Tag Archives: Journey Planet

Be The Change by Marguerite Smith

Posted on by
9

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This tenth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue begins with Marguerite Smith’s assessment of the attractions and drawbacks of the Worldcon community, follows with a wish list for improving the experience for participants and the committee.

By Marguerite Smith: Change is inevitable. It can be planned for or unexpected, desired or dreaded, and it can even be overlooked, but it will always be there. To bastardise Heraclitus, no fan can attend the same convention twice.

The key, then, is to plan for it. Even as a member (or attendee), you’ll have lived another year, the convention may be in a new location, new people will be involved, and new things will have arisen to discuss.

As an organiser, things are even more complicated. You are responsible for deciding the direction your convention will go, on top of building the team and convincing them to go along with you!

Everyone will have their own methods; this is only the way I’m currently thinking about it.

In my line of work, we often have to work out a plan to get from where we are to where we want to be. That means we have to have an honest look at where we currently are. These are some of the points that I see from my perspective, all horribly generalised:

  • We’re a group of fans who are passionate about our interest(s).
  • People who join more than one year are trying to revisit whatever spark it was that drew them in.
  • As people spend longer in the community, or helping organise, the more ownership they tend to feel around the convention.
  • People who volunteer really like volunteering, to see things get done or to make something special happen or to be recognised for their efforts. Usually a mix.
  • As a side effect of the above few points, it means that people want to keep volunteering, which is great in some ways but can be counterproductive in others: our volunteers “already know” what needs doing, so things aren’t written down and shared, plus there is often limited space for someone new to come in or for something new to be tried.
  • We tend to be of a size – and tend to cater to certain expectations – that bring us to financial difficulties. We are too big and too demanding for truly small venues, but don’t have the membership where we can reduce membership fees and rely on scale to cover our costs.
  • The overarching framework is deliberately slow to change. It has been built over decades, changing (and sometimes re-changing) bits incrementally.
  • Bidding cycles are getting longer, and drawing more long-term energy. They also, understandably, tend to focus on their own goals. Even where volunteers overlap, there tends to be limited coordination or discussion between the bids.

This is only a fraction of the current state, and a true analysis would need a much broader pool of observations than just my own to draw from!

Next step, then, is to decide where we want to be. This is even more personal, as every chair or potential chair needs to steer their own ship. Sometimes, chairs’ visions will overlap and coordination is possible. Sometimes, they’re entirely contradictory! We can only do our best.

Again, all views my own:

  • I want to include as many people acting in good faith as possible. The point about scale above means that we tend to have expensive memberships and supplements. For us, it’s worth it, but it’s still objectively a large sum in one go for many.

The WSFS rule limiting the ratio between WSFS membership and attending supplement price means that we have to keep WSFS high in order to keep attending supplements at a price that’s likely to cover our costs. We can’t lower WSFS memberships to allow for a more worldwide or socioeconomically-spread body.

  • I feel that the costs and time-load of volunteering, especially at committee level or across several years, means that we are losing the energy and voices of other fans. I don’t know that we’ll ever get to being truly cost-neutral, but there are plenty of people who would make amazing contributions if they had the time / money / ways in to get into leadership or advisory positions.
  • On that last, it’s not enough to simply have an open door – we have to actively show that we are welcoming and would like new people to come in. A new person turning up at a family reunion or a gathering of long- time friends is always likely to feel that they’re intruding to some degree or another, after all, unless they are actively included.
  • I would like closer ties between all bidders, and preferably with seated conventions as well. Those of us who’ve thrown our hat in the ring have a chance to share plans and build processes and create (or find) tools across multiple years that could help bring consistency and efficiency to certain aspects. Newer bidders may have “wild” ideas that actually work much better than what we’ve been doing, so we should listen as well as share our experiences.
  • I think there are commonalities among all Worldcons and all fans, but the specifics can and will and should change depending on location, passion, and team.
  • I definitely *don’t* want to turn Worldcon into a slick corporation-style operation or a massive media con on the scale of San Diego Comic Con, but I do think there are things we can learn from other stable, long- running organisations. Some from newer or shorter-lived orgs, too, frankly.

Again, this is just the beginning – now we have to get from one to the other. So what could that look like?

  • We tend to reward scrappiness and people pushing beyond their limits, but this is not healthy or sustainable. This means smaller scope for roles, more volunteers, and more organisational back end, which means we need a more robust “recruitment” focus as part of our volunteer support.
  • Almost everyone finds documentation a waste of time until they need it. We should institutionally be much better about writing and sharing information between teams, internally and externally.
  • I would love to un-peg the attending supplement price from the WSFS price, so that we can open WSFS membership to more fans around the world. At the very least, I’d like to increase the ratio between the two.
  • I want to see more big ideas. Yes, there are things I look forward to in each Worldcon I attend. Yes, there are friends from decades ago whom I’m delighted to see. Those alone do not make a sustainable event. What are the programme items, who are the guests, which big events do people get excited about and tell their friends? Or, better, get excited about and immediately start planning for the next con? Volunteering to make it happen? Volunteering at their local or regional con, now that they know these exist? We need a framework that supports us, without us being thoughtlessly strangled by regulations. (Thoughtfully bound is different.)
  • Sara Felix (Texas in 2031) and I have already started talking about where our aims overlap, where we might talk to other bidders, and where we can jointly start shaping the future. I’m hoping to extend this informal network further.
  • If we had more or different funding, we could invest in our people and make it less onerous to take on leadership positions. As good as people we’ve had are, we’re unintentionally excluding countless other possibilities.

We also tend to reward longevity with “promotions” or “reappointments” without really considering the skills needed or thinking of succession planning. Some volunteers are amazing at getting things done but are too hands-on to manage teams. Others have great vision and aim but need help with the day-to-day organisational tasks. We’re lucky in that we can build our organisation around the people we have, rather than pre-defining our structure and needing to find perfect matches. Let’s use that strength better and make sure that we’re leaving space for growth / not overworking individuals.

  • Most of all, I hope to be honest and brave enough to admit when something’s not working and it needs to change again.

I’ll change the topic now (though of course I haven’t really):

I have been lucky enough to inherit a lovely small garden from the prior owner of my house. This past year, I’ve been nervous to change much. I wanted to see what grew naturally, wildly. Now, though, I have a much better sense of what happens: where minimal tending is the right thing, and beautiful new shoots arise; where I need to add plants for variation, or cover, or for the local community of pollinators; where I need to prune heavily in order to focus stronger growth in the core areas; and where it all starts to fit together toward my ideal garden – and where my ideal garden has changed based on what has bloomed. If I can do that for the convention(s) I love, and if I can articulate it in a way to convince people to join me, I’ll consider my efforts well-spent.

Worldcon 76 Chair Kevin Roche used his crafting and electronics skills to build a 1/10th scale model of the San Jose Electric Light tower.
Worldcon 76 Chair Kevin Roche used his crafting and electronics skills to build a 1/10th scale model of the San Jose Electric Light tower.

Tools, Spanners and a Gentle Tap by James Bacon

Posted on by
5

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This ninth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue. James Bacon calls for the creation for Worldcons of a whistleblower mechanism, and a requirement for Worldcons to hire an independent firm to monitor and audit the Hugo nominations and voting. He would restrict chairs of seated Worldcons from being on the Mark Protection Committee, require full minutes be taken of MPC meetings and made available to all members, and adopt rules to make the composition of the MPC more international.

By James Bacon: In my job, which involves a 300-ton piece of machinery, made of steel and glass, I have had to effect repairs on the go, as one might say.

I have often used a type of black and yellow duct tape, my go-to, to fix flooring, seats, doors, and panels. In non-emergency but dangerous situations, a tripping relay was held in, doors were forced open, and what mostly did it was a bit o’tape. One time, a piece of equipment was playing up, and I used some manual adjustment to try and effect an improvement. This fixed it, but a while later the equipment started playing up again, and when I applied my attention to it, sadly I broke it. When a plaintive, imploring voice down a crackling line asked what happened…I said I gave it a gentle tap. Fucked it though.

So let’s not totally fuck this up, right. The Hugo Awards are incredible, and last year, it really got fucked up. People – eligible nominees – were excluded, the figures stank, and there’s been no apology or explanation. I have no faith in the process that was undertaken last year, nor in those involved, and I am appalled by behaviours since.

Here are the proposals that I am currently working on. I have already had some input, and the next phase is to get the constitutional wording right. It is also important that future potential chairs, especially, think these proposals through. To me right now, the views of people like Esther, Kathy, Joyce, and Marguerite and Sara (who all contributed here) are vital.

• Independent oversight of the Hugo Process

We pay for accountants, and we pay for advertising. We need to pay for oversight. It is a £1.2 million pound event. Let’s cost it. Figure out how to do this. This would include a whistleblower mechanism where the independent overseer/verifier can inform the community that there is an issue via the Mark Protection Committee (MPC). Also included would be a Constitutional amendment requiring the Worldcon Committee contract with an independent firm to monitor and audit the Hugo nominations and voting. This contract with the independent firm would need to be submitted as part of a Worldcon bid paperwork.

• Chair the Worldcon or be on the MPC

The concept that one member of the MPC could authorise Hugo use, and also be the person who could authorise the use of the Hugo to themselves seems utterly incredible. I have yet to ascertain if this is allowed, but something occurred in Chengdu, decisions were made to do “Hugo” things, one person said the MPC approved it, but then another MPC member said they were totally unaware. Chairs should not be on the MPC; they have representatives, and only the committee can approve usage. Furthermore, this process should be minuted, noted, and communicated.

• All MPC/WIP meetings should be fully recorded, and all minutes should be made available.

It is appalling that four hours and forty minutes of an MPC meeting dealing with the censure of individuals who have acted badly is not recorded. Disappeared like lies in the wind. Complicity in hiding the truth from members of WSFS is unacceptable. But it is not just hiding the truth, it is also enabling this behaviour that is wrong. This cannot occur. No silencing of the MPC/WIP. Decisions and meeting minutes need to be communicated in matters of censure, or other areas of concern, to all members.

• Any current MPC/WIP should resign and seek re-election

Whether they do it voluntarily, or by a vote in the Business Meeting, all should step down and seek re-election. Indeed, there are many who I respect who I think should seek reelection to the committee. Self-respect and decency calls for it; they know this. Also this would ensure that bad or incompetent actors are removed.

• International representation is key – MPC/WIP should not have more than 14% of its membership from one country

This would be a six-year plan, where incrementally increasing international representation occurs, starting (if this were to pass), with no more than 49% for any one country and then to 32% and then to 14%. Fans could welcome this and work towards it. There could also be scope for the MPC to bring on officers to learn, to take it on board so that not all recruitment occurs in the Business Meeting which is hard to access for many members. Let’s allow for international recruitment.

I shall be at Glasgow 2024. I shall be at the Business Meeting, and I shall work between now and then to refine, prepare, and in some cases, adjust, merge, or step in behind with similar proposals.

On Worldcons by Sara Felix

Posted on by
13

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This eighth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue comes from Texas in 2031 Worldcon bidder Sara Felix, who values transparency, and discussing with a wider community the way Worldcons are run.

Sara Felix wearing one of her tiara designs.

By Sara Felix: I don’t have a solution for fixing the Hugos, but the Hugos are definitely important to the larger picture of the Worldcon. As someone who is working towards a bid for Texas in 2031 I have thoughts.

I have been thinking a lot about how I personally would run a Worldcon. And while we have had some stellar conventions in the past, I do think there are things that every chair makes a priority with their Worldcon, and I am starting to try and figure that out for myself. It is hard. Determining what I want to focus on – or at least highlight besides art – is quite challenging for me because there are so many worthy areas of a Worldcon. But I find myself drawn to supporting the community that we already have.

Because of this, all of my suggestions revolve around community – lifting up and celebrating my friends and making Worldcon an interesting event, which really is what I think is every chair’s goal.

I think Esther had very similar goals, as one of the slogans for Glasgow 2024 is “People make Glasgow”. After spending so much of my time and energy with the Glasgow team, I think I have taken it onboard as a personal mantra for my work in fandom as a whole.

I think a lot of the con runners I talk to are as sick as I am of the “It has always been done this way” approach. I see a lot of the recent chairs moving away from this thought process, and this is one of my main goals as well.

Planning for a Worldcon

As a conrunner, we have Smofcon every year as a place to share ideas and discuss convention running. I have been going for a number of years, and I would love to see a much larger, more open discussion with the community as to how a convention is run. I have heard a number of people say that SMOFs don’t listen. I know this isn’t true for us all, as we can’t be everything to everyone, but I think we need more transparency in conrunning – especially in how a Worldcon is run. Selfishly, I want to talk to experts who have worked on these things in the past and also get ideas from other industries and areas of convention runners. As a prospective conchair I want to share my expertise but also hear things from other conventions and conrunners who have differing expertise. My idea is this: make it more of a community online rather than a convention every year. Have a podcast or video series about a topic, then take it to Discord to discuss so we can get multiple viewpoints. I think we have the same panels at Smofcon every year, and I know I have been on the same panels about the same topics at Smofcon every year. For me it is how to fix an art show, how to make a good website, how to deal with social media crisis, how to create publications, etc. But I am not entirely sure that things change after these panels, as it is a small audience who attend regularly listening and participating. Some years I leave energized with new ideas but it doesn’t always lead to significant changes.

For example I did a panel at Smofcon about Publications and where it was headed. One of the panel members presented data about the pickup of souvenir books and pocket programs at their local convention. His data showed that the pocket program pickup has been declining steadily since 2011 when they started to track it. We have tried to maintain these numbers for Worldcon but it is much harder with the change in committees each year. Publications is a large budget line especially since the paper costs have fluctuated so much in the past few years. So being able to get a better read on the amount needed to print is crucial. Because of the ridiculous paper costs in 2022, we switched the pocket program to digital, which was in itself a controversial decision. This was the first time I was on a panel with this Smofcon member and the reason I go. The idea of the convention going to other locations each year should get new people on the panels, but I feel like there are still the same people on the panels which doesn’t lead to change. While this was a good interaction for me, I would like more people to participate and really discuss conrunning.

At that same Smofcon, I was on a panel about art shows. A lot of what I was hearing was the same stuff I have heard in the past. But it sparked conversations after the convention with art show runners that helped me to think outside the box of what a typical art show looks like and how to draw different artists to show at a con. There are limitations in our model which makes this difficult, but I think there is a way to tweak the art show model to make it more lucrative for artists in the future. Those conversations outside of one weekend help so much. Furry conventions have huge and prosperous art shows and hopefully taking the discussion online would bring more conversation from other groups that we don’t hear from as much.

These two interactions are what I want to see in the discussions within the larger community. How do we do sponsorship better? How do we handle social media where we don’t burn out our volunteers? How do we get staff that represent the members we want at our convention? And the age old question: how do we get new and excited volunteers to our convention?

Working together

As I talk to conchairs, I learn a lot from their approaches to current problems at conventions. When I am working on a convention, I don’t always get all sides of the story, but I think talking to the chairs and hearing how they would solve a problem helps my own problem solving skills. Not to say my way of doing things would fix the problem but hearing multiple perspectives helps to plan.

But also there are a lot of continuing problems or challenges in running cons. And I feel, as do other chairs I talk to, that some of these problems can be solved as a team wanting to make it easier for other chairs and conventions in the future.

For Texas we have already started to talk to chairs of other cons to generate solutions. Every year we seem to reinvent the wheel on software. I know people have tried to solve this in the past, and there have been systems which have carried on for a few years. Or like in the case of Grenadine the cost of the software made it unusable for conventions going forward. There are always good intentions for the newest model to last a while, but Texas and others are in a good position this far out to work on something that might serve a number of years going forward.

This is what I mean by collaborating and discussion among chairs. There is always a risk with a traveling convention that you do all the work and not win the bid. But I think my goal in fandom is not only to run a good convention but also to leave my own mark on fandom and hopefully make it a little better than before I started.

These two things are just a few of ideas I have. I want to do all the things, but mostly I want to find people like me to work on conventions that we believe in. And that isn’t always easy. But I am willing to try and to bring my energy to the table. Hopefully there are others that are willing too.

“From The New World” Proposal Series: Including Membership, Business Meeting, Finance, Site Selection, Responsibility, Hugo Awards, Translation, and So On, by Zimozi Natsuco

Posted on by
19

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This seventh reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue is presented in both English and Chinese. Zimozi Natsuco covers proposals to redefine WSFS membership and associated rights, to prohibit sale of tickets or other Worldcon admissions that lack WSFS rights, to reform the financial accountability requirements in the Constitution, and to make the Business Meeting easier for members to attend.

By Zimozi Natsuco: Since the end of the World Science Fiction Convention in Chengdu, I have been thinking about what new things we have brought to the World Science Fiction Convention. The “we” in this case probably has many meanings depending on who I am. But there is no doubt that Chengdu is making a difference.

It seems that the World Science Fiction Convention and the Hugo Awards are changing and changing a lot. In the face of such change we may be overwhelmed, we may not know what to do, but we should always think of the words: There is no escape!

I had the pleasure of reading some historical information about the World Science Fiction Convention. These materials reminded me that a nearly 100-year-old science fiction convention should have the ability to renew itself and that science fiction fans, who are the main body of the convention, should be involved in this renewal.

I therefore offer some of my comments in this proposal, which is divided into nine parts:

The first is a desire to clarify the rights of members. A science fiction convention is a convention built by science fiction fans, participated in by science fiction fans, and enjoyed by science fiction fans, and there should be more clarity about who is a member and what members get.

The second is a proposal regarding financial issues. I have seen some abnormalities in the financial report, so it should be clarified that the organising committee should take financial responsibility, especially the financial transparency, openness, and honesty. This in turn raises the issue of sponsorship, and based on the experience of recent years, a more detailed specification would make such sponsorship more open.

The issue of the change of venue for the World Science Fiction Convention has attracted a great deal of attention over the past year. I cautiously argued that changes should be made with full input from the membership, and made some suggestions about the process and limitations of changing the venue based on accessibility and scheduling considerations. There are further restrictions on the choice of venue, including an emphasis on its ability to host World Science Fiction Convention events.

It is worrying that there is some discord in the face of a situation where a World Science Fiction Convention is truly “going global”. I believe that we should not restrict the holding of World Science Fiction Conventions around the world with slogans that are not universally applicable, and therefore suggest that bids should not be cancelled for no reason, and that every region should be guaranteed full participation in the bidding process. Unfair competition in the bidding process is a concern, and although it has not arisen yet, it is necessary to prevent it through some provisions.

Similarly, a fair clause to prevent unfair competition in the Hugo Awards was proposed, which could promote fairness and impartiality of the Hugo Awards and prevent them from being influenced by publishing companies and nepotism.

In addition, a resolution calling for an investigation and review of the high-profile issue of the Chengdu Worldcon Brand Promotion Centre is at least a start to solving the problem.

As a Chinese sci-fi fan, I would also like to see more Chinese sci-fi enthusiasts participate in the WSC, so this proposal includes a Chinese section and a proposal to translate the charter.

The proposed changes to the WSFS Constitution follow the jump.

Continue reading →

Be the Change: For the Future of the Hugos by Paul Weimer

Posted on by
20

EDITOR’S NOTE: In this sixth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue, Paul Weimer urges future Worldcons to pledge that the persons involved in running the 2023 Hugos will not be part of their bid. He wants certain freedoms written into the WSFS Constitution, and a “kill switch” for the year’s Hugos if government censorship is threatened. Weimer wants an outside agency to tabulate Hugo Awards voting. He wants to add virtual participation to the Business Meeting. And also to have a way to make rules changes in a single year, rather than the current two.

View of the Hugo exhibit at Noreascon 3. Photo from Fanac.org.

By Paul Weimer: Systems that rely on being people-strong and not process-strong can last a long while without incident, until a situation arises that causes those same people to fail in their duties and responsibilities or interpret those duties and responsibilities in a way that ultimately is harmful to the system.

So it is with the Hugo Awards and Worldcon, as proven by the events of the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon.

I take it as an axiom that the Hugo Awards and Worldcon have had, in the language of my dayjob, a system breakdown leading to a nonconformity. That system must be reformed or further nonconformities will occur. I take it as a second axiom that it is desirable that further nonconformities are not desirable.

In the words of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, i.e., Vladimir Lenin, I am here to propose What is to Be Done.

I propose that the system be fortified and improved in a variety of ways. What we have seen as a result of the 2023 Worldcon is a systemic breakdown. A single “patch” will leave Worldcon and the Hugos vulnerable to that patch being worked around, countermanded, ignored or otherwise proven insufficient in preventing a future system breakdown. However, I am not an anarchist; I believe that Worldcon and the Hugo Awards are important and worthy of saving.

Step One: Locking the Barn Door

I am well aware of the very loose structure of Worldcons in general. Nevertheless, given the shocking behavior and actions of those involved, I would like any and all future Worldcon bids to pledge that the individuals involved in the 2023 Hugo Awards are not permitted to be part of their bid in any capacity. I am aware of the small world of “SMOFs” and the limited nature of the tribal knowledge of running cons. However, if, for example, Dave McCarty were to be part of any future Worldcon bid, how could I, or anyone, trust a single thing that he does? And this mistrust is present in any capacity, even if he were not near the actual administration of the award itself.

In keeping with that, and getting to the root of the previous Worldcons’ mistake, I would want any future Worldcons to pledge that they will uphold freedom of speech, expression, and identity (on all axes). This should be written into the Constitution. Works and creators should have their eligibility determined only by the WSFS Constitution, not by perceived or real censorship from local government authorities or influence from outside organizations.

In cases where government censorship threatens the Hugo Awards, there should be a “kill switch.” Tainted results are worse than no results at all. There are multiple winners of the 2023 Hugo Awards that basically consider themselves not to be winners. When things have broken so badly that multiple winners have stepped back and renounced this honor, you have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Confidence and reliability in the nominations, finalists, and tabulation of the votes has to be reestablished.

Step Two: Trust but Verify

Like the Oscars, I think it is time to employ an outside agency to tabulate nominations and finalists. While I recognize that this will cost money, having an outside auditor do the actual tabulation of nominations and final votes will show the world that the Hugo Awards and Worldcon are serious about reliability and confidence in the results. The upfront and forthright response from Glasgow when they announced the finalists was good. That, too, should be a standard written into the Constitution. The loose rules of the Constitution in reporting Hugo nominations, finalists, and other information were deliberately exploited by the Chengdu Worldcon. That’s a system breakdown; the Constitution must be amended to stop that from occurring. That, and an independent auditor, will completely restore confidence after what happened in 2023.

I understand that there are some who would object to employing an independent auditor, as opposed to “double checking” the work, but honestly, after the 2023 awards, I’d rather have an unbiased third party do it at this stage.

Step Three: Building Strength

When I first joined Worldcon, I was shocked as to how few nominations are required to get on the ballot. This was, of course, exploited some years ago by the Sad and Rabid Puppies, and efforts were put in place to make such slating more difficult. By and large, those efforts did solve that problem, but they did not address the overall problem: Worldcon, paradoxically, is too small. It costs a lot of effort and money to participate in Worldcon, and when we take into account things like the Business Meeting, it takes a lot of time as well.

Efforts need to be made to broaden the Worldcon Electorate and to improve the Business Meeting.

For the size of the science fiction readership, a few thousand voters is an astonishingly small number. While numbers for the sake of numbers is not an overall good, a larger and more interesting electorate is good for science fiction. Worldcon should take steps to make virtual participation easier and more attractive, including participation in nomination and voting. Even in this day and age, the Hugo Awards appears as a secret clubhouse; if you don’t expend enormous effort or have someone “already in the know,” you won’t ever get there from here. Worldcons should be engaging with and reaching out to the community. It can and has been done–Helsinki comes to mind. This should be the norm, not the exception. Cities that are hosting Worldcon should be engaged with. These are the World Science Fiction Awards and the World Science Fiction Convention. This is a Big Deal.

And that brings me to the Business Meeting. Right now the Business Meeting is a small, clannish, and relatively obscure part of a Worldcon. For a body that basically makes Worldcons and the Hugo Awards possible, it is, frankly, a body that does not reflect the 21st century, its norms, or needs. It was one thing when Worldcons were less than 1500 people. Now, Worldcon attendance is routinely triple or quadruple that number, and like it or not, Worldcon and the Hugo Awards have had “greatness thrust upon them.” I’ve seen the arguments that Worldcon and the Hugo Awards don’t have any responsibility or any need to respond to a larger electorate or a larger remit, but the fact of the matter is, for the wide range of SFF readers and the general public, the Hugo Awards are a cornerstone of science fiction. Worldcon, the Hugos, and the Business Meeting may not WANT that mantle, but they have that mantle.

And it’s high time to start acting like it.

A Business Meeting that basically is Robert Rules of Order: The Role-Playing Game might be well and fine in a world where the Hugo Awards don’t truly matter, but the thing is, the Hugo Awards DO matter. Careers and publishing lives were harmed by what happened in Chengdu. And a Business Meeting that purposely and deliberately makes it difficult for change and growth to occur is a Business Meeting that is holding Worldcon, the Hugo Awards, and science fiction back.

To this end, the organization of the Business Meeting should incentivize and improve attendance and participation. This would, I propose, include a virtual component as well as physical attendance. Worldcon is in Glasgow this year. A fan who cannot get to Glasgow should not have their ideas go unheard because of it.

I think that the two years “King Log” approach to any changes to Worldcon and the Hugos is a brake that perhaps has had its time. However, a Business Meeting that allowed virtual participation would help make “King Log” less of a problem. Consider, a fan from, say, York going to their first Worldcon in Glasgow this year. Even if they have a great idea, attend the Business Meeting, and propose a resolution, if they can’t afford to go to the 2025 Worldcon in Seattle, they will subsequently be unable to follow through on their proposal.

As a result, the proposals and changes that happen to the Hugo Awards and Worldcons are, in practice, restricted to a cadre of dedicated con-goers who can afford to go to Worldcons in far flung locations and have the time and desire to play Robert’s Rules of Order: The Role-Playing Game in order to have any changes done. This fundamentally and practically puts the administration of Worldcons and the Hugo Awards in the hands of a small Oligarchy. As evidenced in the 2023 Worldcon and Hugo Awards, that Oligarchy has failed in its duties.

There is much more to be done besides all of this, but these changes would provide a foundation to help create an inclusive, dynamic, diverse Worldcon that avoids the pitfalls and problems that have tarnished its reputation.

Suggestions by Chris M. Barkley

Posted on by
12

EDITOR’S NOTE: This fifth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue is a general recommendation to permanently separate the Hugo Awards from the Worldcon.

By Chris M. Barkley: The following are suggestions that I have written about elsewhere, in my File 770 columns, and on social media, in the past few months. Anyone reading this may consider it an open source for whatever actions or amendments may be proposed at the Glasgow Worldcon Business Meeting.

I do believe that the individual Worldcon Convention Committees should be permanently separated from the administration of the Hugo Awards. A separate administrative body should handle the nominations, voting tabulations, and distribution of the awards.

The World Science Fiction Society Convention Constitution should be amended to clearly state that the Hugo Awards need not be distributed at a Worldcon and can be given out at a separate ceremony or venue if circumstances dictate.This is also a safeguard in case future Worldcons are suspended or ended.

Additionally, any committee bidding on a Worldcon should sign a legal and binding document stating that they will abide by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, no local, state, or federal authority should have any right to interfere with the running or functions of said conventions. Any violation of these requirements would result in sanctions, such as the nullification of any awards and honors given and/or a permanent suspension of the given country to host a Worldcon.

While I realize that these options may not be popular or even feasible for some conrunners or fans to accept, I caution them that to take no action at all will result in the extinction of a treasured and valuable piece of literary history.

Changes Needed for the Hugo Awards Process by Trish E. Matson

Posted on by
4

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This fourth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue advocates bringing auditors into the Hugo Awards voting process, and adding online participation to the calculus for changing WSFS rules.

By Trish E. Matson: The travesties of the 2023 Hugo Awards presented at the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon must not be repeated. Procedural and structural reforms must be made to restore the high reputation that the Hugo Awards have earned throughout the decades, which was damaged so severely by the Hugo Awards Subcommittee’s pre-emptive censorship of creators and their apparent discarding of many legitimate votes. For thorough and effective reforms, the changes need to be taken along short-term, mid-range and long- term vectors.

Short-Term Measures

In the short term, the 2024 Worldcon team has already taken several necessary steps toward reform. Committee members involved in the 2023 disgrace will not be involved in the 2024 Hugo Awards process; Nicholas Whyte is now leading the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee team, along with Kathryn Duval, Cassidy, and Laura Martins. While I’m not familiar with the rest of the team, I have a great deal of respect for Whyte. Additionally, administrators have stated that the 2024 Long List with its nominations data will be released immediately after the Hugo Awards ceremony, rather than waiting out the deadline for several months. All of this is reassuring for the short term.

Mid-Range Actions

However, this is far from sufficient for ensuring the integrity of the awards for the future. As reliable as the current administrators seem to be, there is no guarantee that the 2025 team and future administrators will be trustworthy. Many people had great respect for Dave McCarty and his cronies on the 2023 team; indeed, McCarty still has vociferous defenders who claim that McCarty’s actions were forced by the Chengdu site selection itself, or he was sending coded hostage messages through his actions, or other ridiculous excuses. Since the administration changes every year, it’s obvious that we can no longer just rely on Good People being chosen for it every year, and for them to do the right things.

It’s clear to me, and to many other people, that the Hugo Awards must add independent auditors to the awards process for both trust and accountability. No further opportunities for vote manipulations can be allowed. That has to happen throughout the process; the auditors need to be able to see votes as they come in, not be presented with a summary after the fact. If that means the votes have to go to the auditors first, and then forwarded to the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee, that’s fine. Furthermore, the tabulation also needs to be done via open source software or commercially available products; no more secret, personal, proprietary processes for vote-counting can be allowed – that’s just ASKING for trouble.

In addition, since fear of censorship and retribution from authoritarian governments (and a vaguely worded bylaw observing the need to follow local laws) have been cited as “justification” for censorship by the 2023 Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee, any fan communities who submit Worldcon bids must include pledges to abide by freedom of speech, expression, and identity. Works and creators must never again be declared ineligible due to the ideas expressed or the personal selves or life choices of the creators; eligibility should rest solely upon the stated qualifications of the individual category.

Moreover, since national, state, and local governments can turn repressive, and circumstances can change quickly for the host of a winning bid, the World Science Fiction Society must have mechanisms for either enforcing anti-censorship bid pledges or declaring the Hugo Awards invalid for that year. It would be preferable to be able to do that in a timely fashion rather than waiting for World Science Fiction Society Business Meetings at the relevant or following Worldcons to take such actions. This would have to be addressed as a separate long-term reform.

I don’t know how to find the most suitable independent auditors or tabulation software, but the 2024 Business Meetings absolutely could and should put together a study committee to determine options for that, to be reported on within 10 months after the Glasgow Worldcon and hopefully voted on within the next two years. However, amendments phrasing an anti-censorship pledge for Worldcon bidders and empowering WSFS Business meetings to declare censored Hugo Awards invalid may certainly be proposed and passed for the first time in 2024 and validated at the 2025 Worldcon, if there is sufficient will for these reforms.

Mini Hugo rocket carried into space and photgraphed by astronaut Kjell Lindgren in 2015.

Long-Term Goals

I’ve seen some people calling for the complete detachment of the Hugo Awards from the geographically peripatetic Worldcons, but I think this is unnecessary and ill-advised. The reforms I’ve proposed above should work to safeguard the integrity of the Awards, whereas detaching them, embedded as they are in the reason for even having Worldcons, would create tremendous controversy and undermine both the Hugos and Worldcon itself.

However, there is certainly more that can and should be done to reform the Hugo Awards and Worldcons. The Hugo Awards are not actually very well known throughout the entire speculative fiction community. Out of a world of fans, only a few thousand people each year vote for them. Part of this is because Worldcon is relatively obscure. It’s not drawing nearly enough young people to replace the ranks of leaders who are aging out after years of worthy service. Although improvements in diversity have been made, more is needed.

It’s hard to get involved. People who try can become discouraged because of entrenched territorialism, plus the necessity to be on-site for a lot of volunteer activities, including having a voice in governance. For anyone who wants to get involved in changing how things are done at Worldcons, it can be a shock to learn that the only way to do that is to show up in person, often on different continents, two years in a row, for days, to vote at the time- consuming WSFS Business Meetings – and giving up a lot of other Worldcon activities for that participation.

Fortunately, there is already movement toward the possibility of broadening WSFS decision-making with online involvement. In December, Nicholas Whyte announced[1] that the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon is planning a consultative (nonbinding) online vote about two proposed changes to the Hugo Awards, which would add two categories. This will also act to test the feasibility of adding an online component to WSFS making constitutional amendments, which currently only happens at Worldcon Business Meetings.

The proposed changes are to add two new Hugo Award categories: the Best Independent Short Film Award and the Best Independent Feature Film Award. Whyte said this proposal will be put online for feedback between the close of Hugo voting and the beginning of Worldcon. I certainly plan to vote on it, both to express my opinion and to express support for adding an online component to the structure of making WSFS amendments.

I think trying to move to online-only voting (with no onsite steps) would be far too drastic a change to the WSFS amendment process for now. But adding an online voting component, either between two Business Meetings, or possibly eventually replacing one of them, absolutely seems appropriate to me, as it would increase generational, economic, and geographic diversity. Diluting the dominance of the old-fans network will help increase respect and trust for the Hugo Awards worldwide.

[1] https://glasgow2024.org/blog/2023/12/consultative-vote-on-hugo-rule-changes/

Make the Change by Randall Shepherd

Posted on by
8

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This third reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue defines five problems with Worldcon governance and proposes solutions for each, addressing the WSFS, the Worldcon’s service marks, the Hugo Awards and the Business Meeting.

By Randall Shepherd: I went to my first Worldcon when I was 17. I’d been to my first science fiction convention when I was 14. From a tiny advertisement in one of the science fiction magazines, I saw the ad for the World Science Fiction Convention coming to my town. I was over the moon to find out there was a “world” version of the SF conventions!

I still love the idea of fans from across the globe gathering to celebrate the genre with programs, panels, events, parties, friendships made and renewed at our annual convention and the Hugo Awards!

I’ve chaired a Worldcon, vice-chaired one, chair-advised a few times, been a Division Head, along with being involved with the Hugo Awards multiple times.

When the 2023 Hugo Awards scandal hit, I shared the outrage so many fans felt at the unfolding disastrous responses launched on the internet. We simply cannot move forward by putting a bandaid on the problem and hoping that we are not hit with a future crisis. Bold reforms need to be made. Below I outline several problems along with proposed solutions. My original ideas were modified after speaking with a couple of Hugo-winning professionals, several past and future Worldcon chairs, and some fans that care deeply.

The solutions below are not set in stone and very open to being modified. That said, efforts to weaken them will not be welcome. I think a consensus needs to be developed to make multiple changes to better the World Science Fiction Society. The Society needs to take action to be trustworthy, transparent, and inclusive of all parts of the community.

What will be welcome are suggestions to improve the solutions and add others to the mix. I, after getting feedback from original advisors and the readers of Journey Planet, will file final versions to be on the agenda for the Business Meeting in Glasgow. I’m looking for a broad series of improvements to be voted on as a complete package. Even if someone has qualms about parts of the solutions, a willingness to find consensus in the proposals will, I believe, create a chance at wide, effective reform.

Solutions for a Clearer, Friendlier, Trustworthy WSFS and Hugo Awards

1. Problem: There is no official voice of the World Science Fiction Society.

We cannot have a future incident where a prior year’s Hugo Administrator, Chair of the Mark Protection committee, or any other staff member is acting or even appearing to act on behalf of the Society. There needs to be a designated date for the official handover of power. While there is a handoff at closing ceremonies, this is truly only for show, and a hard demarcation of power is not established.

Solution: There needs to be an official hand off on a specific date. Possible dates are: the official close of a Worldcon; December 31st in the year a Worldcon is held; January 1 of the year following; or January 31st (or whenever Hugo nominations close), as that date marks the end of the activity of a member of the Society from the prior year.

All staff of each Worldcon should be put under a duty to not speak about or on behalf of the Society, and all communications should professionally be handled by the committee in charge of the next Worldcon.

Enforcing the duty won’t be easy, but it should still be known and in place. It would be good if the inside view of last year’s Hugo Administration Subcommittee’s emails weren’t just in journalists’ hands, but also available to the Society on demand from the committee in charge.

The primary value of this change is to not have half-cocked idiots or evil doers enraging, insulting, and harming the community.

2. Problem: There is no licensing agreement between a Worldcon and the Society to use the service marks for Worldcon and the Hugo Awards.

Ridiculous. Fraught with peril and legally stupid.

Solution: Under the current rules, when a bid files to be on the ballot, the bidder must provide several things, including: proof of a contract showing they have the facilities to hold a Worldcon, and evidence that they have rules in place to replace the Chair if needed. They take on the constitutional requirement to hold a Business Meeting, see to site selection, and administer the Hugo Awards.

Part of getting on the ballot needs to be the mandatory condition of an executed licensing agreement. Spoiler alert: the mechanism of agreeing to particular behaviors/obligations in order to be validly on the ballot will be used for other solutions suggested in this document.

3. Problem: Hugo Administrators use their own private software that no one else can see the code or test the software.

Horrible that this has been allowed to happen four times!

Solution: As part of getting on the ballot, a Worldcon bid must agree to use the Society’s standard Hugo software. This software will be publicly viewable and testable. Chris Rose’s Hugo counting software appears to be set for use by the next several Worldcons. His software is available to examine on Github. He has invited testing and asked for datasets.[1]

Software needs change over time as technological advances are made. To enable the software to be alive and improvable, a standing committee could be formed that evaluates and sets out the official software for each year. Such a committee might be created like the Mark Protection Committee: each Worldcon appoints a member of the committee. I’d add that the members of the committee should then select a few others to be members of this committee. Year to year adjustments may be made, and all without the business meeting’s slow two years to change model. Use of the Society’s counting software would be mandatory.

4. Problem: The Hugo awards do not need another scandal.

Let’s bring sunshine to dark places. The Constitution as currently written allows for a Hugo Subcommittee, but delegating all authority over the Hugos to it is not mandatory.

Solution: The least invasive change is to remain with the Worldcon in charge of creating the Hugo Administration Subcommittee. This should be mandatory, as currently the creation of such a subcommittee is not mandatory. Each Worldcon must name a Hugo Administration Subcommittee with all authority delegated to it.

Further, each subcommittee must include oversight members that are NOT appointed by the Worldcon. Independent members of the committee who are selected by outside bodies guarantees a high degree of transparency. This will allow honest eyes inside the Hugo Administration Subcommittee. I suggest five oversight members. For example, I’d ask SFWA and ASFA to appoint representatives to the independent oversight. The creators honored each year by the Hugo Awards deserve to have a level of involvement that ensures the Hugo Awards retain integrity.

I am wide open to a mechanism for selecting oversight members. This method must be rigorous in adding other voices from the worldwide community of fans. There can be no failure in diversity.

5. Problem: I just want to go on vacation, see/make friends, attend programs and events, etc. I do not want to go to a business meeting several hours every morning.

It is almost like some people designed it to be inconvenient so you didn’t drop in and mess up the “fun”. “Hey wait, what do you mean they are sending that item to a committee for study…is it going to come up again?”

Well, Virginia there is a good chance the answer is no.

Solution: This conversation is too big for this space, but an effort has to be made to make the Business Meeting less of an intrusive time-suck that dissuades involvement. Maybe require anything sent to a committee for study to report back the next year, and if suggested changes are not acceptable to the maker of the motion, then it goes up for vote unaltered? We should be better than simply killing things in a subcommittee.

I’ve seen proposals floated in recent months to have the Business Meeting pass changes the first year, but rather than the current model of next year’s meeting passing it again, we have the Society as a whole vote on it. One hopes this would be done electronically. The involvement of the Society as a whole appeals to me. What does not appeal are suggestions for sunset provisions or re-ratification votes a few years after passing. These maneuvers always smack of a sneaky second bite at the apple of killing an idea after the spotlight is off an issue.

Summary: If future Worldcons do not comply with a final version of the solutions to problems 1-4 then their license and authority to carry out constitutionally-required acts will be pulled and conducted by the next seated Worldcon.

I’m open to suggestions to improve the proposed solutions, but they must still provide the transparency and required behavior that will make all members of the community confident of the World Science Fiction Society acting well and without scandal.

[1] https://github.com/WorldconVotingSystems/nomnom/pkgs/container/nomnom  

Be The Change, But Also Make Amends by Sarah Gulde, TAFF Delegate

Posted on by
5

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This second reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue, searches for specific redress the Worldcon community can offer to the people who were mistreated by how the Chengdu Worldcon handled last year’s Hugo Awards.

By Sarah Gulde: Other articles in this issue are discussing how to reform the Hugo Awards going forward so that this debacle never happens again. What I want to talk about is the folks already harmed, and how we as a community can make amends.

Merriam-Webster defines “amends” as “compensation for a loss or injury.”

At the time of writing, those who were wrongfully disqualified from the Hugo Awards have been identified, acknowledged, and offered spots on panels in Glasgow. Xiran Jay Zhao also received an extension of eligibility for the Astounding Award.

Is this really “amends”? While Zhao may or may not feel compensated for missing out in 2023, it seems to me that being a panelist is something the other disqualified nominees would be welcomed for anyways. I’ve been a Worldcon panelist several times myself, and it never had anything to do with being a Hugo nominee.

So if we truly want to make amends, what can we do?

Many have pointed out that a revote, were it logistically possible, would be unduly influenced by sympathy for those who were unfairly excluded the first time around. I agree with that, but I don’t agree with what seems to be the general consensus: if the nuclear option isn’t available, then we’re off the hook.While we can’t undo what has happened, there is so much more we could be doing as a community to show our remorse.

Some are quite simple. How about an invitation to the Losers Party in Glasgow? That’s something special that they may have missed out on in Chengdu, and something that the Glasgow concom could rather easily make happen.

Or how about Worldcon membership for life? I imagine this would involve some sort of resolution passed by the Business Meeting to make it official, but it’s something that the next few concoms could put into action on their own.

Or, as suggested by Ash Charlton, how about an actual Hugo? “Rather than take anything away from the Hugo Winners of 2023, who, you never know, may have won in any case, I think a special award should be created for the writers who missed out. I don’t like the phrase ‘Honorary Hugo’ as it sounds like it’s not a real one, but something like an ‘Amends Hugo’, or ‘Special 2023 Hugo’ means it could still go on this writer’s resume and would recognise the injustice done. We definitely owe them something, and this would go some way to making restitution.”

The Worldcon convention committee does have the option to award a “Special Committee Award”, sometimes informally referred to as “Special Hugos” as they are not official Hugos.

Perhaps Sara Felix could be commissioned to create special tiaras? Or George R. R. Martin could be convinced to award another round of “Alfies”?

If you like one or more of these ideas, or have one of your own, please contact Journey Planet at [email protected] or comment on this article on File 770. If there seems to be enough support, I will personally contact and work with the entity who can make things happen. I would love it if something more can be done for these folks in our community who were treated so outrageously.

A Resolution by Chris J. Garcia

Posted on by
14

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: We begin our series of reprints from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue with a resolution that Chris J. Garcia will soon submit to the Glasgow 2024 Business Meeting, cosigned by James Bacon, Frank Wu, Jean Martin, Chris Barkley, and Steve Davidson.

By Chris J. Garcia:

Resolved, that it is the spirit of the World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting to stand for the values of fair treatment, transparency, and openness in all dealings with the World Science Fiction Society and the Hugo Awards;

Therefore, we must stand together and condemn the actions taken by the Hugo Award Administration Subcommittee of the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon, along with the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon Committee, in regard to the management of the 2023 Hugo Awards, including the decision to disqualify rightful nominees without clear explanation, removing rightfully-cast votes, as well as releasing clearly wrong nomination data, all of which is contrary to the spirit of the awards and decades of administrative precedent.

We call on the Chairs, the Committee, the Hugo Administrator, and the Hugo subcommittee of the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon, and any official continuing entities rising out of it, to:

  • provide all information on the decision-making process
  • accept full responsibility for their actions
  • issue an official apology for the damage their actions have caused the individuals excluded from the ballot, the Hugo Awards’ reputation, and the Worldcon community in general
  • recuse themselves from all future World Science Fiction Society committees and organisations

(Note: If you would like to be a co-signer of this resolution, contact us at [email protected])