Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
Hugos There, presented by Seth Heasley
Octothorpe, by John Coxon, Alison Scott, and Liz Batty
Publishing Rodeo, presented by Sunyi Dean and Scott Drakeford
科幻Fans布玛 (Science Fiction Fans Buma), production team 布玛（Buma)，刘路（Liu Lu)，刘倡（Liu Chang)
Worldbuilding for Masochists, presented by Marshall Ryan Maresca, Rowenna Miller, Cass Morris and Natania Barron
693 ballots cast for 230 nominees. Finalists range 28-104.
Best Fan Writer
Bitter Karella
James Davis Nicoll
Jason Sanford
Alasdair Stuart
Paul Weimer
Örjan Westin
363 ballots cast for 134 nominees. Finalists range 27-134.
Best Fan Artist
Iain J. Clark
Sara Felix
Dante Luiz
Laya Rose
Alison Scott
España Sheriff
180 ballots cast for 96 nominees. Finalists range 16-43.
Lodestar Award for Best YA Book
Abeni’s Song by P. Djèlí Clark (Starscape)
Liberty’s Daughter by Naomi Kritzer (Fairwood Press)
Promises Stronger than Darkness by Charlie Jane Anders (Tor Teen)
The Sinister Booksellers of Bath by Garth Nix (Katherine Tegen Books, Gollancz and Allen & Unwin)
To Shape a Dragon’s Breath by Moniquill Blackgoose (Del Rey)
Unraveller by Frances Hardinge (Macmillan Children’s Books; eligible due to 2023 U.S. publication by Amulet)
345 ballots cast for 178 nominees. Finalists range 33-56.
Astounding Award for Best New Writer (sponsored by Dell Magazines)
Moniquill Blackgoose (1st year of eligibility)
Sunyi Dean (2nd year of eligibility)
Ai Jiang (2nd year of eligibility)
Hannah Kaner (1st year of eligibility)
Em X. Liu (1st year of eligibility)
Xiran Jay Zhao (eligibility extended at request of Dell Magazines)
349 ballots cast for 167 nominees. Finalists range 35-50.
The following nominees received enough votes to qualify for the final ballot, but declined nomination:
Best Novel – System Collapse, by Martha Wells
Best Novelette – 极北之地 (“The Far North”) by 海漄 (Hai Ya)
Best Related Work: Bigolas Dickolas Wolfwood’s promotional tweets for This Is How You Lose the Time War
Best Editor, Long Form: Natasha Bardon
Best Fan Writer: Camestros Felapton
The following nominees received enough votes to qualify for the final ballot, but were not eligible for specific reasons:
Best Novel – 天帆 (Cosmo Wings) by 江波 (Jiang Bo) – publication in 2024
Best Fancast (1) – 雨果X访谈 （Discover X）interviews by 王雅婷 Tina Wong – professional production; also qualified in the Best Related Work category.
Best Fancast (2) – 铥铥科幻电波 (Diu Diu Sci Fi Radio) – also a professional production.
By Paul Weimer, Allison Hartman Adams, Christopher J. Garcia and James Bacon:
Paul Weimer and Allison Hartman Adams join James Bacon and Christopher J. Garcia in an issue of Journey Planet that focuses on the future of the Hugo awards, looking at realistic and achievable solutions to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in 2023.
This fanzine considers what’s next, looking forward, looking at solutions, looking to rebuild trust, honesty, respectfulness and democracy.
Our focus is on “What is to be Done”, a more productive approach than speculation on the whys and wherefores, and how important it is to “be part of the change”.
GUIDELINES
We’re delighted with the interest from fans in this issue so far.
We are also pleased to announce we will be working in partnership with Mike and File 770 publishing articles where agreed subsequently here.
We wanted to share our content guidelines and the submissions email for this issue.
Content Guidelines: We are looking for next steps, solutions, where we go from here, and motions to be brought to the WSFS business meeting.
While reflecting on what occurred in 2023, we are looking to the future. There’s been a lot of Hot Air, and we are not interested in musings for the sake of it. But if you are involved actively with a current or future Worldcon, we do want your view as a person who makes this magic happen.
Contributors are welcome to send us an outline, after which we can confirm acceptance of the proposed article.
Deadline for Contributions: May 5th and May 17th 2024
Word Count: 1200 words maximum.
OPTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS:
Option 1: Submit a motion with explanation for publication. The motion and explanation might get some light copyediting (if necessary) but otherwise will be published as-is.
Deadline 17th May.
Word Count: 1200 words maximum.
Option 2: Submit a motion that will then be reviewed and commented on, by experienced practitioners and WSFS parliamentarians in a helpful way. Comments could include suggestions, pointing out possible flaws, recommendations for where to adjust, etc. These comments would be published along with your original piece, but you would have the opportunity to revise your article based on this feedback prior to publication if we have it before the 5th of May.
Allowing critique time is the 5th until the 12th, then 5 days for review, with our final deadline 17th of May.
Word Count: 1200 words maximum.
Option 3: You are involved actively with the Hugo Awards and Worldcon and want to share your future view.
Deadline 17th May.
Word Count: target of 1200 words, longer pieces will be considered.
Option 4: You are a current or past Hugo Awards finalist, and you have some views on your experience that you wish future conventions to consider constructively.
Deadline 17th May.
Word Count: target of 1200 words, longer pieces will be considered
When you submit your materials, please also let us know
If you’re attending Glasgow 2024 Worldcon?
If you will be proposing this motion and attending the business meeting?
If we should put you in touch with other fellow travelers with similarly-themed motions (with the potential to collaborate)?
Can we republish your contribution on File770.com?
Iain J. ClarkSara Felix wearing one of her tiara designs.
Glasgow 2024 today announced that the 2024 Hugo Award Base will be designed by Iain J. Clark. The trophy for the 2024 Lodestar Award for Best YA Book will be designed by Sara Felix.
These two phenomenal mixed media artists have tirelessly supported Glasgow 2024 through their creativity and generosity, and the committee says they could not imagine a better tribute to the convention, and their own strengths as artists, than having the two design these iconic works.
The final base designs will be revealed as part of the convention’s Opening Ceremony in Glasgow on 8th August.
THE 2024 HUGO AWARD BASE. Every year the iconic Hugo rocket is given a unique base design to reflect the personality of the hosting Worldcon. This year’s designer, Iain J. Clark, has been working with Glasgow 2024 since 2019.
Iain says “I’ve known about the Hugo Awards for most of my adult life (I vividly remember Babylon 5 winning Best Dramatic Presentation in 1996) but the idea that I could design a base for the iconic trophy never entered my head. You might as well have told me I’d design an Oscar. And then Glasgow asked me, and I was stunned – so naturally I panicked and said yes. It’s a huge honor, a huge responsibility, and I take it very seriously. I can’t wait for everyone to see it.”
Iain works in a variety of materials, primarily acrylics. He has twice won the BSFA Best Artwork Award (for “Shipbuilding Over The Clyde” in 2020, and for “Glasgow Green Woman” in 2021); both pieces were created for the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon. He has been a finalist for the Best Fan Artist Hugo Award in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.
For the Dublin 2019 Worldcon he created artworks including the cover of the Souvenir Book, and for Glasgow 2024 his art is appearing on banners, adverts, postcards, campaigns and t-shirts.
THE 2024 LODESTAR AWARD. The Lodestar Award was first given in 2018, and since its inception has been celebrating the beauty of YA fiction. The first Lodestar award was designed by Sara Felix beginning a trend of trophies that honour the very best in YA Science Fiction and Fantasy.
According to Sara: “I was happy to be asked to design the Lodestar Award as it is one of my favourite awards at the Hugos. In all my projects with Glasgow I hope the award is as fantastic as the finalists and the winners in this category!”
Sara Felix is a mixed media artist who has previously designed the Hugo Award bases in 2016 and 2018 (the latter co-designed with Vincent Villafranca). She has designed multiple Lodestar awards and other special awards for Worldcons in the past. She is the designer of the Glasgow 2024 logo and much of the art used by the convention. Her space art and tiaras can be seen at multiple conventions around the US and UK throughout each year.
Paul Weimer joins James Bacon and Christopher J. Garcia in a forthcoming issue of Journey Planet that focuses on the future of the Hugo awards, looking at realistic and achievable solutions to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in 2023.
Button created by Brad Templeton’s ClariNet the day after a mixup in announcing a 1992 Hugo winner.
Paul is one of a number of people who were treated appallingly by the Chengdu Worldcon, whose valid nomination was arbitrarily made ineligible by Dave McCarty under Ben Yalow, in the disastrous Chengdu Hugo Awards corruption of 2023
This fanzine considers what next, looking forward, looking at solutions, looking to rebuild trust, honesty, respectfulness and democracy.
The editors welcome hearing from fellow fans who are keen to see through changes. To be part of the change, to help see it through.
This issue will work to bring together ideas, and imaginative but manageable proposals that other fans can galvanise around.
We know many fans already have thrown themselves into considerable amounts of work, ensuring the Hugo’s are spectacular, transparent and democratic with check points and if they have time, we will see what they too think, as well as seeking input from experienced practitioners, who are like ourselves appalled, but may have views on workloads and feasibility.
Making the argument now is important, to ensure there is support, as fans will be at Glasgow in person, or have representatives, to speak for and vote on motions.
There has been much hot air, obfuscation and silence. Figuring things out with the people who will have to work to deliver on any changes is vitally important. Moving notions and ideas forward needs the engagement and the views of those by all stakeholders directly impacted while welcoming all who from the community who wish to be part of the solution.
While many parts of Fandom have had vast amounts of activity, discussion and engagement, we hope we can create a focus point for distilling these into potential motions and suggestions. Contributions will have limitations in length, (1,200 words) and also contributors will be asked to state if they will be at Glasgow willing to put forward their argument.
We will work to connect common ideas, to see if consensus can be formed, while also seeking an understanding of the mechanics required from a parliamentary perspective. We have planned with Mike Glyer to then publish the articles in order on File 770 for broader consideration and looking to galvanise consensus.
Paul wants to focus on “What is to be Done”, a more productive approach than speculation on the whys and wherefores, and how important it is to “be part of the change” and we welcome that.
Mini Hugo rocket carried into space and photgraphed by astronaut Kjell Lindgren in 2015.
By Doctor Science: This is a first draft. I don’t know all the arcane rituals for submitting something to the WSFS Business Meeting, but I hope to get to that in due course.
Proposal: that there should be a permanent Hugo Tech Working Group
This Working Group shall be answerable to the WSFS, either in the form of the Business Meeting, or in the form of some other committee or group.
The Hugo Tech Working Group (HTWG) doesn’t set rules for the Hugo Awards software, it actually does the work (hence the name). The HTWG is not a directly elected group, but it must report and be answerable to elected groups. The HTWG will include:
one or more “Gurus”: people who had a major role in writing the open-source software currently being used (hi Chris!)
one or more “Scribes”: responsible for documentation, manuals, and reports
1 person from Worldcon N-1
at least 3 people from Worldcon N
2 people from Worldcon N+1
where N is the current Worldcon.
The “Hugo Awards software” is whatever performs the following functions:
validates that a given person has the right to nominate or vote. This is a function of the registration system, which is handled by Worldcon N
accepts nominations
canonicalizes nominations, i.e. makes names uniform
calculates finalists
accepts final ballots
calculates winners
What problems am I trying to solve with this proposal?
One of the (many) shocking revelations in Chris Barkley’s interview with Dave McCarty was that the software McCarty wrote to determine the final ballot was erroneous, and he knew it: “The SQL query from from the data for the ballot counts in each category actually has a fucking flaw and it’s and it’s mistaken.”
I said, “Why is Dave talking about SQL? Is each Worldcon re-inventing the vote-counting wheel?”
Chris Rose/Chris_R/offby1, who’s worked on the software for numerous Worldcons, replied:
in my observation, convention committees all seem to have at least one person on them, in a position of authority, who wants to be the one to invent the software suite to rule them all that will solve all future fannish endeavours henceforth. I’ve seen it result in thousands of hours of volunteer software development in the short time I’ve been in this community, and I don’t foresee it [stopping].
Then Mary Robinette Kowal said she’d learned that McCarty had not only written his own Hugo Awards software, but it’s proprietary, he won’t show anyone else the code.
Unlike what we’ve had so far, the Hugo Awards software (HAS, hereafter) needs to have these characteristics:
transparency: HAS cannot be a black box. It has to be clear to qualified nerds (of which SFF fandom has a plethora) how the results are generated, at each step. This almost certainly means it has to be an open-source project. I understand that many major tech companies have vampiric employment contracts that make it impossible for their workers to contribute to open-source projects on their own time, but this shouldn’t be a limiting problem for the WSFS. We are literally Nerd Central, we can cast a net a little wider than the Usual Suspects and find people who aren’t hamstrung by their employers.
checkability: it must be possible for each step to be audited. It must be possible for a recount to take place, if necessary. This would mean coming up with some way to break the connection between a particular ballot and the person who cast it, something comparable to the separation of a mail-in paper ballot from its identifying envelope.
dependability: if HAS worked in year N, it should work in year N+1. Voters and conrunners should be able to treat HAS as a reliable utility, not a box of surprises.
flexability: it should be possible to make small modifications and extensions to HAS without starting over. This is another reason it probably has to be some variety of open-source project. Every decade or two technical debt and technological change will probably mean that HAS will need to be re-done, but since the Working Group has a lifespan longer than that of a single Worldcon, the project will have a chance to be done rationally.
I’m making this proposal because I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t have the technical experience to work on HAS, but I’ve been married to a guru-level database and software consultant for 35 years, I used to develop websites, I understand the desire to be the Mighty Wizard of HAS. But I can see that this desire to be perfect has been the enemy of the good, and at times even the functional.
So one big purpose of a Hugo Tech Working Group is to make HAS boring, to discourage people who have a Grand Vision while encouraging those who just like to do work that gets done. It makes it lower-stakes, maybe even reducing the load on the Worldcon tech team, so they can do a better job and yet still have time for fun, without massive burnout (a gal can dream).
Structurally, people have been talking about splitting WSFS Worldcon functions from Hugo Awards functions. The HTWG would be part of the Hugo Awards half, but mostly staffed by people from Worldcons.
My idea is that most of the HTWG staff are the tech people from current Worldcon N, the ones who set up the software, run it, do the hand-checking for canonicalization, and so forth. There’s one person from Worldcon N-1, whose job is to say “this is what we did last time that worked, this is what we tried that didn’t work.” There are also 2 people from Worldcon N+1, who are there to learn the ropes and to start setting up their instance of HAS.
The real working group part of the HTWG comes when HAS has to be modified. The Gurus are there to know the details of the code, what’s actually easy or difficult to do with this software, Worldcon N-1 person to talk about what changes would have helped most, Worldcon N+2 people to talk about problems they see on the horizon.
Mr Dr Science advises me that this is the sort of situation where holy wars can start, which I’m sure is part of why HAS has kept being changed in the past. I’m eager for advice on how to structure the HTWG to avoid holy wars and other purity contests, so that it keeps focused on: Does this work? Is it transparent, checkable, dependable? Does the HTWG need non-technical members or overseers, for instance?
I eagerly invite comments and suggestions, especially on how to structure this proposal for presentation at the Business Meeting in Glasgow. For instance: can it be presented as a stand-alone, or does it go as a subset of some larger Splitting-the-WSFS proposal? Is the position of Scribe necessary, to do the documentation, put together reports, etc?
It is my firm belief that institutionalising tech solutions for WorldCons in a standing committee, as proposed above, will be disastrous. It will blur accountability and demotivate volunteers. … The “permanent Tech Team” already exists informally. The pool of knowledge is not wide but it is deep.
I’m not sure what about the HTWG he was objecting to, or if he was talking about something in the discussion more generally.
As proposed, the core of the HTWG is the tech subcommittee from Worldcon N. Yes, it constrains them, by saying “this is the software suite we’ve been using and that you’re going to have to use”, but it also helps them, bringing them in as soon as they win the bid, listening to their needs and suggestions, training them, and making them part of the Tech Team in a way that’s *not* informal and based on friendship networks. Informal networks are great if you’re not being covered by major news outlets, but we’ve passed that point.
By Ersatz Culture: [Via SF Light Year’s Weibo post, which is where the images accompanying this item are sourced from, although some in turn seem to have originated at the dyy822izv0vq Douyin account]
A machine translation, via Google Translate with minor manual cleanups of the text, follows; thanks to yjtc for help with understanding some of the more official/legalese language:
Chengdu Science Fiction Museum
Formal Official Statement
Recently, rumors have appeared on the Internet about Chengdu Science Fiction Museum cooperating with a travel agency to organize overseas science fiction study activities, arousing public attention. Chengdu Science Fiction Museum attaches great importance to this, and makes the following official statement:
Chengdu Science Fiction Museum has never authorized or entrusted any organization to carry out overseas science fiction study activities, nor has it participated in related activities in any form. We would like to appeal to the public not to believe false rumors appearing on the Internet. The museum firmly opposes any untrue remarks that damage the reputation of Chengdu Science Fiction Museum, and reserves the right to pursue legal liability from the relevant persons.
Thank you for your attention and support. Please work together to maintain the health of the online environment, and to promote the exchange and development of science fiction culture.
Hereby stated [for clarification].
Chengdu Science Fiction Museum
March 1, 2024
This is the first time I’ve seen any online posts directly from the museum; it doesn’t seem to have a website or Weibo account. (I don’t have access to the core WeChat/Weixin functionality; quite possibly they have been active on there before now.)
Glasgow 2024 has announced that Los Angeles (LA) in 2026 is the only bid to have been formally submitted by the filing deadline of February 18, 2024 as required by the WSFS Constitution in order to appear on the printed ballot. The required documentation was submitted to Glasgow’s Site Selection Administrator on February 2, 2024 by the LA in 2026 Bid Committee. Their website link is LA in 2026.
To be on the ballot, the WSFS Constitution requires a bidding committee to file the specified documents no later than 180 days prior to the official opening of the administering convention. Write-ins are still eligible provided the bidding committee files the required documents by the close of the voting.
The election to select the site of the 2026 WorldCon will be administered by Glasgow 2024, the 2024 WorldCon. The documents filed by LA in 2026 can be found on the Glasgow 2024 website here. The proposed dates are August 27 to August 31, at the Anaheim Convention Centre and Anaheim Hilton. The Bid Chair and proposed Convention Chair is Joyce Lloyd.
About Site Selection: Worldcon sites are selected two years in advance, by a secret ballot of WSFS members. For this year this includes all full Adult and Young Adult Attending members, Online Members with bundled WSFS Memberships, and WSFS Members of Glasgow 2024.
Any group that meets the technical requirements in the WSFS Constitution and files the necessary documents with the administering Worldcon may bid for the right to host a Worldcon.
Glasgow 2024 WSFS Members who wish to vote in Site Selection will need to buy an Advance WSFS Membership in the 2026 Worldcon, at a cost of £45.00. All members who pay this fee will automatically become WSFS Members of the 2026 Worldcon, regardless of who they vote for (or indeed if they vote at all).
Details on how to vote in site selection will be announced early in April 2024. All Advance WSFS Membership fees received by Glasgow for the 2026 Worldcon will be passed on to the successful candidate.
