A friend wrote that the news of Charlie Brown’s death had convinced him to vote against abolishing the Semiprozine category. He thinks the timing is unsavory, and it would be disrespectful to the memory of a giant in the field.
For the same reason, a few other fans have speculated about parliamentary maneuvers to derail the vote or eviscerate the amendment. As these are people who actually attend Business Meetings, there’s always a possibility they will translate these sentiments into action.
What I expect to happen, and hope will happen, is that the vote on ratification will occur as scheduled, and on the motion in its present form.
First, the WSFS Constitution states the ratification vote is the work “of the subsequent Worldcon.” So let’s just get on with it.
Second, if there was any “disrespect” inherent in eliminating the category it was already communicated to Charlie Brown while he was alive. I’m convinced the rules change was not purposed to offend Charlie but, in either case, he is beyond being hurt anymore.
Third, it’s the opponents to the motion I’ve seen speak against carrying on in the aftermath of Charlie’s death. However, it’s also the opponents who have tried to use online discussion to get more people who might not otherwise appear at the Business Meeting to come and vote against ratification. Next year’s Worldcon is in Australia – the motion’s supporters, who are Business Meeting “regulars” will attend, but will its opponents be there? It seems to me that delay works to the detriment of opponents of ratification.
Ratification can’t be delayed to the next Worldcon. The motion is either ratified in Montreal, or it fails and has to start again, which would mean passing in Australia and then being ratified in (presumably) Reno. So delay is good, if you’re opposed to the amendment.
I think your first sentence is correct, period. And so it won’t be.
“Charlie … is beyond being hurt anymore.”
Well, Lester didn’t think Judy-Lynn was.
“Well, Lester didn’t think Judy-Lynn was.”
But that was Lester. I don’t recall Judy-Lynn speaking to the issue.
What I find odd about this argument is that some of the people who are saying that considering this amendment at this time is like spitting on Charlie’s grave or the like are the same people who were insisting that the amendment was not specifically aimed at LOCUS. My feeling is that the amendment should be considered on its merits regardless of whether one of the people who might have been affected is no longer with us.
Pingback: Plus Ca Change, Plus Ca Change | The Crotchety Old Fan