This meeting felt incredibly fast and quiet compared to every other meeting. We just ran right through things. A little over thirty minutes from start to adjourning sine die.
- Retrospective Improvement Part 1 is ratified without debate.
- Retrospective Improvement Part 2 is ratified without debate.
- Universal Suffrage is ratified without debate.
- What Our Marks Really Are is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
- The Reasonable Amendment is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
- Make Room! Make Room! is adopted without debate and sent on to be considered for ratification in San Jose.
- Big thanks all around to everyone, and meeting is adjourned!
And that’s it until next year. If you like what I do, throw the price of a coffee into my tip jar. See y’all in San Jose!
- Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog | Summary
- Main Business Meeting #1: Liveblog | Summary
- Main Business Meeting #2: Liveblog | Summary
- Main Business Meeting #3: Liveblog | Summary
The outline for my remarks on The Expanse and politics at Worldcon 75 in Helsinki, Finland.
- Spoilers through 2nd Season of the TV Series (Caliban’s War)
- Will talk about both books and TV series
- Who am I
- Emma Humphries
- Programmer and Project Manager, 20+ years experience
- 29 years in fandom (28 WisCons)
- Format: I’ll talk for 25 minutes or so, and then we’ll have a discussion for the remainder of the time we have
- What is The Expanse?
- ASK: how many of you have read or watched?
- Series of Novels and TV Programs
- James S. A. Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck)
- Future history of the Inner and Outer Solar System
- Why talk about politics?
- Because SF has been the acceptable place to talk about politics
- Queer/Non-binary/Trans representation
- Universal Income
- What I’m Not Going to Talk About
- I’m going to suggest you start with the Black Girl Nerds podcast who have been recapping and discussing the TV Series
- Why The Expanse
- I love space opera
- I adore the women in this show
- Naomi Nagata: Ship’s Officer and Engineer
- Bobbie Draper: Gunnery Sgt in the Martian Marines, who trains under one Earth Gravity
- Chrisjen Avasarala: UN Undersecretary who knows where the bodies are buried
- All represented as women of color in the TV show
- All flawed, but real characters, I empathize with
- I stan for Chrisjen
- Competent, middle-aged women are awesome
- Charlie Jane Anders on Twitter: “Now, more than ever, we need Chrisjen Avasarala. #TheExpanse https://t.co/Ih8j19kh1W”
- I love to hate on Holden
- But, honestly, can anyone stand Holden?
- Miller’s stuck with him because of alien machinations
- What does Naomi see in him?
- Queer/Non-binary/Trans representation
- The good, there are gay and lesbian characters
- The bad
- Heteronormative relationships
- The Martian ambassador and his husband
- Annushka "Anna" Volovodov
- A settler couple on Illus
- Two hundred years in the future, and the nuclear family is still the norm
- Holden’s family back on Earth, a poly-cule, are considered weird/aberations
- No non-binary or trans characters
- The non-normative relationships and characters are the thieves, rebels and sex workers
- Heteronormative relationships
- Definition time!
- A type of political discourse which posits an “authentic people” in opposition to “a privileged elite.”
- In left populism that’s often the workers vs the wealthy
- debates on distribution of wealth
- in right populism it’s white people vs everyone else
- debates on who is and isn’t part of the “nation”
- The OPA is a populist movement with both right and left characteristics
- Anderson Station, and Illus are left populist actions
- Workers, abused by Inner Planets wealth and corporations standing up to power and paying with their lives, and/or using violence as a means
- But the OPA has a right-leaning side which is terrifying
- We see it at the end of Season 2 where the economic populism gives way to an nastier ethnic populism
- In the 2nd Season a Belter Ship, carrying evacuees from Ganymede to Tyco Station, puts all the people from the Inner Planets out the airlock
- It will only get worse in later books
- Definition time!
- Universal Basic Income
- Also known as Social Income, or under the UN in the world of the Expanse, “Basic”
- There’s a body of economic research that finds evidence for giving people direct cash assistance as the best way to support people
- Basic income, in and of itself is not sufficient
- You need universal access to healthcare
- In “Churn,” for example, we see the UN handing out substandard/palliative-only care
- A well-implemented Social Income system, with healthcare (including reproductive healthcare), transport, and housing can provide a stable base for people to build on
- In the world of the Expanse, the social income system is geared to subsistence and governability
- Needs more work
- Tell me why all your queer relationships are heteronormative
- As a queer dyke, I want to see relationships like the ones I see in my community in the here and now, or at least understand why they aren’t there
- Yes, this is a honest portrayal
- How populism, unchecked, can go from a liberation struggle to genocidal violence
- Social Income
- A pessimistic view
- Is this in the service of story, people struggling to escape a dismal earth? Or a libertarian view of the role of the state?
Usual rules apply!
1001: Meeting called to order.
1006: On to the ratification of constitutional amendments still remaining.
1006: Retrospective Improvement Part 1. This is a replacement for retro Hugos. This is to allow retro Hugos for the four year window between the third and fourth WorldCons because “there was a disruption.” “The late unpleasantness.”
1009: Retrospective Improvement Part 1 is ratified without debate and a simple show of hands.
1010: On to Retrospective Improvement Part 2. Ratified without debate.
1011: Next will be Universal Suffrage. This is basically to prevent a convention committee from selling a convention full weekend pass without including WSFS voting rights. This prevents the decoupling of membership from attendance. WorldCons will still be able to sell individual day passes just fine.
1015: Clarification: full weekend passes bought after the Hugo voting deadline means you wouldn’t be able to exercise Hugo nominating/voting for that year because the deadline was past, but only because of that. And you still would be able to vote/nominate/etc for the next year. And come to the WSFS meeting and vote, and so on.
1017: No debate, Universal Suffrage is ratified.
1017: And that’s all the business from last year! (I think there might be more than a few hangovers in the crowd today.)
1018: Three items of new business remain, as D5 (Requiring Electronic Payments) has been withdrawn, D4 (Name that Award) was passed Friday, and D6-8 (Category reorganization stuff) were referred to committee.
1020: D.1 What Our Marks Really Are. There’s a little language correction to it to instruct the MPC to communicate with NASFiCs as well as WorldCons.
1022: Motion to adopt the amendment without debate. Needs 2/3 majority… which the chair thinks we have. Division is called for, but before I can get the serpentine alarm wound up, the motion is withdrawn. Apparently we are not in a serpentine kind of mood today.
1023: There are some questions but honestly it’s nitpicky and I need more tea, sorry.
1026: No debate, What Our Marks Really Are passes and will be sent to San Jose for ratification.
1026: Next up The Reasonable Amendment. This is a one word change.
1027: Another move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. This time, it worked just fine. The Reasonable Amendment will be going on to San Jose for ratification.
1028: Last item is Make Room! Make Room! The effect of this would be to make the gray zone boundary between novella and novel 8000 words.
1029: Mr Dunn moves to send to the Hugo Award Study Committee. No second, so that doesn’t happen.
1030: Dr Laurie moves to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. This passes. Make Room! Make Room! will be sent on to San Jose for ratification.
1031: Point of personal privilege from Ms Secor, an all around thank you. Lots of applause.
1032: Almost time to adjourn. The chair announces about fifteen minutes after adjournment, the MPC will meet.
1033: Mr Docherty moves to adjourn Sine Die in memory of David A Kyle, Kathleen Mire, and Peter Weston.
And that’s it! Fastest business meeting ever.
Summary for the rather short main business meeting, since I didn’t show up until after site selection and the WorldCon Chairs photo.
- Best Series is ratified. It will continue as a regular category. It will be up for re-ratification in 2021 and automatically added to the agenda.
- Three Stage Voting fails ratification.
- EPH+ fails ratification by a large majority. This is likely because its effect would have strengthened bullet voting still further, and we’ve already seen that happening this year.
- Motion to suspend EPH fails. EPH will continue to be in effect.
- Motion to suspend 5 and 6 fails. 5 and 6 will remain in effect. (Discussion was had as to whether this worked at conflict with EPH. Personally, I would need to see more data.)
- Defining North America is ratified, with apologies from Ben Yalow.
- Meeting adjourned with dire warning from the chair that we have the room for five hours tomorrow, and we had better not use all that time.
- Preliminary Business Meeting: Liveblog | Summary
- Main Business Meeting #1: Liveblog | Summary
- Main Business Meeting #2: Liveblog | Summary
Previous Chapter: 26 here, or here
Characters: the Ninth Doctor, Rose Tyler, Captain Jack Harkness
Author's Note: In which homecomings give way to leave-takings, and Rose says what has to be said. I thought this was the penultimate chapter, but have since realized it was not. Not quite. But soon, soon.
Edited by: the irreplaceable dr_whuh, without whom none of this would be possible.
Disclaimer: As much as I wish it were otherwise, no Whoniverse characters are mine. They are the sole property of the BBC and their respective creators. I take no coin or credit, but do thank the BBC for letting me play in their sandbox.
Note: Because this is a long chapter, Live Journal may eliminate paragraph breaks, so you might want to read it over on Dreamwidth.
( Read more... )
OTOH, I don't think I've ever seen so many movies in a two week stretch as I have in this run. As mentioned in my last post, I saw The Dark Tower; last weekend Bridget and I saw two movies that she wanted to watch in the same day, starting with Dunkirk which I found pretty well-done even though it was rather unstuck in time, and then after a late lunch we watched Atomic Blonde which has a terrific score, and is another true female superhero. I liked it very much.
After my beloved left for her trip, I finally got a chance to see Valerian which is a beautiful film, and a bit of fun, but I'm afraid it's not a great film. Too bad.
I've been playing the full run of Babylon 5 on a website that has it for free; so much meaning in today's politics here. Hmm.
Good week to you all...
First was Usagi Yojimbo #31: The Hell Screen; I love Stan Sakai's comic series though I don't buy the comic books. I patiently await the collected stories/graphic novels. I still find them very readable. For those not in the know, these comics are tales about a rabbit who is a skillful samurai now ronin in a fictional Japan. They are all excellent, and beautifully rendered. Very much worth reading.
Next was Dark Serpent by Paul Doherty, a mystery novelist with a huge variety of series that he's written. This is one set in the England of Edward II in which a French privateer is laying waste to English shipping while a series of murders among the recently ousted Templars disturbs the peace. Pretty good read.
Finally, there is Osprey Campaign #48: Salamanca 1812: Wellington Crushes Marmont, a critical battle in the British battle against Napoleon. Solid information.
And so it goes...
Sorry to be a few minutes late, everyone.
What we missed: By unanimous consent, the word “volume” in Best Series was changed to “installment” to indicate it doesn’t necessarily have to be a full novel added.
Now we join our meeting, already in progress.
1108: Dr Farah Mendelsohn for the ratification of Best Series. Basically a rehash of the arguments for from last year, indicating there are mechanisms for keeping the category fresh, etc.
1112: Question from Dr Adams; if we ratify this amendment this year, will the series that won for 2017 be eligible since the Best Series this year was actually a special Hugo, not under this amendment. The Chair rules that he declines to rule and it’s up to the administrator for next year’s award.
1115: Ben Yalow speaking against the chair’s ruling. Believes the chair is incorrect because the exclusion clause is “has not won previously 3.3.x” and thus this year’s winner will still be eligible.
1116: Lisa Hayes for; this leaves it open to the administrators. You have to leave it open to the interpretation by the administrators, that’s their job.
1117: Debate ended and question called. The chair’s ruling is sustained.
1117: Dr Adams offering amendment to add that the winner under WorldCon 75 be excluded as if it had won under 3.3.x. Chair rules the motion is out of order. It would increase the scope of the amendment.
1118: Dr Laurie brings up that it’s impossible to actually become familiar with all of the series to vote intelligently.
1119: There is no time left for arguments in favor. Mr Tredaway has an inquiry – does this exclude a graphic series from eligibility? Chair rules that it’s defined by word count, so if you have a graphic series that has that number of words, sure. Dr Adams clarifies that this was asked last year too and answered the same way.
1121: Mr Whyte, this year’s Hugo administrator also against – agrees with Dr Laurie. The joy is in celebrating the work of the previous year. We’re really changing the meaningfulness of that if we’re shifting to work that goes back sometimes decades.
1122: Motion to end debate fails.
1123: Ms Rudolph against – agrees with Dr Laurie, and does not think there will be sufficient Hugo-worthy works to keep nominating after a few years.
1124: Mr Yalow against – has vast sympathies for the burden on the Hugo administrators. Series vs sub-series; uses the “1632” series as an example. How are we defining it? The award is difficult if not impossible to administer.
1125: Mr McCarty against – in all other fiction categories, we judge complete works. The series are not necessarily compete.
1126: SERPENTINE SERPENTINE SERPENTINE (the Chair is in doubt)
1131: 51 for, 39 against. Best Series is ratified. It will become a regular category starting in 2018. Note that it will be up for re-ratification in 2021 and is automatically on the agenda.
1133: Three Stage Voting is up. The chair recuses himself as he intends to speak in favor in debate. Mr Eastlake becomes acting chair.
1134: Mr Harris for – 3SV is a targeted strategy for removing unsuitable works; brings the No Award option forward. All algorithmic approaches are still vulnerable to gaming. The human judgment places the responsibility upon the voters. 3SV is something forced on us as a response by people who are bad actors. The question is if this is still needed. If you think there’s a chance of people coming back with a targeted attack again; if you think the measures are unnecessary and the bad actors have lost interest, then vote against it. What is our success criteria? What do we consider a good ballot? EPH guarantees a couple of good candidates; a lot of us thought that years in the future with categories that are half slate was not great. Decide you are okay, for example, with PNH being displaced by VD because of bullet voting.
1138: PRK has a PoI – would an amendment to make 3SV at the discretion of the Hugo Administrator be a greater or lesser change? The chair rules that this would be a lesser scope change and such an amendment would be in order.
1139: Dr Laurie against – doesn’t think we need this. Thinks making sure we have five good nominees, that’s good enough.
1140: Mr Standlee for – in 2015, Kevin had the choice to preside over the business meeting as opposed to proposing this, and he regrets not doing 3SV then. This strategy is more in keeping with the ethos of the Hugos; it has safeguards built into it. It puts the power in the hands of the voters. It has a supermajority and quorum requirement. It doesn’t empower just the administrator. This takes some of the things the administrators have had to do in secret and quickly before, and puts them in the open and in the hands of the voters. During the preliminary period, that’s when permission and eligibility checks for the nominees; and now the Hugo admins can openly ask for help contacting people instead of trying to do so in secret. Also takes burden of keeping quiet from potential finalists. Crowdsources the eligibility and contact research.
1144: Ms Secor against – introduces a political stage to the Hugos.
1146: Mr Wallace for – welcomes this amendment as an author of EPH and EPH+. Helps restore the honor of being a finalist. By putting junk nominations out there.
1147: Ms Deneroff question – is this intended to replace EPH or be an adjunct?
1148: Mr Whyte against – as this year’s Hugo admin, has changed his position on this. Says puppies are no longer a problem. Doesn’t think there’s sufficient evidence for thresholds set in amendment.
1151: Question – is it possible to delay this another year so we don’t have to go through the whole process? Not as such, but there are ways to effectively do that.
1152: Mr Oakes for – this will be very easy to implement. Does not trust VD to keep his word. (hear hear!)
1154: Mr Boucher moves to insert “at the discretion of the site selection of the Hugo Administrator” – Kevin Standlee requests it’s “the administering WorldCon” as a point of order. No objection.
1155: Mr Boucher in favor of the amendment – we need weapons that are available to us, but doesn’t mean we have to use them constantly.
1156: Mr Yalow against – 3SV is already becoming a political question. This makes it more political and puts the administrator in the heart of the politics.
1157: Kevin Standlee with a PoI – would this increase the scope of the change. Chair is of the opinion that it decreases the scope and as such is a lesser change.
1157: Chair’s ruling is appealed. Sorry, not following the ruling appeal debate because I needed another cup of tea.
1201: Question is called on appeal of the chair’s ruling. We are three deep now and people are getting confused, so Mr Eastlake is explaining it. And we’re a SERPENTINE HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS
1205: 40 for, 47 against; chair’s ruling is overturned, making this proposed amendment a major change.
1206: Back to the amendment. Kevin moves to call the question. Seconded. (This would mean voting to the amendment and then the underlying proposal with no further debate.)
1208: Mr Cronengold has a PI – has there been sufficient debate? Yes.
1208: Mr Yalow with a PI – will you have to have two calls on who wishes to speak? Yes.
1209: Dr Laurie is confused (ME TOO, DR LAURIE) – voting order of the stack? Yes. Okay.
1210: Question is called on all pending questions. So we’re going to vote on the amendment first. Nays have it and amendment fails. (The bit about the additional clause.)
1210: Now onto ratification of 3SV. Ratification is defeated.
1211: 10 minute recess.
1223: And we’re back. The chair would like to remind us that when he asks if there is objection, if you do not object, keep your mouth shut. There is no objection to taking up EPH+ before the motion to suspend EPH.
1223: Now we will have a report from the Hugo Administrators on EPH not to exceed 10 minutes.
1224: Mr Whyte has provided detailed reports. Perhaps unprecedentedly so.
1226: This is a really impressive number of reports Mr Whyte has produced, y’all.
1229: Clear conclusion: EPH this year made it much harder for slate candidates to get on the nomination list, but made it easier for those with bullet voting to do so.
1231: Move to thank the administrator and his staff for going above and beyond on this analysis. Lots of applause.
1233: On to EPH+, or rather the amendment for EPH+. Recognizing Mr Wallace first to speak in favor. Chair is ruling that if the amendment for EPH+ passes, it will be a greater change and there will need to be an additional for EPH+ for ratification.
1235: The ruling of the chair is appealed. Five minutes of debate that comes out of the five minutes for the amendment. The chair says looking at the proposal, it’s changing a lot of stuff and the only way to digest it properly is with another year.
1236: Ms Secor against the ruling – the effect of 6.1 is to make the use of EPH+ is optional. Making things optional is a lesser and not a greater change.
1236: Mr Yalow for the ruling – in our recent history, ie a few minutes ago, we decided things that give greater power and flexibility that did not exist prior in fact do constitute greater changes. We should follow the precedent that we set twenty minutes ago.
1237: Mr Cronengold against the ruling – the change here is that 6.1 would allow the business meeting to make the change available a year in advance. It makes a sunrise clause. It does not expand the scope.
1238: Dr Laurie calls the question on the appeal. Chair’s ruling is sustained. The amendment is a greater change if passed and will require an additional year of ratification.
1239: Motion to extend debate back to five minutes since we just used a bunch of the amendment’s debate time. There is objection because I think we want to keep moving.
1240: Debate clock is not reset because there’s less than 2/3 voting for it.
1241: Dave Wallace for the amendment – the effect is to make EPH+ optional on a vote of the business meeting. It’s the extra strength version; makes anti-slate stronger but also makes bullet voting stronger.
1243: Mr Harris against – it’s not helpful to switch this on and off from year to year; this only becomes clear in Jan/Feb when people start announcing intent.
1244: The amendment fails. Now on to EPH+.
1245: Mr Wallace for – This has a stronger anti-slating effect. Given that 3SV has failed, we should pass EPH+, because he does not trust the chief puppy to abandon his efforts. Doesn’t think we’ve seen the end of it.
1247: Mr McCarty against – EPH does reward bullet voting. People who nominate only one thing get disproportionate strength under this system. Under EPH+ this becomes even worse.
1248: Mr Cronengold moves to add a one year sunrise…. can’t do that, since amendments are considered speech against.
1248: Ms Hayes against – fundamentally against EPH, and thus EPH+ is basically worse. It’s a magic box.
1251: Debate ended, we are voting to ratify of EPH+.
1251: EPH+ is NOT ratified by a vast majority.
1253: Mr Yalow speaking for suspending EPH for a year because the way it encourages people to bullet vote. EPH makes nominating harder to explain. Points out that Sad Puppies, who include longtime members of fandom, changed their behavior to be less bad, while the rabids went back to gaming things.
1255: Mr Dunn against – if EPH goes away, what’s to say the slates won’t return? The suspension motion was just up if things interacted strangely, which they didn’t.
1256: Ms Hayes for – agreement with Ben Yalow
1257: Ms Stark against – bullet voting allows one bad candidate on the list, but that’s what 5 and 6 is for. Don’t bring back the slates.
1257: Mr Bloom for – his opinion that EPH has no effect on the puppies. The No Awarding is what made them change their strategy.
1258: Alex speech against (hi this is Corina). Getting rid of EPH would be bad because the Puppies are watching and won’t give up. Sad that 3SV was struck down so strongly suggesting it be kept on until we get something better.
1300: Mr Kovalcek for – better we have a clear system that is easy to explain in the short term. EPH is horrible, we need to come up with something better.
1300: Mr Renda against – EPH is bad, but it’s the price we pay for having better resistance to slates.
1301: Mr McCarty for – for the record; while we use EPH we will continue to get perverse results with things getting knocked off the ballot for inexplicable reasons.
1303: Mr Pomeranz against – reluctantly, defends EPH. Thinks the greatest harm will be swinging back and forth too quickly. Get more data on the results. The ill effects are not so significantly bad as to need to remove it immediately.
1304: By vast majority, the motion fails. EPH continues in effect for the following year.
1305: 10 minute recess.
1314: Meeting back in order. We are on to Defining North America.
1316: Mr McCarty proposes to suspend rules so we can bring up 5 and 6 now to dispose of like business together.
1318: Rules are suspended, motion to suspend 5 and 6 for one year is before the meeting.
1319: Clarification: laying a motion on the table does not specify when we will pick it back up. It requires a motion to pick it back up. If we do not pick it back up before the meeting is adjourned sine die, the motion dies.
1319: Mr Yalow is not asking a question where he knows the answer already for once. We are not allowed to adjourn sine die when there is still privileged business on the agenda, so is this motion privileged?
1320: Chair: We can adjourn sine die without picking it back up.
1321: Motion to lay on the table fails.
1321: Now on to the motion to suspend 5 and 6.
1322: Mr Bloom in favor of suspending 5 and 6 because we didn’t suspend EPH and says they are at cross purposes. At least one should be suspended.
1324: Mr Cronengold against – please stop switching back and forth. Let’s see how it runs for a little bit.
1325: Mr McCarty in favor – We’ve tested EPH against many sets of data. If there is a slate of five candidates, the candidates that EPH knocks off, like 50% of the time it puts them back on. These don’t work well together.
1326: Mr Desjardin against – consistency, some resistance against slating. It makes a better ballot. What was added to the ballot this year was mostly very good works. Anecdotal experience is that this is a very popular change.
1327: Ms Hayes calls the question. Seconded. Question is called.
1327: Motion fails overwhelmingly. 5 and 6 remains in effect for one year.
1328: Back to Defining North America.
1330: Ms Dashoff – why is central America part of North America here? Chair rules that’s actually debate. Okay.
1331: Mr Yalow for – being the person who carelessly and accidentally took it out of the constitution years ago, he apologizes for the necessity of putting it back in.
1331: What about the Caribbean islands? Does this extend to islands bordering the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, those things are part of the Caribbean.
1333: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. Soundly seconded. Question is called.
1333: Motion is ratified by a very large majority.
1334: No, Iceland is not eligible to hold a NASFiC. (Continents, not tectonic plates, people.)
1334: Mr Kovalcek motions to adjourn.
1334: Mr Cronengold wants to debate.
1335: Mr Kovalcek for the motion – most of us are tired and stayed up late last night. It’d be better to come back tomorrow when we’re fresh.
1336: Kevin notes that we have the room for five hours tomorrow. DO NOT MAKE US USE ALL THAT TIME. Meeting adjourned.
Summary for all the action on Friday!
- Kevin Standlee gives the report for the MPC and we re-elect the standing members.
- Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee report by Mr Eastlake. All members reappointed by the chair.
- FOLLE Committee continues with no objection.
- YA Award Committee officially sunsets this year and are thanked for their hard work.
- The “No Vanishing Business” resolution returns with new language from the committee. Effectively, this will allow people to withdraw new business they’ve submitted to WSFS (with agreement from all submitting parties) up to 4 weeks before the first business meeting. The withdrawn business will still be available to be viewed, so that in the remaining two weeks before the business meeting deadline that business can be resubmitted if someone still really wants it brought up.
- Committee report from the Hugo Award Study Committee from Mr. Docherty, which mostly acknowledges who has volunteered, tentative plans for moving forward, etc. Items D.6-8 are referred back to the study committee until next year.
- Best Series Category is postponed definitely until Saturday, so it can be considered after seeing the Hugo results.
- December Is Good Enough is ratified and will take effect next year. (This moves the deadline for buying memberships if you want to nominate for the Hugos up to December 31.)
- Two Years Are Enough barely passes, 45-41. This N+1 WorldCon membership will no longer confer nominating rights for the Hugo. 2019 will be an exception to this.
- The Young Adult Award is ratified 65-27.
- A new amendment to name the YA Award “The Lodestar Award” passes despite items to change it to the L’Engle. This amendment is sent on for ratification in 2018.
- So it should be noted that technically while we have an award in 2018, it can’t possibly have an official name until 2019 at the earliest. There was some wrangling over how WorldCon 76 might be able to get around this using the WorldCon’s constitutional power to create a special Hugo award.
Good morning everyone! I feel less like death today, so keep your fingers crossed for me. Liveblog will commence shortly, normal rules apply. Just waiting for the secretary of the meeting to arrive…
1004: Kevin Standlee calls the meeting to order.
1011: MPC report. Good news, marks were registered in the EU last year.
1013: Dr Adam – this year, as part of the New Zealand bid the marks and domain have been registered for 2020 and will pass that on to whichever bid wins. Would be good for the committee to do this advance registration as a matter of course. May be a good idea to register some years ahead as there’s been a shift in the WorldCon naming scheme that’s made it much more predictable and we don’t want the domains, etc, being poached.
1015: Vince Docherty – we purchased WorldCon.com some time ago and it was expensive to get, make sure we know we have that one.
1015: Kevin is responsible for most of the words on the main websites, so blame him if there’s a problem.
1016: MPC elections. Reminder that these ballots are preferential.
1021: Election closed.
1021: Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee report from Mr Eastlake.
1023: All members reappointed by chair. Kevin Standlee will be chair unless the committee prefers someone else.
1024: Mr Wilmuth reports for the WorldCon Runners Guide standing committee. They’d like to move the guide to a new domain potentially. Mr Standlee suggests they consult with the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee, which controls the sites. Committee is reappointed.
1026: FOLLE Committee is continued with no objection.
1026: YA Committee report is included and implicitly part of the YA Award debate. Committee has no request to continue and will sunset at this WorldCon.
1026: Ms Neal thanks the YA Committee for their work. There’s applause. THANK YOU GUYS.
1027: “No Vanishing Business” Committee Report has come back with language for the proposed standing rule change. Basically, would change things so up to 4 weeks before the Business Meeting, new business could be withdrawn. Then withdrawn business would have to be available to be viewed. Business could be withdrawn if everyone who proposed it agreed to it. (This would then give everyone a 2 week window to step in and re-propose the withdrawn business if they wanted, before the agenda is frozen for the Business Meeting.)
1032: Six minutes of debate time is agreed on.
1031: Kate Secor in favor. Permitting people to withdraw business that they’ve decided is a bad idea without having to waste the business meeting’s time; this seems the balance between that efficiency and disappointing people who look forward to debating that business at the meeting.
1034: Member wants notice of withdrawn business established.
1034: Mr Eastlake notes that at this time, there is no provision to allow for the notification of the members for submitted business.
1035: Motion to call the question, which is seconded.
1035: Mr Cronengold has point of order. Does call the question outrank motion to amend. Yes. And that’s actually a parliamentary inquiry. Call the question outranks almost anything.
1036: Question is called, debate is ended. So now we’ll vote on “No Vanishing Business.”
1037: The item is adopted and will take effect next year.
1038: One minute recess.
1040: MPC members re-elected.
1041: Hugo Awards Study Committee, Mr Docherty. (Mr Docherty: “How long?” Mr Standlee: “Technically 42 minutes.” Mr Docherty: “I’ll do it in interpretive mime.”) Briefly going over the report. If you wish to participate in the committee, please contact him as noted in the report.
1042: Is there any objection to referring D6-8 back to the study committee for next year? No objections.
1043: WorldCon and NASFiC reports are in the packet, not going to go over them here.
1043: Okay, we are on to business referred from 2016 WorldCon. Up first: BEST SERIES!
1044: Motion to postpone until tomorrow until after we see the Hugo Award results. Seconded. And the affirmative has that, so it is postponed until tomorrow.
1045: On to C.2 December Is Good Enough. This is moving the deadline on when you’re eligible to nominate for the Hugos. Debate time is 8 minutes.
1046: Mr White gets to go first. It’s fairly straightforward and technical. This is simply because the most tedious element of administering is merging the member list for the current and previous WorldCon. Simply better to end it on the calendar year. This may facilitate 3SV, but will not speak on that further.
1048: Corina is speaking! Finances are generally much tighter for people in December, so extending through January will make it easier for people to get in.
1049: Mr Oakes the process of merging the data is very complicated. Moving back a month would save a significant amount of work. Would allow them to get the award nominations up much sooner.
1050: No objection to ending debate and bringing it to vote.
1050: Motion is ratified. This will take effect next year.
1050: Now C.3 Two Years Are Enough. This is to make it so the people from the past and present WorldCon get to nominate for the Hugos. This would disallow the members of the future WorldCon as is current from nominating, though 2019 will be grandfathered in.
1051: Mr Harris for; this simplifies the data merging process. N+1 members are mostly people who voted in site selection… who for the most part are members of the N WorldCon. This change was originally made to get more people participating in nominating for the Hugo Awards. That’s obviously not a problem anymore… [bitter laughter from the crowd]
1053: Dr Adams against; when we have a WorldCon in a new place, we get people who join fairly soon after the WorldCon is seated. We want to bring those people in as soon as possible and encourage more people to join and be involved.
1055: Mr Wallace for; anyone new to the WorldCon family can get a supporting membership in the current year’s WorldCon. Doesn’t think it would have that great of an impact.
1055: Mr Walling against; while the number of 50-100 has been bandied around. A lot of times when a WorldCon is in a new place, people will join early in order to vote in site selection to bring that WorldCon to them. They tend to join too late to be involved if this measure is accepted. As is, this encourages more participation.
1057: Mr Kovalcek in favor; if people have joined the year before to vote, they would already be eligible. Have to do the best job we can instead of trying to do everything and doing it badly.
1058: Mr Whyte against; the real hassle is merging the previous and current year’s membership. The next year’s really isn’t that big of a deal since it’s not that large. This is a marketing opportunity to bring more people in. This helps boost membership and participation. Also think it looks bad for this meeting to be restricting the franchise.
1059: I have no idea who is speaking. For LonCon though, N+1 came to about 117 new names.
1101: Point of Order from me: will the chair please remind people to state their names.
1101: Mr Yalow in favor; this provides an incentive to join because you get greater rights.
1103: On the motion to ratify, here we go… oooh it’s close.
1103: HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS KIDS, IT’S SERPENTINE TIME.
1106: Affirmative 45, negative 41. Motion is barely ratified.
1106: We have now reached 11 o’clock, but Chair suggests a recess until 1115.
1116: Meeting back in order. We are taking up C.11 Young Adult Award and C.11.1 Clean Up “Young Adult” Award, which names the award and has been ruled to not change the scope and therefore will not postpone the implementation of the amendment.
1117: Looking at the amendment to name. Ms Rask for; there was a lot of debate about the issue, and this was the best compromise for the naming concern. Technical stuff here for how the voting and naming will work; basically naming will begin as soon as the main amendment is passed.
1119: Dr Laurie against; so we’re going to have a Not A Hugo that’s for YA but there’s no requirement it will be named ever. This sounds like a bad thing for the MPC.
1120: Kevin strongly reminds us that members don’t get to talk to each other. All comments are THROUGH the chair.
1121: Mr Cronengold for; … sorry, I’ve lost the thread of this argument. This is some technical stuff here.
1122: Ms Secor against; we have been told the naming of this award is contentious so we might be debating this for years. But we’ll still be giving out the award. Would rather say that we have to name the thing or we’re just not going to pass it at all.
1124: C.11.1 passes, so the blanks are stricken out of the Young Adult Award amendment.
1124: NOW C.11 Young Adult Award, Ms Rask for. She is one of the assistant chairs and will give the report. Has been instructed by the chair to not discuss the naming because that is not in the scope. Asking everyone to consider the award in a positive light.
1126: Chair reminds us there is a provision that this will have to be re-ratified by the 2021 Business Meeting.
1126: Ms Secor has a motion to amend, so that the award should not be given out until there is a name for it. But worded in a way that leaves it to the discretion of the WorldCon.
1127: Mr Dunn proposes now for a second order amendment to make “need not” to “shall not” to remove the discretion from the WorldCon concom. He is seconded, but there is objection to the suspension of the rules.
1128: We are having amendmentception here guys.
1128: No rules suspension 4 u. So that amending of the amendment fails and we’re back to the original.
1129: Question (sorry, he said his name SUPER FAST): will this be a greater change? Chair rules that this does not increase the scope of the amendment, which would allow it to be ratified here.
1130: Mr Cooper PI: British versus American English, suggests changing presented to awarded. Kevin agrees, since technically speaking we are not required to hold a Hugo ceremony.
1131: Ms Secor for this amendment – there is sufficient concern about giving out a nameless award. This would be a way to let us pass the award with allowing us to still hold it back if a name hasn’t been agreed on.
1131: Mr Peterson: believes that there is already the name; there’s capitalized “Young Adult Award” which would be the name. Point of order? No, per Kevin, not well taken. He’s pretty sure that YA authors would rather have an award with a generic name rather than no award at all.
1133: PRK point of order: says member is not debating amendment, but Kevin rules Mr Peterson is speaking to the amendment.
1134: Dr Laurie for – it’s not a Hugo, it’s not a Campbell, it’s just “an award” so it has no standing.
1135: Mr Yalow against – agrees in general that we should not give out a nameless; we can’t have a second order amendment, we decided that earlier. But he wants a shall rather than may, so he wants to defeat the amendment and then propose his own.
1137: Motion to call the question on the amendment, seconded. Debate is ended on this amendment.
1138: Amendment fails.
1138: Now Mr Yalow proposes a new amendment with a shall not instead of need not. (Thus requiring a WorldCon to not give out an award if it’s unnamed.)
1140: Ms Neal going to speak against this amendment as no speech for. Concern is that this amendment will delay the implementation of the award, which has already been delayed for years. Thinks it is worth giving an award out even with a generic name rather than stopping this momentum. Vote down this amendment.
1141: Mr Gunston PoI: would this amendment prevent the concom from exercising its existing power to create a special Hugo category for a YA award. Kevin says in that case, it would be a Hugo rather than a Not-a-Hugo as proposed.
1143: Dr Adams for – if you’re going to do this, then don’t do it in this silly way. Do it right from the start.
1144: Mr Gerrib against – let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We’ve been working on this for years, let’s DO IT.
1144: Dr Laurie for – thinks this is the only way we’re actually going to get a name for this award.
1145: Mr Peterson against – there’s time already provisioned for getting the award named.
1145: Mr Dunn for – just because there’s time on the agenda doesn’t mean it’ll get done.
1146: Mr Cronengold against – if we want a name, just do a greater change instead of leaving something dangling in the constitution.
1147: Question is called.
1149: SERPENTINE TIME, GUYS. BUCKLE UP. (argh this is tough, because I really don’t like this amendment, but I think if we don’t attach it, a bunch of people are going to turn on the YA Award and it won’t get ratified at all. Arggggggh.)
1151: Negative has it (56-35), provision is not adopted.
1152: We are back to the underlying motion, the award itself. Oh god this is tense. And of course there’s a one minute recess.
1153: We’re back with Ms Rask now talking for the underlying motion. Quick going over the committee report for the naming timeline. There were 460 names suggested and all were researched and vetted.
1155: Mr Dashoff with a PoI – can we put “WSFS” in front of the name? That would be a greater change.
1156: Mr Bloom against – opposed to dividing fiction into categories. We want the best of the best and that’s it.
1157: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. Seconded. Debate is closed.
1158: Oh god here it is, we’re voting on the YA Award.
1158: SERPENTINE NUMBER FOUR KIDS. Kevin thinks the affirmative has it, but we’ll be happier with a count.
1200: 65 for the YA Award. Now counting negative.
1200: 27 against. WE HAVE A YA AWARD GUYS!!!!
1201: 5 minute recess.
1209: And we’re back. Next up is naming the YA Award. First we will vote on the suggested name, yes or no. If it fails, then we will solicit suggestions.
1210: Mr Cronengold asks that the matter be laid on the table so the committee can correct errors in its report for about 5 minutes.
1211: I just want a recording of Kevin saying, “FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE MEMBER RISE?” as a ringtone on my phone.
1212: Affirmative has it, we’re laying the naming aside for not more than five minutes while the YA committee speaks to us about its corrections. It’s basically just a two percent bump on one of the numbers.
1214: Back to the naming. This currently is to pick a name to put in the blank that will then be voted on in the motion to name.
1216: Lodestar is now in the blank. So the question is now D.4 Name That Award. This has the effect of if it is ratified, the award will be named Lodestar in 2019, so the 2018 award would be nameless.
1219: Mr Cronengold asks if we can put retroactive naming in the amendment. Chair rules no.
1220: We are appealing the ruling of the chair.
1221: Mr Thorpe – sees no reason why we can’t retroactively name it. (I think?)
1221: Debate is ended and the appeal for the ruling is on the table. The chair’s ruling is sustained.
1223: About 14 minutes remain to debate the motion.
1224: Mr Peterson from the committee for; since MidAmeriCon, the primary issue has been the name. They’ve spent a lot of time debating and vetting. It doesn’t violate any other award names or copyrights.
1225: Dr Laurie against because the vast majority wanted Madeline L’Engle, wants to strike Lodestar and substitute that name instead.
1227: Ms Rask against this change. The question about whether to name the award after a person is very contentious. For example, L’Engle has been criticized for her depiction of LGBT characters and promotion of an Evangelical mission. Also, she’s mostly really promoted by people of a certain age group.
1229: Yalow for the change – if we want public recognition for the award; using the name of an author is more likely to get public attention and will have more credibility.
1230: Motion to extend debate by 5 minutes by PRK. Debate is not extended.
1231: Motion to call the question. Seconded. Okay, question is called.
1231: Negative has it, amendment fails. We’re keeping Lodestar rather than going with L’Engel.
1232: Ms Hayes calls the question on the underlying amendment too. Seconded.
1232: PoI from Dr Laurie – if we vote to use Lodestar, can next year’s business meeting change the name prior to ratification? The chair rules that this kind of change would be major and require an additional year for ratification.
1233: Ms Rudolph with a PoI – is there anything in the rules that would prevent the WorldCon from using the name that will be up for ratification? The chair rules that the con would not be allowed to use the name. Dr Adams asks that the chair recuse himself and hands off to Mr Eastlake.
1234: Mr Eastlake rules next year’s convention could use weasel wording to mostly get around this.
1235: Mr Lee comes to support Mr Eastlake, who says he does not need support but thanks anyway.
1236: Mr Kovalcek asks if we are voting on the ruling. Mr Eastlake: the ruling hasn’t been appealed, do you want to appeal it? Mr Kovalcek: No. In that case, can next year’s WorldCon choose to have their special Hugo Category and call it the Lodestar?
1238: We are down a definitional rabbit hole, y’all, and it’s getting very silly.
1243: We are now voting on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Which is that next year’s WorldCon can create a special Hugo and call it the Lodestar award for this purpose. Ruling is sustained.
1244: Now the question is if we are calling the question for D.4
1245: Okay, question is called. We’re getting there. Now will we adopt the name?
1245: The affirmative has it. The name motion passes. The YA Award is named Lodestar, subject to ratification.
1246: Tomorrow when we convene, site selection business only to start. Recess at 10:30 will be the former WorldCon chairs photo. Not before 1100 we will reconvene for regular business. You don’t have to be here until 11 if you aren’t interested in those things.
1248: Ms Secor says reports requested from the Hugo Administrator will be distributed at 10. You don’t have to stay, but come pick up the reports so you can study them before the business meeting comes back to order at 11.
1249: Meeting is adjourned until 1000 tomorrow.
1. Donna mentioned Soldier of the Mist and I said I longed to read a fanfic from the point of view of the AI in Person of Interest, in the period when she is figuring out how to circumvent the protocol that wipes her memory every day.
2. I mentioned Station Eleven and Jacqie said she had an aversion to post-apocalyptic traveling theater troupes doing Shakespeare, so we talked about what we'd like to see a post-apocalyptic traveling theater troupe do: they have an orchestra, why not Gilbert and Sullivan? But the most approval went to the suggestion of post-apocalyptic Rocky Horror Picture Show. There was some discussion of how the audience participation could work when you would not throw any rice or toilet paper you happened to have.
3. Someone said they were reading a book about Helen of Sparta, that is, Helen of Troy before she ran away with Paris. Stephen said he thought it was going to be a book about Helen of Troy as a Spartan warrior. Stephen says that Spartans let women train like warriors.
Shame on me for not looking at these earlier. But I will be prepared as we move forward.
From the agenda here.
D.1 What Our Marks Really Are: This is basically a maintenance thing for mark protection that allows faster response times by the MPC for what notices it includes in its publications. Considering right now there’s an inflexible two-year constitutional amendment process in place, seems like a smart move. (I don’t recall there ever being meeting controversy about mark protection for as long as I’ve attended. It’s an important but unexciting thing.)
D.2 The Reasonable Amendment: This is an amendment for Nominee Diversity, which is the amendment we ratified that says you can’t have more than two works in the same category that are from the same dramatic presentation series or written by the same author. All this amendment does is change “WorldCon Committee shall make best efforts to notify those…” to “WorldCon Committee shall make reasonable efforts to notify those…” which seems, well, reasonable to me.
D.3 Make Room! Make Room! This amends section 3.2.8; currently that section allows the Committee to relocate a story to a more appropriate Hugo Category if it’s within 5,000 words or 20% of the new category limits. The amendment would get rid of the 5,000 words, so the requirement will just be within 20% of the category limit. The reason for this is the marketing/perception of novels and novellas versus their actual word count, which most nominators are not going to know and means that novels are getting nominated as novellas on occasion and vice versa. This effectively changes the “wiggle room” between novella and novel to be 8,000 words instead of 5,000, which seems fine to me.
D.4 Name That Award: This is for the naming of the YA Award, assuming that it passes. Considering I’d like the YA Award to have some name (and for it to pass) I’m in favor. We’ll see what the offered names end up being. There’ll be runoff voting on them.
D.5 got postponed indefinitely so I’m not going to bother looking at it.
D.6 The Division of the Hugo Award Best Novel Category: Basically they want to split the Best Novel Hugo into Best Fantasy Novel and Best Science Fiction Novel, since there are a lot of other awards that have things split up by genre. I’m… not really in favor of this as such. First, it introduces a serious inconsistency into the awards, if you’re going to split novel up but not any of the other lengths. The unique aspect of the Hugos until now has been that all the spec fic gets to ride together, and the divisions are based almost entirely on length rather than segregation by subgenre. There is a definitional issue here as well; the discussion basically wants to use publishing-derived categorization, but that seems like something of a nightmare for administration purposes because nominating fans are likely to go by what they perceive its category to be, not necessarily what the publisher says. There’s plenty out there that straddles the line… depending on how you define it. This sounds like serious fan-wank waiting to happen. I’m also not really in favor of anything that’s going to make life easier on the “my genre is better than your genre” crowd, but YMMV.
On the other hand, I’m generally in favor of anything that means there will be more rockets, because I don’t think a few more awards is going to dilute the impact of winning a Hugo. But god save me from anyone who would use the dual existence of the novel category to try to kill novelette YET AGAIN under the banner of “there are too many Hugos.” Or more accurately, god save them from me.
D.7 Reorganization of the Best Related Work Category: So this is basically another “This is how the Locus Award does it” case, which wants to split “Best Related Work” into “Best Non-Fiction Book” and “Best Art Book.” I think there’s an issue here to begin with by calling out the categories as “Books.” While the written definitions are a little looser, particularly for Non-Fiction, it gives the impression that only books are welcome in the categories. But consider this year we had a series of blog posts from Tor.com nominated, and previously entire seasons of Writing Excuses. I wouldn’t be surprised in the future if we get some trans-media stuff, more things like post series, who knows what else. I’d rather not see those fringe-y, related works that really don’t fit neatly in the other categories get left out because we’ve felt the need to more rigidly define them. I consider the nebulous nature of “Related Work” to be a feature, not a bug in this sense. Also questioning seriously if “Best Art Book” is really going to have enough nominations in it yearly to make it a viable and vibrant category.
D.8 Best Dramatic Presentation Reorganization: basically wants to rearrange the two current dramatic presentation categories so we’ll have Dramatic Presentation Long Form, Dramatic Presentation Episodic Form, Dramatic Presentation Short Form, and Dramatic Presentation Series. (So yes, we’d be having four categories instead of the current two.) I actually kind of like the idea of splitting up Episodic Form and Short Form, in the sense that episodes have really drowned out anything else short and speculative from the category for quite some time. This could make room for some really interesting stuff… or it could just create a category that’s not going to get a lot of traffic. Only time would tell on that one. But I’m really questioning Best Episodic Form versus Best Series… which is basically cutting between stand-alone episodes of anthology series versus long-arc series. Are there enough anthology shows versus long-arc shows to fill out two categories? Don’t know, don’t watch that much television. I don’t object to this as much as some of the other proposed reorganizations of categories, though again I’m wondering how this’ll sit with the “we give too many Hugos out” crowd.