Jared Dashoff, MidAmeriCon II business meeting chair, has released a new version of the agenda, including Lisa Hayes’ motion, 3SV and its various parts, and EPH+. Download the PDF file from the MACII website.
There’s Business Passed on to MidAmeriCon II by Chicon 7 and Sasquan
The following item was ratified at Chicon 7 in 2012 and must be re-ratified by MidAmeriCon II in 2016 in order to remain part of the Worldcon Constitution.
- A.1 Short Title: Best Fancast
The following Constitutional Amendments were approved at Sasquan in 2015 and passed on to MidAmeriCon II for ratification. If ratified, they will become part of the Constitution at the conclusion of MidAmeriCon II.
- A.2 Short Title: The Five Percent Solution
- A.3 Short Title: Multiple Nominations
- A.4 Short Title: Nominee Diversity
- A.5 Short Title: Electronic Signatures
- A.7 Short Title: E Pluribus Hugo
- A.6 Short Title: 4 and 6
And there’s the submission text of newly proposed WSFS Consitution rules changes, drafts of which have been posted on File 770 over the past few weeks.
Best Series (page 8)
- Proposed by: Series Hugo Committee
December Is Good Enough (page 9)
- Proposed by: Colette Fozard, Warren Buff, Nicholas Whyte
Two Years Are Enough (page 9)
- Proposed by: Warren Buff, Colin Harris
Three Stage Voting (3SV), Or “The Only Winning Move Is Not to Play” (page 10)
- Proposed by: Colin Harris, Kevin Standlee, Nicholas Whyte, Colette Fozard, Warr en Buff
Additional Finalists (page 13)
- Moved by: Lisa Hayes, Lisa Deutsch Harrigan, David Wallace
EPH+ (page 14)
- Proposed by: Jameson Quinn, Claudia Beach, Bonnie Warford, Catherine Faber, Andrew Hickey, Rogers Cadenhead, David Goldfarb, Lee Egger, Tasha Turner Lennhoff, Steven Halter, David Wallace, Oskari Rantala.
Wow. That is a lot.
There’s some of that that I don’t particularly support, but none that I strongly oppose. I hope we can do things as quickly as possible, especially for the “you either like it or you don’t” ideas, such as E-signatures.
Note that the pdf includes an FAQ for EPH+ that is partially new material.
Personally, my minimal hope is to pass EPH and 3SV. If we get EPH+ too, that’s a bonus. Stuff like 5%, multiple noms, nom diversity, the “enough”s, and additional finalists are nice, but seem like smaller details to me. I think 4 and 6 is probably a slight step backward but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Should I cut and paste the EPH+ FAQ here? I think I will. Here goes:
On page 22 of the agenda, there is some text cut off on the right side of the page regarding the Detcon financial report.
In my desire to get a clean “first through fifth”, it occurs to me that I should mention that I’ve now bought tickets, and I’ll be arriving by train the evening of the 17th. I was too late to get a slot on the schedule. Is there any way I could set up an “as interested” talk about the my paper, EPH and EPH+, slate tactics, voting theory, etc., without being on the schedule?
@Joshua: Using cut and paste, the missing text appears to be:
Art show sales &
That sure is a busy schedule. I think I’m not going to try to get Sharpening the Artist Picture (= amendment to clarify the Pro & Fan Artist categories) up for this year, but I’m going to try to set up an informal meeting to discuss it at MidAmericon so it can be submitted for Helsinki.
It is a busy agenda and there may very well be more to come as there are still two days to submit. First time with the gavel should be real…um…fun.
We are working on fixing the issue with the Detcon report for the next update (we at least will have more financial reports if there isn’t any more new business submitted).
Are we still expecting a YA/youth proposal?
Possible ambiguity in “A.3 Multiple Nominations”
I haven’t been following any discussions on this one, so forgive me if this is a non-issue.
The proposed wording includes “the Worldcon Committee shall determine in which category the work shall appear, based on the category in which it receives the most nominations”. Is “most nominations” an absolute enumeration, or a relative one? If the work appears in two categories which have widely varying levels of participation, I can envision a situation where a work comes in third in Category A (which category typically gets many votes), and second in Category B (which category typically gets few votes), such that it gets more votes in Cat A than Cat B. My thinking, though, is that under those circumstances it should go into Cat B. Is Cat A the intention of the proposers? Is that the “proper” outcome?
My bad. I used last year’s Detcon report as a template for this year, and that text box was from last year and should have been deleted. We’ll be uploading a new agenda shortly (possibly even this evening), and that material will be gone.
@andrew m: this was my comment a year ago. We’ve been waiting for a YA proposal for some 20 years now. How about “let’s try THIS for 5 years”? See how it works. Fix it/dump it. The hand wringing over this category is beyond all understanding
There are many business meeting attendees who don’t read YA and don’t want to feel obligated to start, just so they can make informed decisions for purposes of the Hugo Award.
I wouldn’t call that handwringing. I’d call that, voting their interest.
Lots on the agenda. Not much looks like easy ratification. Another long meeting.
My thoughts will be with you. A tough first meeting to chair.
How about giving us a workable definition of “What is Young Adult?” in ten words or less, which includes a context for what is not Young Adult?
John Lorentz: How about giving us a workable definition of “What is Young Adult?” in ten words or less, which includes a context for what is not Young Adult?
I was originally quite supportive of adding a YA Novel category. I’m one of those who almost never reads YA — the vast majority of it I’ve sampled either simply does not appeal to me, or pisses me off because the protagonists behave like idiots and not only do the books present this in a way that implies their behaviour is acceptable, they don’t ever learn from it and grow because of it (I’m looking at you, Updraft, Illuminae and The Ship). So I will not be likely to ever nominate YA books for Best Novel Hugo, nor am I likely to rank them highly on a Final Ballot.
I know that there are a lot of Hugo voters who feel similarly. This is why I felt that YA deserved a chance to be evaluated on its own merits. But the more I read past and current discussions, the more I realized that it’s just impossible to come up with a workable definition for the category that would definitively split Best Novel from Best YA Novel.
I would support a Not-a-Hugo YA Award.
Not-Hugo is, to the best of my knowledge, what they are proposing.
The question of ‘what is YA?’ – if you mean ‘YA as opposed to (old) adult’, making it a not-Hugo should solve that: no, the two fields are not absolutely completely distinct, but if we don’t have to decide which award a work is eligible for, that needn’t matter. If you mean ‘YA as opposed to children’s/middle grade’, that can be answered by calling it a young people’s fiction award. The proposal in 2013, which was the source of the present process, was actually for a Youth Book award, but everyone constantly called it a YA proposal, in line with the common habit in fandom of calling all young people’s fiction YA, and that’s what the committee got saddled with.
I’m never sure if the movement for a YA Hugo is really concerned with young people’s fiction generally, or with the specific YA age-band. There are things in last year’s report which suggest both. If people do want an award which is specifically for YA as publishers use the term, and not for children’s books, then I would oppose it, as being unfairly discriminatory.
The YA Committee is scrambling to produce something. If anything comes forward, it’s likely to be a Not-a-Hugo (like the Campbell Award), but voted upon by the same rules as the Hugo Award and sanctioned by WSFS.
How this will play out in this year’s crowded agenda is anyone’s guess.
They seemed to have a reasonably clear plan last year – which already proposed that it should be a not-Hugo – so it puzzles me a bit what needs to be scrambled for. If they wanted to hold it over, though, I think that would be perfectly fair, not only because of the busyness of the agenda, but because of the whole uncertainty of the situation. Heaven knows what the slaters would make of a YA award, so perhaps we should wait till that situation is resolved. (Assuming it will be, obviously; but we could at least wait to see whether that is likely.)
What’s hard to understand about these committees until you’ve sat on one is how hard it can be to get them moving and keep them on task. One particularly loud and determined objecting member can continuously derail conversations, clever fans can derail themselves into examining minutiae, committee chairs can flake for months at a time (guilty of that myself, on the Series Hugo committee), and *everybody* goes dormant over the winter. The Semiprozine revision committee took two years to complete its work, which really only happened because the original chair stepped down and was replaced with a really good manager.
When you have a solid group of folks who are committed to finding a workable solution with a good manager, the results can be great. But WSFS committees typically take anyone who walks up and joins at the Business Meeting, which can make them *very* unpredictable. I’ve now been on five WSFS special committees (two of them of the 24-hour variety), and chaired two of those. I’ll keep doing them when they concern a matter I care about, but I know what I’m getting into. Of the five, the 24-hour ones came back with the results they needed to, while two of the year-long ones had to be renewed due to a lack of results in the first year. Scrambling, alas, is just going to be a fact of life with WSFS committees sometimes.
Stop press: There is now a YA proposal. It may be found on p. 27 of the WSFS agenda on the Midamericon II website. (The page linking to the agenda says that it is ‘as of June 8th’, but this is not accurate; it is actually an up-to-date agenda.)
It is a proposal for a not-Hugo.
It is for a book, not a person.
There will be no formal definition of YA, the hope being that making it a not-Hugo solves the demarcation problem. (I think it does solve the problem of the upper bound: I’m not sure anyone has thought about the lower bound.)
It is hoped that there will be a name for the award, but this is not yet decided. (It would indeed be problematic to name the award before it had been decided that it would exist.)
All this looks sensible to me. This looks like a question on which compromise really is possible, so perhaps we can reach a settlement of the matter.
That said, I do still think it ought to be a Youth or Young People’s fiction award. (The proposal in 2013 – out of which this actually grows – was for a Youth Book award, and that in 2011 was for a Children’s or YA award.) Perhaps, though, given the shortness of the time and the crowdedness of the agenda, this could be left till next year. (Though of course next year’s agenda may be just as crowded.) Would it be considered a minor amendment?
(I suspect many of those supporting this motion are in fact thinking of young people’s fiction more generally – witness the bit in last year’s report which implied that all Newbery Medal winners were YA – but if someone did want an award specifically for YA, and not for that annoying children’s stuff, they could legitimately vote for this motion, and might be annoyed if it were later changed to let the children’s stuff in.)