?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Thu, Aug. 24th, 2006, 06:58 pm
kevin_standlee: Preliminary Business Meeting Summary

This will not be a detailed blow-by-blow set of minutes, but a summary of today's Preliminary WSFS Business Meeting. You may want to check out the last on-line version of the 2006 Agenda to see what was in the advance agenda.

The incumbents were renominated for the WSFS Mark Protection committee. Nobody else was nominated.

We received financial reports from all WSFS conventions with reportable surpluses except the 2007 NASFiC, whose report should be in the minutes post-con. (The computer ate their homework.)

There was an attempt to add a "sunset" provision to the pending ratification of the Best Professional Editor Hugo Award Split that would cause it to revert to the existing wording unless the Business Meeting in 2009 took specific action. This was referred to a committee to consider the wording; expect a variation on the idea to be proposed tomorrow. (The Chair has ruled that such "sunset" provisions are in order at this time and would not prevent the ratification of the amended proposal, on the grounds that amending the Constitution for a limited period of time is less of a change than amending it permanently.)

The Best Professional Artist Hugo Award amendment, which would have had a significant effect upon how nomination votes for this category were counted, was replaced with a resolution (not a constitutional amendment) calling upon future Worldcons to enforce the nominee eligibility rules more closely in this category and to request nominated artists to provide samples of newly-published work from the eligibility year so the voters could see them. Then the resolution was sent to a committee for further discussion. Tomorrow's Main Meeting will get that resolution back along with any recommendations from that committee.

No action was taken on the Conversion Cap Clearance motion, which would raise the constitutionally-protected 90-day price cap on initial conversions of voting to attending memberships from 2x the advance supporting membership (voting) fee to 3x that fee, other than to set the debate time for tomorrow's Main Meeting.

The Taming the Digital Wilderness Committee motion that would change "printed" to "written" in Section 3.10.4 and to also add "websites" to the list of publication venues in that same section had no action other than the debate time limit; however, we expect a motion to refer it back to the Digital Wilderness Committee tomorrow.

A Resolution deploring "the demotion of Pluto from the ranks of true planets" was ruled ultra vires (outside of the scope of the society's rules), and that ruling was probably going to get appealed, but a privileged motion to Adjourn (one of the few times I've seen it deployed) shut off work for the day. This resolution and attendant material will be back tomorrow.

Elements of the discussion got a bit convoluted at times, but overall things seemed to go fairly smoothly.

Update, 8/25 14:40: Corrected section reference in the Digital Wilderness motion.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 06:09 am (UTC)
timill

What's with the Digital Wilderness motion? It seems straightforward enough to me. Shouldn't take any time, as there's not much to debate.


Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 06:44 am (UTC)
kevin_standlee

The major complaint -- and it's coming from Mark Olson -- is that the report was sprung on the meeting without advance discussion on SMOFS.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 08:07 am (UTC)
timill

When did Smofs become the PBM?

hugoweb@yahoo is an open announced list. If he wants to know, he can join and contribute.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 09:44 am (UTC)
timill

And moreover, committees of the Business Meeting should report to the Business Meeting.

Has Mark moved and amendment to the Standing Rules to this effect? Did he announce this on Smofs?

Grump.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 03:14 pm (UTC)
kevin_standlee

Argue with him, not with me; however, I think in Mark's case, he's uncomfortable with any business that he didn't know was coming some considerable time in advance.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 12:43 pm (UTC)
pwilkinson

For me, that's an interesting complaint, seeing that it was mainly a matter of circumstance that the report and motion were drafted by timill rather than by me - and I'm not on SMOFS.

Thanks for the information (and the rest of your reporting). The fate of the motion is obviously a matter for the Business Meeting, not me - particularly since I'm currently in London rather than Anaheim - and of course I'll accept (and if appropriate help act on) whatever's decided.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): 3.4 versus 3.10.4

Um, shouldn't the reference in the paragraph starting "The Taming the Digital Wilderness Committee motion..." be to Section 3.10.4 of the WSFS Constitution (versus the 3.4 shown)?

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 09:26 pm (UTC)
kevin_standlee: Re: 3.4 versus 3.10.4

Yes. Done. Thanks.

Sun, Aug. 27th, 2006 01:34 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): you should not use robert's rules of order with out posting

how much money you have or left befor the convention ends, or you have in the bank. ass for the staff of this convention you have ran it so bad now how? will you do better if you want to try it again?. POST the money you have now. you are no co or business to use the right for the rules.

Sun, Aug. 27th, 2006 01:59 am (UTC)
kevin_standlee: Re: you should not use robert's rules of order with out posting

Being a pretty foolish person, I'm actually going to try and answer the silly questions you are asking. At least I think I will, because I can't really figure out what you mean.
you should not use robert's rules of order with out posting
how much money you have or left befor the convention ends,
Why are these two things related? What do the rules we use for debating decisions have to do with the convention's bank balance?
ass for the staff of this convention you have ran it so bad now how? will you do better if you want to try it again?.
Not being a senior official of the L.A.con IV committee nor a member of their governing body. SCIFI, I won't presume to speak for them, but I think it very likely that it will be many years before they are interested in running another Worldcon in this area. Next year's Worldcon will be in Japan and run by a different group of people. The following year's Worldcon will be in Denver and will be run by a different group of people. And so on.
POST the money you have now.
Why? Today is a silly day to post the bank balances, because the bills won't come due for a while yet. Of course as of this very instant as I write this, the convention is cash-rich; however, there are tens, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of bills that will have to be paid in the next few weeks.

And as far as financial openness goes, L.A.con IV, like all other Worldcons, submitted financial statements to the WSFS Business Meeting as required by those rules you seem to disdain so much. You'll be able to read the numbers when they are published, which won't be immediately because we need time to copy-edit the minutes and so forth.
you are no co or business to use the right for the rules.
As a matter of fact, you're right. WSFS is not a company or a business. The World Science Fiction Society is a membership society whose annual meeting is the World Science Fiction Convention. This year's Worldcon was organized by SCIFI, which is a company (that is, a non-profit corporation organized under California law). The WSFS Business Meeting does not operate the Worldcon. The WSFS Business Meeting deals with the rules of the WSFS regarding the Hugo Awards and the selection of future Worldcons. Being an open membership organization in which any member may participate in the debate, you have to have rules for orderly transaction of business. While there are many different sets of such rules, the most comprehensive such set of rules and the one which WSFS has adopted as its manual is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.

Note that I'm going to go turn screen-anonymous now. If you learn to write a little better, I may even approve your postings, Kenny.

Sun, Aug. 27th, 2006 02:44 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): don't you tie me in as i didn't put this in

i did not do this, what the use to post any thing like this when you don't know how to answer any of my questions any how , i kenny smith from sacto sure wood like to know why so many persons did not come to the convention? any how.