Log in

No account? Create an account

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006, 03:02 pm
kevin_standlee: Main Business Meeting Summary

This is a summary of actions taken by the Main Business Meeting at L.A.con IV.

The incumbent members of the Mark Protection Committee were re-elected for three-year terms.

Colin Harris and Vince Docherty clarified the Interaction financial report to make it clear that only a minor amount of Interaction's funds remains unspent and that they expect to make the Final Report next year.

Business Passed On From Interaction

The Best Editor Split amendment was ratified; however, the wording was changed in a number of ways, all of which were ruled to not increase the scope of the amendment, and therefore they do not require an additional year of ratification. The changes are sufficient enough that I'm going to quote the whole thing as it finally was ratified here. You can go look at the original on the draft agenda for comparison.

Moved, To split the Best Professional Editor Hugo Award into a Best Editor Short Fiction and Best Magazine Editor Long Award by striking out and inserting new sections as follows:

3.3.8: Best Professional Editor. The editor of any professional publication devoted primarily to Science Fiction or Fantasy during the previous calendar year. A professional publication is one which had an average press run of at least ten thousand (10,000) copies per issue.

3.3.x: Best Editor Short Fiction. The editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year.

3.3.y: Best Editor Long Form. The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works devoted primarily to science fiction and/or fantasy published in the previous calendar year that do not qualify as works under 3.3.x.

Provided that this amendment may be repealed by a simple majority vote at either the 2009 or 2010 Main Business Meetings.
Note that the provision will automatically lapse and be deleted from the Constitution if no action is taken by either the 2009 or 2010 meetings.

New Business

The Best Professional Artist Hugo Administration resolution passed in a slightly amended form, asking future Worldcon committees to request that artist nominees provide references to three or more pieces of artwork. In addition, a separate constitutional amendment that would require Best Professional Artist nominees to provide citations of at least three works from the eligibility year received first passage and was sent to Nippon 2007 for ratification. The constitutional amendment was the only vote that looked close enough to count, and it turned out to not be as close as the show of hands initially indicated -- it passed 66-24.

The Conversion Cap Clearance proposal, which would have raised the cap on conversion from voting to attending membership, was defeated.

The Taming the Digital Wilderness motion was referred back to the Digital Wilderness Committee (which was continued yesterday but whose new membership will not be appointed until Saturday's meeting). The discussion on sending to committee centered on the results of the committee's report not being made available with sufficient time prior to the Worldcon for members to consider them in advance.

In addition, a resolution deploring the demotion of Pluto from planetary status once again hung fire before I could actually rule on the point of order raised against it by the meeting adjourning first. I suppose it's possible the meeting will adjourn without actually considering the motion tomorrow, just to be amusing.

The substantive business for Saturday's meeting is the official announcement of site selection results (although it's okay to announce unofficial results as soon as the vote count is complete), the initial presentation by bidders, Question Time for Seated Worldcons and (time permitting) 2009 bidders, and possibly that pending resolution.

The WSFS Mark Protection Committee will meet following the Business Meeting, at which time it is expected to follow up on the instructions from the Business Meeting to form at "Higher and Stronger Hugo" (HASH) Committee.

Update, 26 Aug 7:30:</b> Corrected wording error pointed out in comments.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 10:37 pm (UTC)

I hope I get to hear who won the 2008 Worldcon bid as soon as possible because I voted for the first time in my life for a Worldcon. This is probably one of the most interesting Worldcons site selections in recent memory. I hope someone takes alot of notes as I hope we hear more about Nippon 2007 at the meeting tomorrow. I valiantly supported something that failed. I think the issue of raising the cap will be interesting as we try the two year process. I think the issue isn't dead long term, though.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 06:41 am (UTC)

Denver by 12 votes. Full details on my blog when I get them.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 02:22 pm (UTC)
lesliet_ma: Really?

That's quite a surprise. Everyone seemed to think Chicago had it in the bag.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 02:35 pm (UTC)
kevin_standlee: Re: Really?

This is the danger of listening too closely to SMOFs talking. The "accepted wisdom" is often quite wrong. Indeed, I understand that Denver didn't win until after the votes for Columbus were redistributed.

Fri, Aug. 25th, 2006 10:44 pm (UTC)

The Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet (http://www.plutoisaplanet.org) would like to go on record as in favor of the resolution deploring the reduction in Pluto's status.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 12:55 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): READ THIS

you want to do better as world sci fi con rat con 2 and 3, you need to reach out to every one who has all type of sci fi movies still and lot more then books. no one is going to just buy books. you have fucked up on this con. i walked out on wed-24-06, you don't have costuming workshops, gay/lesbian fandom, computer graphics panel, no one talking about u.f.o., making sci fi films, lucas film computer games group, lobbying for space-local activities, computer music demonstration, martial demonstration, star trek welcommittee, making sf films: low budget, making sf films: special effects, IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS TO THOSE QUESTION YOU SHOULD NOT RUN A CONVENTION OF ANY KIND.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 01:14 am (UTC)
yourbob: Re: READ THIS

I find this amusing on several fronts.

First, Kevin doesn't run the convention. He has very little to do with running it and absolutely nothing to do with programming as far as I know, other than being on a couple of panels.

Secondly, the program has been available online for a couple weeks, and for several months the programming committee had requested items to be suggested. If you didn't suggest what you wanted to see - it's your own fault.

Thirdly, because all those topics are on the program and most of them were on today's list of panels and presentations. I attended about half of them.

If you had bothered to read the online program, the program book, pocket program or the programming grid (FOUR CHANCES!), you would have noticed that. If you didn't - again, your fault not the conventions.

Of course I know you're a hit-and-run muckraker so won't bother to check back here to read that. Your loss.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 05:14 pm (UTC)
tully01: Re: READ THIS

I find it even more amusing that they claim they walked out. After paying their money? Heh. Not buying that for a second.

Just a drive-by maroon.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 03:10 am (UTC)
kevin_standlee: Re: READ THIS

Everything yourbob said, in spades. Oh, and I'm going to turn screen-anonymous back on again. (I keep forgetting that it's not the default in laconiv.) So while I won't kill your comment, because you're somewhat entertaining, I also won't approve any more unsigned comments.

And of course even if you do check back in, it won't really matter, because you're obviously illiterate. How could you possibly miss the huge amount of programming that was on offer otherwise?

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 08:30 am (UTC)
pnh: Re: READ THIS

Wow, I remember my first beer, too.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 01:56 pm (UTC)
purpleranger: Re: READ THIS

And I'll bet that he has never seen a real girl naked.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 07:43 pm (UTC)
tully01: Re: READ THIS

Sure he has! He has internet access! And judging from the writing style, he learned to type one-handed....

Mon, Aug. 28th, 2006 03:01 pm (UTC)
purpleranger: Re: READ THIS

I'm talking in person, not in a photo or on the computer screen.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 05:34 am (UTC)

Colin Harris and Vince Docherty clarified the Interaction financial report to make it clear that all but a minor amount of Interaction's funds remains unspent and that they expect to make the Final Report next year.

I think you meant to say "only" where you have "all but" above.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 02:28 pm (UTC)

Yep. Fixed. Thanks.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 01:54 pm (UTC)

Who are the incumbent members who were reelected? Names, please.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC)

The information you seek was in the Preliminary Agenda, which not only was on the WSFS web site (and to which I've referred previously), but was, as I recall, also distributed in a progress report.

The incumbent directors who were re-elected were Scott Dennis, Donald Eastlake III, and Ruth Sachter.

Sat, Aug. 26th, 2006 09:44 pm (UTC)


Sun, Aug. 27th, 2006 01:24 am (UTC)

Oops! Members, of course. No WSFS Inc. to see here, move along.

(Of course, the membership of the Mark Protection Committee is what would have been the Board of Directors of the WSFS had the 1980s incorporation proposal ever been completed.)

Mon, Aug. 28th, 2006 05:12 am (UTC)

Kevin - I have a question for you. I bought a transferred membership for a late deciding friend. Unknown to me when I bought it, it was a '2nd transfer'. After much delay and telling us that 'you can only transfer once', someone at registration cleared up the problem with a 'oh, here you go, I already did this one' and we were on our way.

However, I asked them to show me the ruling that a membership can only be transferred once, and they kept telling me that there was such a ruling, but could not bring it out. I DID read the 'how to transfer a membership' on the LA Con IV webpage, and this was not one of the requirements.

So, is there such a ruling in the rules? So I know if this comes up again in the future.

Mon, Aug. 28th, 2006 10:28 am (UTC)
kevin_standlee: Membership Transfers

There is no such ruling of which I'm aware, not in the WSFS rules. Whoever said it was imagining things if they thought it was a WSFS rule. However, committees may set their own policies as long as there is no specific prohibition or requirement. Worldcons are not required to allow membership transfers at all. Any transfers they allow are at their own discretion, so they could make a rule that said "no second transfer." I don't know enough about this to say much more, and I expect you'd really have to take it clear up the management ladder to find out what was going on.

Mon, Aug. 28th, 2006 05:13 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): this is i kenny what pr are you talking about?

what number of the pr are you talking about now?.

Mon, Aug. 28th, 2006 10:40 am (UTC)
kevin_standlee: L.A.con Progress Reports

Kenny, I think it was Progress Report 4, but I can't remember off the top of my head, and I'm not going to go download it now to find out. You can look at all of the PRs on the L.A.con IV Publications web site. As I said above, the documents are also on the WSFS rules web site.