Seattle Worldcon 2025 committee issued a press release today stating that four virtual business meeting sessions held in July will take the place of the in-person Worldcon business meeting. Currently the only business they expect to be taken up on site is announcing the site selection result. The first session will be held on the Fourth of July.
Seattle Worldcon 2025 Announcement: Building the Business Meeting’s Future–For Everyone!
Have you ever wondered about or wanted to participate in how the rules that govern the Worldcon, the Hugo Awards, and other aspects of WSFS get made? We do this at the business meeting. However: have you ever been unable to attend a business meeting session because your favorite author or panel is happening at the same time during the convention? Have you ever been unable to attend the convention, but still wanted to participate in the business meeting?
Fear not! We are excited to announce that this year we have developed a new process for the business meeting: a series of pre-convention, virtual meetings! Seattle Worldcon 2025 will host the business meeting virtually on four different dates prior to the convention: July 4, July 13, July 19, and July 25. These dates were chosen in order to accommodate as best as possible religious observance, work commitments, and time zone differences. Viewing of the meeting will be open to all; however, to participate in the meeting and vote on business will require an attending membership or virtual attending membership in the convention. Our business meeting chair, Jesi Lipp, has experience with hosting virtual business meetings and is excited to bring that wealth of knowledge to WSFS and Seattle Worldcon 2025 in order to expand access and to enfranchise groups historically unable to participate.
To help prepare everyone for this new step forward, Seattle Worldcon 2025’s WSFS team has planned additional events. If you are intimidated by the thought of the business meeting or you’ve wanted to propose a change but are not sure how, you can learn the ropes at one or both of the informational town halls we have lined up. The business meeting chair and WSFS division also anticipate having at least one practice session prior to the virtual meeting using the virtual meeting platform.
Please note that voting for site selection for the 2027 Worldcon will include in-person voting at the convention, and that the announcement of the site selection winner will be done in person at Seattle Worldcon 2025.
Any questions – please reach out to business-meeting-help@seattlein2025.org.
Stay tuned for further details on this exciting new step into the future of the Business Meeting!
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m really excited to see this approach attempted and experimented with; having had to spend basically all of Glasgow over in that separate hotel just to be in the room to vote on some of the things I had strong opinions on… it might have been nice to, you know, been at a worldcon too.
Let’s see how this goes!
Hooray! The WSFS Business Meeting enters the 21st century!
When I was in Glasgow I wanted to attend the business meetings but my choice was attend them or attend Worldcon itself. I decided it was better to actually learn the job I am taking on for Seattle Worldcon 2025. Super excited that we’re making this change! See you at both the business meetings AND Worldcon!
Not sure about the religious accommodation bit; one of those is a Jewish fast day.
Excellent news!
@Lisa I believe the idea is that between all the dates, there is sufficient access to accommodate everyone. Not that every day is accessible to all.
This is great news. Congratulations to Seattle Worldcon and the whole community.
@ChrisR But some of us, at least, like to attend all the meetings, and one of them falls on Westercon weekend.
Sure. That’s an inevitable tradeoff that will happen here. The current model also has many people who have to make compromises about attendance. There exists no time that will be available to all members without compromise.
@ChrisR – So you’re trading one group of known fans who regularly commit to attending the WSFS BM at Worldcon for another group of fans whose commitment to both WSFS and Worldcon is, at best, unknown.
Sure seems like that’s the case.
There are a lot of assumptions underlying that, not least the assumption that business meeting attendance is equivalent to having commitment to Worldocn — given that attending the former effectively prevents you fully participating in the latter, and the people running the latter tend not to have the time to attend the former, I think that attending the business meeting in person is a poor marker of investment in the Worldcon.
What I am pretty sure we will get are people who have different ideas of how those should work. I welcome it.
I view this with hope and trepidation. I am pretty sure the WSFS Constitution requires a certain number of physical bodies in a place for a Business Meeting. Is that point addressed somewhere? I am not an expert, but those I know who are have brought that up.
that business meeting attendance is equivalent to having commitment to Worldcon
Not an assumption. WSFS makes the rules for Worldcon. Without WSFS there is no Worldcon. The BM is one of the three things needed to host a Worldcon, the other two being a sure selection vote and a High Awards vote. (But you don’t need a ceremony.)
When will Glasgow 2024 be posting the minutes of the business meeting? I find I suddenly have an interest in knowing what changes to the Standing Rules were passed there, and the WSFS website still has only the 2023 edition.
The 2023 Standing Rules required persons to be physically present at the Business Meeting to participate. The 2024 agenda included a proposal to repeal that requirement.
@Mike Glyer
The 2024 minutes have been finalized and should hopefully be posted on WSFS.org soon. I had an attack of Real Life and post-election fatigue that delayed my final review and edits.
No excuse needed. I wouldn’t be looking for them even now, except a radical change has been announced to how business meetings will be run.
I feel for the people who love the in-person business meeting so much that they’ll now be at a loose end at the Worldcon – I hope they find other things to engage with at the Worldcon.
But do I think we should make the business meeting accessible to the people who can’t normally attend the Business meeting because they’re too busy running the Worldcon, and to the people who can’t attend normally the Business meeting because they can’t afford to attend the physical Worldcon every year? Very much so.
While not an official minute of the proceedings, Chris M. Barkley’s 10 August post to this very website recording the events of the Preliminary Business Meeting, noted that the motion to repeal Standing Rule 7.9 was passed. Which seems correct as best I can recall.
Some slight curiosity as to how they’re going to achieve the quorum requirements in the Constitution but I will (generously) assume there’s a plan for that.
This is an exercise in raw power. People can choose to fall in line or be left out. It is not rules centered.
I would really like someone to explain to me without referring to tradition how this is a greater disenfranchisement than disallowing WSFS members who are unable to attend the Worldcon.
Your comment quickly followed mine but without addressing what I said.
This change has been executed by Seattle without advance proposals, discussion, attempt to build consensus, or any other hallmarks of democracy.
That’s what I’m talking about.
I haven’t been in this community as long as many, but I feel like critique of longstanding problems with the structure and administration of the business meeting has been a constant topic of conversation. There were food fights on this subject at the first SMOFcon I attended in Albuquerque in 2019. Jesi Lipp has been talking about this particular innovation for a long time, and they have now been hired by three consecutive Worldcon committees to lead the business meeting (Glasgow, Seattle, and LA). That seems like a vote of high confidence in Jesi, and now that I am getting to know them, I can see why.
I may or may not be reading all the rooms correctly where this has been discussed, but hypothetically let’s imagine there are four WSFS members who are pleased or at least cautiously optimistic to hear that a Worldcon committee is embarking on this experiment for each one who is perturbed. Would it be less of an exercise of raw power for the Worldcon committee to defer to the 20 percent who remain invested in the status quo and are willing to make the loudest noise to protect their minority interest?
Now I start my editorial–I think the strength of this distributed system of independent Worldcon committees is to allow different committees to be laboratories of innovation. Meanwhile, I have seen indications that too many business meeting regulars have become dangerously estranged from the actual interests and needs of the very Worldcon committees and Worldcon members that make all of this possible. Folks who seem to have convinced themselves that Worldcons exist to serve WSFS, rather than WSFS existing to serve Worldcons. Roland of Gilead might say, these individuals have forgotten the face of their fathers. /end soapbox.
I’m assuming that the business meetings in July will not be all day long. If you’re at another con (or a 4th of July barbeque), you can probably afford to spend PART of one day (hopefully not more than 4 hours) at the WSFS meeting (rather than four plus hours a day for four days of the Worldcon). The WSFS Business Meeting has become unsustainable. We have a 19th century governance structure for a 21st century organization. If we don’t do SOMETHING drastic, the organization will collapse. So let’s try this and see how it works (or doesn’t).
How will voting take place? If I’m in a room with, say, 10 other people watching the meeting on a single computer, how will our votes be counted? Is someone going to take a roll call for each vote? How will that maintain confidentially? I would like to see what procedures are going to be in place.
This is excellent news.
This will allow the people who actually run the Worldcon, the chairs, the division heads, the area heads the staff and volunteers, over 800 people, the opportunity to participate in the forum where the proposals, discussion, debate and decisions that will affect them and their future conventions take place.
I have encountered a dreadful, lack of understanding from members at the business meeting who seem to have no comprehension of workload, dedication and commitment involved with actually running the convention. The thousands of people who volunteer to run a worldcon are a really important part of this community and I think it’s brilliant that they will at least have the opportunity to be involved with the constitutional process.
Allowing the opportunity to involve as many stakeholders as possible is a really excellent development, for instance, many Hugo finalists are busy on panels which is where we want to see them of course. Yet their input into matters relating to the Hugo Awards is not only very valid but desired, hopefully this will assist with getting those voices heard.
I have also encountered some exceptionally helpful, constitutionally committed, intelligently aware people who have helped and assisted in making this parliamentary process accessible (insofar as feasible in that format) and helping bring positive changes to fruition and I really hope they, fans who understand. Parliamentary process, can share this positivity now with a much wider group of members.
I look forward to seeing this goes. I have full confidence in Jesi Lipp and their team figuring out the details and sharing them.
I think this is meaningful progress.
Huh, one’s on my birthday. Happy Birthday to me. . . .
Hm, the WSFS Constitution says, in paragraph 5.1.1
I cannot in any sensible way reconcile “the month before Worldcon” with “at Worldcon”. I could, possibly, see a head table, in a room at Worldcon, with everyone else appearing by remote link, as “at Worldcon”.
@Ingvar: Yes, my thoughts, too. Constitutionally, these don’t seem to be WSFS Business Meetings. It doesn’t say “or anywhere/anywhen else you like.” It doesn’t say “should be.” It doesn’t go on to describe other places or times they MAY be held.
I could say I’m holding a WSFS Business Meeting at my house tomorrow; that doesn’t make it so. Even with 12 WSFS members present for a quorum. 😉
(NOTE to those who like to think they can read minds: No, I’m not against virtual participation, etc.)
Your example of an at-con Biz Mtg with everyone else virtual would fit fine, though! With 12+ people physically in the at-con room, of course (per Section 5.1.5).
Worldcons exist in a state of quantum superposition until someone opens the box.
Pingback: Top 10 Stories for December 2024 | File 770
@David Hook @Linda Deneroff BM is one of the three things needed to host a Worldcon
Agreed (well three at least – there are a number of other things the Worldcon committee are obliged/required by the Constitution and also the Matters of Continuing Effect).
@Alison Scott I feel for the people who love the in-person business meeting… But… we should make the business meeting accessible to the people who can’t normally attend the Business meeting
Agreed. (But this will take some discussion and careful thinking and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.) It also needs to take into account for those that have no personal/private secure access to the internet, something that many digitally-privileged forget.
@Mike This change has been executed by Seattle without advance proposals, discussion, attempt to build consensus, or any other hallmarks of democracy.
Agreed. Though recent events have demonstrated that WSFS has no interest in governance to ensure adhesion to the Constitution and the Rules of Continuing Effect.
Sadly some Worldcon-runners (fortunately not all) are not interested in Constitution adherence let alone the broader matters of discussion, attempting to build consensus, or any other hallmarks of democracy. Some might possibly argue that these are also hallmarks of trufandom?
@Linda Deneroff How will voting take place?
Good question.
@James Bacon they will at least have the opportunity to be involved with the constitutional process
Surprised that you are that interested in the WSFS constitution. Weren’t you a senior member of a recent Worldcon committee that disregarded constitution 1.5.2 and Matters of Continuing Effect BM-2017-01???
@Ingvar Hm, the WSFS Constitution says, in paragraph 5.1.1…
Yes it does. (But I don’t think some Worldcon organisers care [even though some others do], and it just takes just one or two senior Worldcon committee members to go rogue for a Worldcon to depart from the Constitution without any comeback. Also, the WSFS does not seem to have governance mechanism[s] in place to encourage adherence to the Constitution, nor does the WSFS seem willing to facilitate a discussion to create such governance machinery.)
@Kendall NOTE to those who like to think they can read minds: No, I’m not against virtual participation, etc.
So with you there.
Some observations (I have no firm thoughts on these, just possible issues of concern). Not everyone has personal, secure access to the internet. Some 35% of UK households occupied solely by over 65s are not on the internet (possibly the figure is less than this in the US and more than this in some parts of Europe and elsewhere?). If we are going to include digital then it needs to be ‘additive to’ and not ‘instead of’ physical BMs.
As noted by some above, a secure voting mechanism will be needed.
If there are to be multiple on-line business meetings, will folk be able to attend all of them? (Probably not.) If the agenda is split across these meetings then some will only be able to participate in some of the agenda (which is, arguably, what happens now with physical). Conversely, if the all the agenda items apply to all the virtual meetings then how will the way discussion of an issue evolves across the meetings be taken into account if, as is likely, not everyone can attend everything?
It could be that replacing physical with virtual BMs will simply replace one lot of disadvantages and advantages with another lot of disadvantages and advantages. This is another reason for any new on-line dimension to the BM needing to be additive rather than replacement.
It strikes me that one possible way (of others) forward would for this year to have an online discussion in advance of the Worldcon as to how the BM might have an (extra) on-line dimension. These advance on-line meetings would be attended by that section of our community who prefer online and so speak to their needs. One of their number might be chosen to work up a short, reasoned report as to what online BM dimensions might include and address hurdles. (But it should be remembered that this on-line preferring section of Worldcon fandom would not be speaking for those that prefer physical or prefer physical/on-line hybrid, meetings.) This would be presented to the physical, constitutionally mandated business meeting.
This, at least, would ensure that there are the advance proposals, discussion, attempt to build consensus, or any other hallmarks of democracy involved that @Mike raises.
And of course, true to form, those who currently have a role in WSFS have remained silent on Seattle’s unilateral move: not even a small group of them have issued an unofficial statement…
Which brings me to a final point; actually, questions really. Did Seattle come up with this all by itself? If not was WSFS involved? If so don’t they know their own constitution?
Jonathan on January 6, 2025 at 4:25 am said:
There is no WSFS to involve here. Worldcons have sweeping authority to order their own affairs. In this case, It would appear that Seattle does indeed know the WSFS constitution, specifically (emphasis mine):
I wouldn’t otherwise pretend to speak for them, given that I have no official role of any sort with their committee.
@Kevin Standlee: The Constitution taking highest precedence was behind my comment about these not being valid business meetings. Since “house rules” are trumped by the Constitution and Standing Rules, one can’t just make stuff up that isn’t constitutional (e.g., to use a more obvious example, a rule that quorum is 2 virtual attendees wouldn’t be valid).
Although huh, the in-person, quorate BM could suspend extra rules anyway. The potential for chaos is dizzying. ;-(
(EDIT: My potential for confusing typos is dizzying, and chaotic, as well, sorry.)
@Kevin, indeed, @Kendall’s take was my take too.
Both Glasgow and Seattle seem to have done their own thing (with regards to Supporting/no-show Attending member publications and virtual only BM respectively) with zero comeback from WSFS.
The point that @Mike makes about discussion and consensus building is also germane, which makes @James Bacon’s comment on getting more folk to be involved with the constitutional process somewhat jarring give his senior role in Glasgow….!!! Why should folk get involved if Worldcons can just go their own sweet way without comeback?
Pingback: 2025 Worldcon Picks Virtual Business Meeting Platform | File 770