Glasgow 2024 has announced an innovative consultative vote on a proposed change to the Hugo Award categories.
The proposed change, initially passed by the 2023 WSFS Business Meeting in Chengdu, would create two new Hugo Award categories, the Best Independent Short Film Award and the Best Independent Feature Film Award. This change would have to be ratified by the 2024 WSFS Business Meeting in Glasgow to take effect, with the first Hugo Awards in these categories being given out at the 2024 Worldcon in Seattle, USA.
All individuals holding WSFS Memberships have been invited to express their views on this proposal. The results of the consultative vote are not binding but are expected to inform the 2024 Business Meeting’s debate and decision.
Details of the consultative vote can be found on the Glasgow 2024 website.
Announcing the vote, WSFS Division Head Nicholas Whyte said “Among the many potential reforms to WSFS Business Meeting procedures, putting proposals and other matters to a vote of WSFS members is an innovation that has often been mentioned, but has not previously made it beyond the idea stage. We therefore propose to test the operation of a consultative vote, to explore if and how such a procedure could become part of the permanent rules. Glasgow 2024’s core values are to be caring, inclusive and imaginative as a convention. The consultative vote is imaginative, in that it has not been done before; it demonstrates that we care about our members’ opinions; and it will be more inclusive than a physical meeting can ever be. We also note that we are not exercising the option of a special Hugo category this year; the consultative vote is our contribution to the ongoing development of the awards.”
[Based on a press release.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very pleased they are trying this. Next step, Popular Ratification.
Yes. Testing out consultative voting is hopefully just the first step.
I’m guessing that “2024 Worldcon in Seattle, USA” is a typo and should be “2025 Worldcon.”
When Glasgow announced that they would do this, they said that “The proposers will be invited to write a short statement in support of their proposal, and we will offer a similar facility to opponents.” Did that ever happen?
(FWIW, I think that deciding whether or not a given film is “Independent” will prove to be problematic in the future, and further there’s nothing so special about the independent/not independent dichotomy that justifies separate Hugo awards. Not every subdivision of SF storytelling deserves its own award.)
“Did that ever happen?”
I just voted, and yes, there were pro and contra statements that followed the text of the proposed changes.
@bill–
Yes. The statements, pro and con, are available on the voting site.
Can you post the for and against statements here?
Go vote! (Unless you aren’t a WSFS member.)
No, they can’t post the for and against statements here.
Ask how I know that.
I’m guessing that the issue has already come up, and they politely (in the spirit of transparency) declined permission.
Bill: No, it’s because I don’t want to host them.
I am sorry that Glasgow is running this “consultative vote”. It’s not provided for in the Constitution. It has no effect, but an illusory effect is claimed for it in that the information will be known to those at the Business Meeting. It’s a stunt to further the agenda of people who want to add online voting to the functionality of the Business Meeting — an option they could have but did not introduce as a rules amendment at the actual Business Meeting. It adds static that distracts the attention of people from a record amount of work the Business Meeting will have to do. It’s also unfair to the people who obtained first passage for their motion at Chengdu to have Glasgow come along and turn their work into a political experimental animal.
I see it as somewhat of a trial for the Popular Ratification proposal. Not that they knew that would be on the agenda when they decided to do this, but the general idea has been kicking around for a long time.
With respect, do we really need more film awards? The industry is already awash with the darned things, especially those aimed at short and / or independent films.
@Mike — Your reason is better than the one I suggested. And I agree with your assessment of the idea of a vote.
Pingback: AMAZING NEWS FROM FANDOM: July 28, 2024 - Amazing Stories
Mike Glyer: Thank you for unpacking this. It is a worthwile argument; I am not sure how to respond to it, but I am certainly grateful to you for putting it forward.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I find it a bit sad that with all that work on FAQs, Glasgow can’t even post the proposals themselves outside the paywall, let alone the pro and con statements.
Also, it is a pity that you could not mention that the deadline is on 5 August; and the link to “the Glasgow 2024 website” actually leads to a Mailchimp campaign.
@Jan Vanek: There’s no paywall blocking access to the pro and con statements. It’s accessible free along with the consultative ballot on the Glasgow 2024 website.
I will post the direct link in my next comment, but I understand that Mike is dissatisfied with this consultative vote and doesn’t want the statements posted here. So if Mike doesn’t even want the link, he can delete my next comment. I’m not trying to violate what Mike wants, just to help Jan and others who haven’t seen the statements.
Here’s the link to the ballot with statements:
https://glasgow2024.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/consultative_ballot.pdf
The award certainly seems to benefit Independent Films more than it does the Worldcon community.
Minor quibble: I found the voting site’s method of indicating that one’s vote has been registered and recorded to be a bit awkward. Upon selecting either the yes or no button, a brief, easy-to-miss small pop-up window appears in the upper left corner of the screen, remaining visible for barely long enough to read before disappearing. If you’re not looking at the correct portion of the screen, you can miss it entirely. There is a note on the page stating that if the pop-up appears and the selected button remains highlighted then one’s vote has been registered, none of which is nearly as reassuring as the standard online voting method of a separate “submit” button which then leads to a confirmation page showing the vote that has been registered. Barring that sort of two-part vote registration system, at least moving the on-screen location of the pop-up confirmation window to nearer the actual vote button would give voters a fighting chance of actually seeing the confirmation message.
@David Ian Salter: Thanks for the feedback; i’ve recorded it as issue #176 and I’ll see if the Seattle release of NomNom can do that more effectively.