Linda Deneroff has sent File 770 copies for publication of two motions submitted to the Glasgow 2024 Business Meeting.
“Missing In Action” proposes to create a limited exception to the current prohibition on transferring WSFS memberships.
“The Way We Were” proposes to restore earlier terminology by replacing “WSFS Membership” with “Supporting Membership” wherever it appears in the Constitution, and to replace “Attending Supplement” with “Attending Membership”.
SHORT TITLE: MISSING IN ACTION
Moved, to amend Section 1.5.2 of the WSFS Constitution by striking out and inserting the following:
WSFS memberships held by natural persons may not be transferred, except in the following circumstances: (a) when a person purchases a WSFS membership for someone without providing a name or accidentally purchases a duplicate membership. That membership may be transferred only prior to the opening of Hugo Award nominations in the winning convention, and (b) that, in the case of death of a if a natural person holding a WSFS membership dies, it the WSFS membership may be transferred to the estate of the decedent.
PROPOSED BY: Linda Deneroff, Alexia Hebel, and Kevin Standlee
COMMENTARY: When someone tried to purchase more than one voting token for site selection, the Chengdu payment system was unable to record the name of the second, etc., person or persons. Thus, the person making the payment had multiple WSFS memberships that were actually meant for other people. This amendment would permit a person to purchase WSFS memberships and assign them to others, but only before any election was open in the winning convention.
SHORT TITLE: THE WAY WE WERE
Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by striking out and inserting the following:
Moved: To replace WSFS Membership with Supporting Membership wherever it appears in the Constitution, and to replace Attending Supplement with Attending Membership, including all similar variations of the words (e.g., WSFS Memberships, WSFS members, attending supplement) to their grammatically correct replacements.
PROPOSED BY: Linda Deneroff, Alexia Hebel, Kevin Standlee, and Kevin Black
COMMENTARY: Since both terms involved the word “Membership” there has been a lot of confusion among people purchasing memberships who do not understand why they have to purchase a “second” membership, or why they have to buy a “WSFS membership” in the first place. Under the original terminology, the price of an attending membership was inclusive of the support price.
Any reimbursement restrictions could still remain in place, with the price of the supporting portion of the attending membership deducted from any refund.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The Way We Were” will make it less confusing, I think.
I feel like “Missing in Action” should probably include a clause for refunding errant purchases later on in the process (e.g. a duplicate purchase due to a previously “lost” membership that is later “found” – I’ve had more than one time where I’ve had to bother a convention about “Did I purchase a membership?” because I was looking under the wrong sender for the emails confirming a purchase.
Obviously, the line of thinking mostly centers around duplicate memberships arising from Site Selection tokens getting garfed up; I’m thinking of later IT errors.
I’m also thinking of someone who doesn’t realize that something got screwed up/how screwed up it is until after Hugo Award noms have opened.
I first remember encountering the term WSFS Membership when dealing with the Chengdu website. Thankfully, someone explained it to me and I was able to vote. (I don’t remember, a good explanation may have been on the website itself) I would rather have a Supporting membership for a Worldcon.
By the way, Glasgow is using the term tickets on places on its website. So there is further confusion. (this may be part of the software they are using and not their choice)
How could someone’s estate use a membership?
Your heirs may be natural persons, but an estate isn’t. This seems to say that if a member dies, no relative or other human can inherit and use their membership.
Given that clause (b) isn’t new, I assume this was considered in the past; please tell me what I’m overlooking.
My personal interpretation is that the membership would go to the heir. But I hope we never have to interpret the clause.
These are good proposals.
These look good to me! I think the idea of ‘WSFS membership’ is probably a good one when we’re more than just a single event.