![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm bumping up a discussion that I was having in comments with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
coalescent because it was getting somewhere and I'd like input from kevin_standlee about some of it.
EDIT: Kevin has picked up on some of this and focused on some specifics here.
First, a personal statement: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THIS. My real life is quite hard enough thank you and I honestly don't have time to take on what will be a complicated and involved multi-year process. For anybody out there reading this saying any variant on 'well it shouldn't be that hard or that's an example of how the SMOFs work or I'm being lazy, you can fuck off right now. I'm pretty damn far from lazy but this just isn't something I can give any time to at the moment, if you don't know me and know why, I'm sure people can educate you. As for the others - live with it, real life and other people don't owe you a living. I'm also clear that I don't think all these changes might be needed, nor,in fact that anything I'm going to suggest here is possible... Anyway...
The charge, elsewhere is that the Hugo Awards have problems and that the solution, propose something, get it in-front of the business meeting and drive through the change, isn't helpful because a lot of people interested in the Hugos and ensuring that they have their continuity guaranteed for another 50 years can't easily get to Worldcons. I think there is a valid concern there that could do with addressing, and certainly moving a structure to where proposals can be more easily prepared and made public for discussion, with either a system for people who can't attend to vote, or at least something which makes it easier to review proposals and discuss them.
The crux of the discussions I've read is that there needs to be a better way of getting proposals put together and some means of at least starting debate ahead of the Business Meeting. And from that, there should/could emerge some new ways of handling the nomination process.
Item 1: Wider Engagement
We think about something with a two step process of supporting and attending members, like the Hugo Awards, and I think Kevin has mentioned something like this.. Something that has a period of online 'consultation' not unlike the current process and the political process in the US and UK, but followed by a vote online with final ratification of the votes by the Business Meeting - something like a Commons/Lords/Congress/Senate system with the Business Meeting as the Lords/Senate and the wider membership as the commons. The goal would be to move to substantive online debate of actual proposals before handing them in for approval.
Item 2: Dealing with Geography
It's an inescapable fact that the Hugo is the Award of the Worldcon and that the Business Meeting will happen at the Worldcon. This is hardly unique to the WSFS nor all that radical or exclusionary. But there is a valid charge that a lot of interested, and hopefully engaged Fans can't travel. So here's a proposal: A 'buddy' exchange system is set up, much like British political parties have, where members of different parties will 'pair' up and agree to effectively represent the others interests if the other can't make a meeting. The British system actually works the opposite away around to what I'm suggesting. In Britain, if person A can't turn up,person B won't. In this case, a person who can't turn up can buddy with somebody like minded who can.
Item 3: Moving Forward
We explore,in actual practical detail the above and some means to get wider input into the committee process via some kind of online system. We don't get upset if people point out impractical ideas, but I would ask that if something is impractical, that is coupled to a suggestion that might work in its place.
Item 4: No Detours
The core of the complaints is really about the engagement process of the WSFS being unclear and hard. I've not really looked in detail and I don't really care. That's a feature of any organisation that has to operate functionally. I'm keen to focus on the core charge that the WSFS is somehow remote and impossible to work with and I'd like to focus just on that. I don't think we should focus on the nuts and bolts of the awards until we have a means of making sure people feel represented by such changes so I'd prefer not to get side-tracked by the 'need' for a YA Hugo or a Blogging Hugo. And here's why: What's relevant to us now in 2013, is probably going to look pretty daft in 2023 and the Hugos have been around a LOT longer than that. I've seen people who have interests in a better Online Hugo or a YA Hugo getting annoyed that the BDP: SF is a bad Hugo... and that's what happens when you put sticky plasters/band-aids over real problems because they're what you care about.
Now, I don't know how practical these are. I don't care, and I'm not getting involved. But obviously some people do and they're complaining they can't get engaged. I just wanted to try and bridge the gap a little and put some stuff out there that may or may not already be under consideration and perhaps spark some discussions of things which, if people ACTUALLY, want to get stuff done, can be done. Item 2, given the whole connected nature of the online world ought to be possible. Item 1, I don't know. I'd be interested in input from people who know this stuff on what such a structure would look like. Items 3 & 4 are just me trying to set some boundaries.
And here's the thing. I'm fairly sure that there are people who will freely give practical advice and even help.
A lot of the complaints I've seen seem to come from the UK and Europe. The Worldcon is in Europe next year and potentially the year after. 2014 would be a good time to have proposals for some something substantive, if you really want that, and a buddy system would allow for progress in 2015 even if people can't go.
But, again, as I said, I'm not doing it. I'm just putting an idea out there. And honestly, ideas really aren't worth all that much unless somebody executes.
coalescent because it was getting somewhere and I'd like input from kevin_standlee about some of it.EDIT: Kevin has picked up on some of this and focused on some specifics here.
First, a personal statement: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THIS. My real life is quite hard enough thank you and I honestly don't have time to take on what will be a complicated and involved multi-year process. For anybody out there reading this saying any variant on 'well it shouldn't be that hard or that's an example of how the SMOFs work or I'm being lazy, you can fuck off right now. I'm pretty damn far from lazy but this just isn't something I can give any time to at the moment, if you don't know me and know why, I'm sure people can educate you. As for the others - live with it, real life and other people don't owe you a living. I'm also clear that I don't think all these changes might be needed, nor,in fact that anything I'm going to suggest here is possible... Anyway...
The charge, elsewhere is that the Hugo Awards have problems and that the solution, propose something, get it in-front of the business meeting and drive through the change, isn't helpful because a lot of people interested in the Hugos and ensuring that they have their continuity guaranteed for another 50 years can't easily get to Worldcons. I think there is a valid concern there that could do with addressing, and certainly moving a structure to where proposals can be more easily prepared and made public for discussion, with either a system for people who can't attend to vote, or at least something which makes it easier to review proposals and discuss them.
The crux of the discussions I've read is that there needs to be a better way of getting proposals put together and some means of at least starting debate ahead of the Business Meeting. And from that, there should/could emerge some new ways of handling the nomination process.
Item 1: Wider Engagement
We think about something with a two step process of supporting and attending members, like the Hugo Awards, and I think Kevin has mentioned something like this.. Something that has a period of online 'consultation' not unlike the current process and the political process in the US and UK, but followed by a vote online with final ratification of the votes by the Business Meeting - something like a Commons/Lords/Congress/Senate system with the Business Meeting as the Lords/Senate and the wider membership as the commons. The goal would be to move to substantive online debate of actual proposals before handing them in for approval.
Item 2: Dealing with Geography
It's an inescapable fact that the Hugo is the Award of the Worldcon and that the Business Meeting will happen at the Worldcon. This is hardly unique to the WSFS nor all that radical or exclusionary. But there is a valid charge that a lot of interested, and hopefully engaged Fans can't travel. So here's a proposal: A 'buddy' exchange system is set up, much like British political parties have, where members of different parties will 'pair' up and agree to effectively represent the others interests if the other can't make a meeting. The British system actually works the opposite away around to what I'm suggesting. In Britain, if person A can't turn up,person B won't. In this case, a person who can't turn up can buddy with somebody like minded who can.
Item 3: Moving Forward
We explore,in actual practical detail the above and some means to get wider input into the committee process via some kind of online system. We don't get upset if people point out impractical ideas, but I would ask that if something is impractical, that is coupled to a suggestion that might work in its place.
Item 4: No Detours
The core of the complaints is really about the engagement process of the WSFS being unclear and hard. I've not really looked in detail and I don't really care. That's a feature of any organisation that has to operate functionally. I'm keen to focus on the core charge that the WSFS is somehow remote and impossible to work with and I'd like to focus just on that. I don't think we should focus on the nuts and bolts of the awards until we have a means of making sure people feel represented by such changes so I'd prefer not to get side-tracked by the 'need' for a YA Hugo or a Blogging Hugo. And here's why: What's relevant to us now in 2013, is probably going to look pretty daft in 2023 and the Hugos have been around a LOT longer than that. I've seen people who have interests in a better Online Hugo or a YA Hugo getting annoyed that the BDP: SF is a bad Hugo... and that's what happens when you put sticky plasters/band-aids over real problems because they're what you care about.
Now, I don't know how practical these are. I don't care, and I'm not getting involved. But obviously some people do and they're complaining they can't get engaged. I just wanted to try and bridge the gap a little and put some stuff out there that may or may not already be under consideration and perhaps spark some discussions of things which, if people ACTUALLY, want to get stuff done, can be done. Item 2, given the whole connected nature of the online world ought to be possible. Item 1, I don't know. I'd be interested in input from people who know this stuff on what such a structure would look like. Items 3 & 4 are just me trying to set some boundaries.
And here's the thing. I'm fairly sure that there are people who will freely give practical advice and even help.
A lot of the complaints I've seen seem to come from the UK and Europe. The Worldcon is in Europe next year and potentially the year after. 2014 would be a good time to have proposals for some something substantive, if you really want that, and a buddy system would allow for progress in 2015 even if people can't go.
But, again, as I said, I'm not doing it. I'm just putting an idea out there. And honestly, ideas really aren't worth all that much unless somebody executes.
