The 2024 Consultative Vote on Two New Hugo Categories

The report below is published in our personal capacity  by Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head, and Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator. It does not reflect any official position by Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon For Our Futures, the 2024 Worldcon.

Introduction

Suggestions that significant WSFS decisions could be taken by a vote of WSFS members, rather than at the Business Meeting, have been circulating for some years. The Business Meeting tends to absorb much time and energy from Worldcon participants for the sake of debate which can often seem technical and inward-looking. A direct consultation with membership has the potential appeal of directness and clarity.

We began considering the merits of a trial consultative vote on any Business Passed On from the 2023 Business Meeting after a September 2022 discussion on File 770. We assumed confidently that the Business Meeting at the Chengdu Worldcon would give us some material that we could work with; in fact no fewer than twelve constitutional amendments were passed in 2023, for ratification in Glasgow in 2024. 

We felt that most of these were unsuitable for a trial of the consultative vote concept. We decided to concentrate on changes to the Hugo rules. The four Hugo Award rule changes passed by Chengdu included two minor technical fixes, and more substantially an amendment to the Best Fancast category, and the proposal to introduce two new Independent Film Hugo categories. We selected the last of these as likely to generate the most interest, and secured the agreement of the proposers to the idea of making it the subject of the consultative vote trial.

Although the Independent Film proposal would have created two new Hugo categories, it was a single proposal and we treated it as a single measure.  

Implementation

We decided to run the vote between the close of Hugo final ballot voting on Saturday 20 July and the start of the convention on Thursday 8 August. The number of WSFS members of the convention would then be at its maximum, and the WSFS Division leadership would (in theory!) be relatively clear of other distractions.  We settled on Monday 22 July to Monday 5 August, to allow members two full weeks with two full weekends for the vote.

Initially we planned that the consultative vote, given that it was a trial, would take place purely online, though we changed our minds on this once it became clear that it was not technically difficult to provide a paper ballot to print out and mail. In the event, just one paper ballot was received.

Just before we opened the consultative vote, a large number of WSFS memberships were found by the Hugo administrators to have been fraudulently acquired, and the votes cast by 377 memberships for the Hugo Awards were disallowed. None of the memberships in question attempted to participate in the consultative vote. If they had, we would have disallowed their votes.

We are extremely grateful to Chris Rose for creating a module within the NomNom system to enable the consultative vote to take place. A technical glitch meant that we were unable to open the vote on Monday 22 July as planned, and instead it was launched on Thursday 25 July, exactly two weeks before the opening of Glasgow 2024. Initial interest was strong, with more than 550 votes recorded in the first twenty-four hours. A reminder was sent out about fourteen hours before the vote closed, and another 400 voted in that final period. The overall response demonstrates a high level of member interest. 1,260 members voted in total: 533 (42.3%) in favour, and 727 (57.7%) against.

In order to create a fair and comprehensive ballot, we sought statements for and against the proposed Independent Film categories from, respectively, Tony Xia and Louis Savy, who had made the original proposal, and Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk, who had blogged robustly against it. With the overall appearance of the ballot in mind, we held both sides to a 200 word limit, without sight of each others’ arguments. We are very grateful to all four contributors for producing a balancing pair of statements, which reflected considerable thought. For the record, the two statements were as follows:

Statement in Favour:

In the spirit of the fan community, we believe the respected Hugo Awards should ratify the two new dramatic presentation categories. While the literary awards cover a broad range of works from independent and self-published creators, the Dramatic Presentation awards (film and TV) primarily recognize major studios. This overlooks fan creations and smaller independent films that contribute significantly to the genre. 

Recognising independent films is crucial, as myriad high-quality productions have emerged thanks in part, to new technology and film education, bringing diversity and energy to science fiction moving image. These creators deserve visibility alongside independent fanbased writers, podcasts, and magazines and so on. 

Highlighting independent works would introduce both the voting community and a wider audience to material they might not otherwise encounter. Additionally, this recognition could foster greater engagement, with filmmakers likely embracing the Hugo Awards and promoting them within their community. Independent filmmakers are also more likely to respond enthusiastically to nominations and attend WorldCons, unlike the often-detached approach of major studios. 

Adopting these categories will not only honour the innovation of independent creators but also broaden the Hugo Awards’ legacy, ensuring a vibrant, inclusive future for science fiction film. 

(Louis Savy and Tony Xia)

Statement Against 

There are three main reasons to reject this proposal: lack of clarity, lack of availability, and lack of necessity. 

Firstly, what counts as ‘Independent Cinema’? The proposal states: “The films should not be funded by a major studio or distribution label/platform/streamer,” but fails to state what this means. Do A24 or Lionsgate count as major studios? This lack of clarity about what “major” means would be a significant challenge for Hugo administrators and nominators. 

Secondly, are these movies available to nominators? Many independent movies are only available at festivals, or in a handful of cinemas. They are unavailable to most Hugo voters until it’s too late to nominate them. 

Finally, is this category actually necessary? Last year’s winner Everything Everywhere All At Once was produced by the independent IAC Films, and won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Independent Film. If these types of movies are already being shortlisted and winning Hugo awards, a new category is not necessary. If anything, adding the categories might serve to ghettoize instead of celebrate this important area of film-making. 

In summary, this  proposal’s administration would be problematic, features works that would be unavailable to Hugo voters, and for which there is fundamentally no need. 

(Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk) 

When the proposed constitutional amendment came before the Business Meeting, nobody could be found to speak in its favour, though two people spoke against it, and it was heavily defeated after seven minutes of discussion. The Chair of the Business Meeting informed attendees of the result of the consultative vote at the beginning of the debate.

Feedback on the consultative vote

Buzz online indicated the WSFS community anticipated the vote and were invested in its outcome.  The initial December announcement that the Consultative Vote was in the works generated positive comments on BlueSky: “I’m very pleased to see that this experiment will be run,” and, “This is pretty exciting and potentially important for SFFH fans! Glasgow Worldcon is holding a consultative ONLINE vote…Feels like a positive step, in that it’s at least something to try and widen engagement.

While the vote was open there was quite a lot of activity.  This comment appeared on an online forum: “whether you favor or oppose the proposal, I hope #WSFSmembers will take part in this online advisory vote, which will facilitate more worldwide participation and may help lead the way to more inclusive WSFS Business decision-making in future.” 

The vote inspired a blog post, which included the following: “…adding an online voting component absolutely seems appropriate to me. Participation in this nonbinding vote will help bring that future possibility closer…On a personal note, I’ll certainly be participating in this vote. I’d been planning to attend the Glasgow Worldcon this summer, and participate in the business meetings [sic]…Now I’m [unsure], but at least my opinion will be seen online.”

Other comments included: “Let’s see if my no vote online counts for anything,” “Hopefully the Business Meeting follows the majority opinion here,” and, “… the level of drama should this vote and the business meeting disagree will likely be quite something.”  The social media reminders to vote in the final days were reposted multiple times.

A participant messaged us wishing that there had been an option to refer the matter for further consideration in addition to the straight yes / no options. It is a fair point that the existing mechanism for constitutional change does allow for the refinement of a proposed amendment in the course of ratification, by amending to have the effect of a “lesser change”, and it is difficult to envisage how this could operate in a member-wide vote.

An external commentator condemned the 2024 consultative vote as “a stunt to further the agenda of people who want to add online voting to the functionality of the Business Meeting”. This is incorrect, though it is a confusion we have noted elsewhere. Our intention was always to run a process separate from the Business Meeting, which does not have a mandate to manage consultative votes. (Though frankly we do not see what would be so bad about adding online voting to the Business Meeting.)

A separate proposal for popular ratification was put to the 2024 Business Meeting. It was referred to a committee on reform of the Business Meeting for further consideration, after a ten-minute debate.

Conclusion

We consider this trial to have been a successful proof of concept. The conduct of the vote was not a significant time or monetary cost for the convention. The 1,260 participants in the vote are a significant multiple of those who attended the Business Meeting in Glasgow (which may have peaked at around 150 in the room at any one time, though the full number of those who attended at one time or another will have been much greater). 

If such popular votes are included in the WSFS decision-making process in future, we have the following recommendations:

  1. The voting period should be short, and should be close to the time of the convention. More than 75% of all votes were cast in either the first 24 hours or the last 24 hours of the ballot being open. An extended voting period will not change that, and risks getting the process lost in the weeds. The process needs to be long enough to allow for paper ballots to be received, but no more than that.
  1. We are not convinced that all constitutional amendments are suitable for a popular vote. For instance, should the membership as a whole expect, or be expected, to have a meaningful view on whether or not Hugo administrators can establish a conversion ratio between word counts in English and another language, which was one of the amendments up for ratification this year? Perhaps there could be or should be a fast track for less controversial changes.
  1. Some considerable thought went into the crafting and presentation of the statements pro and contra the proposed changes. Our instinct is that the Constitution and rules should provide general guidance to the administrators of future votes in this regard, and avoid being over-prescriptive. Less controversial issues, if they are ever put to a membership ballot, may not need statements pro and contra to be published at all.
  1. Any future consultative vote mechanism should be part of the WSFS Division of the administering Worldcon, but run separately from the other WSFS areas of responsibility, ie the Business Meeting, the Hugos, and Site Selection. The organisational burden is not onerous, but it is significant enough to require extra human resources. That probably does not need to be hardwired into the Constitution, but it is our recommendation for good future practice.

Members are rightly demanding more transparency and participation in WSFS decision-making, and the suitability of the Business Meeting’s format has increasingly been a subject of discussion. Now, at least, we have some real data about how a popular vote might work.

Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head
Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator

Chicon 8, the 2022 Hugos and the Business Meeting

Chicago was the first city in the USA that I ever set foot in, aged 5 in 1972, on a family visit to my father’s old friend Emmet Larkin. My only previous visit as an adult was in 2016 for SMOFCon, when I also saw Hamilton. In 2016 we were out by the airport for most of the time; this year we were in the Hyatt Regency, right beside the meeting of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan.

This is actually an extraordinary feat of engineering. In the late nineteenth century, the river channel was re-shaped and a connecting canal built with the Des Plaines River, leading to the Illinois River and the Mississippi River basin, so that the Chicago River now flows out of the lake rather than into it. Most of the water in the picture will go all the way to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, 1500 km to the south. Though I suppose some of it will go the other way, through Lake Huron and Lake Erie, over Niagara Falls, through Lake Ontario and into the Atlantic via Canada, which is 1600 km as the crow flies but a little further as the river flows.

Back in March 2020, as the pandemic was closing in and I was one of the Deputy Hugo Administrators wrestling with that year’s Hugo nominations, I reached out to Kat Jones, who was also on the Hugo team that year, and said that, if Glasgow were to win the 2024 Worldcon bid, I would likely become the WSFS Division Head, and if so, would she consider being that year’s Hugo Administrator? Kat replied with a provisional yes, much to my relief.

A few months later, in October 2020, Kat reached out to me in turn. She had just been appointed the Hugo Administrator for 2022, and wondered if I would consider joining the team as her deputy? At this stage of course we had no guarantee that there would be an in-person Worldcon ever again – CoNZealand had had their disastrous virtual ceremony two months before. But I agreed anyway, in hope that we would be able to attend, and so it proved.

We had a great team this year, with the committee also including WSFS Division Heads Jesi Lipp and Brian Nisbet. I have known Brian for twenty years, but this was the first time I had really worked with Jesi. We discovered that we are actually seventh cousins twice removed, sharing ancestry with Grover Cleveland, Fritz Leiber and Shirley Temple. It’s a small world.

All in all, this was definitely the smoothest of the four and a half Hugo processes that I have been involved with. (2017, 2019, 2020, part of 2021, and this year; not having a global pandemic does help). We now have robust software solutions for tallying nomination votes and counting the final ballot; we have a good eligibility verification process; we generally (with inevitable glitches) had good communications with the rest of the convention and with finalists; and there was no big screw-up on the events side. Many small screw-ups on many smaller things, of course, but that is normal.

BK Ellison’s trophy was the first time I had been involved with a base design which includes a stand. (The others were all more plinth-ish, if that is a word.) We all fell in love with it as soon as he presented his initial design: it nicely captures the Chicago flag and the convention theme, “Take To The Stars”.

The Sekrit Hugo Cupboard was very close to the main hall where the ceremony was taking place, which made things a lot easier, though it was also right beside Registration, which made us a lot more cautious. Walking between the two on ceremony day with the envelopes containing the winners, I happened to bump into a bunch of finalists who turned a little pale when they realised what I was holding. I was very pleased to meet Arkady Martine at the reception beforehand, knowing (though she did not) that she had won Best Novel for A Desolation Called Peace (the only one of the three winners who I had voted for who was actually present). Concealing the awards from curious eyes backstage before the ceremony took a little McGyver-style ingenuity, but we managed it.

The ceremony, conducted by Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz, was efficient, funny and professional. (As James Nicoll put it, “almost as [if] the the ghost of a ceremony neither fast-paced nor entertaining was on people’s minds”.) It was slightly awkward that the presenters themselves won in two categories, but of course they had been selected long before the nominations opened, and other presenters were brought in for the relevant bits. (And they did not know in advance that they had won.)

I’ve written up my take on the results already, so just to repeat, this worked out very well; credit to the entire team, most of all Kat Jones, also Jesi Lipp and Brian Nisbet; Cassidy and their deputy Theresa Hahn for finalist liaison; David Matthewman and Chris Rose (and ultimately Eemeli Aro) for software and tech; Terry Neill on Help Desk and much else; Chris Ragan and Jed Hartman on the Voter Packet; Alissa Wales on eligibility; BK Ellison for the Hugo base and Sara Felix for the Lodestar trophy; John Brown and team for the ceremony, and Helen Montgomery for running the convention.

One other point. Best Editor, Long Form looks like the weakest of the current categories, with the highest vote for No Award and with no less than five nominees either turning out to be ineligible or withdrawing for other reasons. I will have more to say on this in due course.

The Business Meeting

Most of this post is going to be about the 2022 WSFS Business Meeting, because after the Hugos that was my biggest concern. I do not love the Business Meeting. It is tremendously demanding of participants’ time, especially when you have other commitments (like, for instance, running the Hugo Awards). There are some participants who appear to delight in finding procedural devices to simply use up time without achieving anything, which frustrates those of us less familiar with the rules who actually do want to achieve things. In a professional environment, the Business Meeting’s persistent failure to keep to its own time commitments would not be tolerated. I do not know if it is the fault of Roberts’ Rules of Order, or of the particular sub-culture of the WSFS Business Meeting, or both, that such behaviour is rewarded and not deterred, but surely there is a better way. For now, we are stuck with it.

Having said that, I personally had a good Business Meeting in 2022. Jared Dashoff and Jesi Lipp as presiding officers did their best to keep things on track, despite the difficulties imposed by structure and culture, and succeeded as often as not. And mostly the things I wanted to happen (or not) did happen (or didn’t).

Before the convention I had published some commentary on the Hugo Awards Study Committee and its proposals (here on File 770, mirrored from here) starting with the proposition that the Committee itself should be abolished. This took up half an hour of the preliminary business meeting on the Friday (from 1:17 on the video). The outgoing Chair of the Committee made his report; I made my speech opposing the renewal of the committee; and rather surprisingly, there were no more speeches in favour of either continuation or abolition – the remaining time was filled with procedural wrangles which I found difficult to follow, including a proposal that the cameras should be turned off. (Why? I had already said my piece. Were they planning to say Dark Things about me? Did they think that my non-existent allies and minions were primed to say Dark Things about them?) As the vote was called, I accepted that I would probably lose by a small margin. To my surprise, I won by about three to one, and the Committee was dissolved. (For more detail on the Friday see Alex Acks and Kevin Standlee.)

Much less to say about Saturday (more from Alex Acks and Kevin Standlee). In my absence (I had an actual program item to go to) the Business Meeting passed resolutions condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine and the GoH status of writer Sergei Lukanienko at next year’s Worldcon. The most important thing for me personally was getting elected to the Mark Protection Committee, which works to preserve the intellectual property of the terms WSFS, Hugo, Lodestar, etc. Several years ago I helped the MPC in a dispute with the Flemish broadcaster which planned to set up its own Hugo Awards in memory of the great writer Hugo Claus. In the end VRT backed down and decided to call the awards the “Hugo Claus Awards”. I am not sure if they ever got around to awarding them. I’ve also had my differences with the MPC over some recent issues, and felt it would be better to be on the inside. Also, the E Pluribus Hugo voting system, which faced a potential sunset clause, was reratified with permanent effect.

Sunday started very happily with the declaration of the Site Selection vote for 2024. Glasgow won by a huge margin (as the only candidate). Here’s the promotion video – I am briefly visible at 3:06, but the whole thing is a joy.

An attempt to suspend standing orders in order to yell at Chengdu 2023 was rapidly quashed. Then, at last, we were onto constitutional amendments. The first of these dealt with the conditions under which a Hugo category might be won by “No Award” if the number of votes for finalists is less than 25% of the Hugo total. The Study Committee had proposed a further refinement, but Olav Rokne and others very sensibly had proposed instead simply to abolish that provision of the constitution, and after a half hour of debate they won, as I had hoped. There are still two remaining ways in which a category can be No Awarded, but I hope that they will be rare.

At this point I had to leave to do Hugo wrangling, just as the bit I cared most about hit the agenda: the amendment to clarify the definitions of the Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist Hugos, which is the single most urgent issue facing Hugo administrators. The wording put to the meeting was largely mine, but I am happy to admit that it was not perfect, and it was referred to a new committee chaired by actual artists, exactly the sort of specialist consultation which helped the Best Game category over the line. As long as we end up with definitions which are more inclusive and less work for administrators, I will be happy, but it will take at least another year. The proposed new Best Game category was passed with nine minutes of debate and a large majority; of course those nine minutes were the culmination of years of intense discussion in the wider community. It now needs to be ratified in Chengdu. (Fuller reports, again, from Alex Acks and Kevin Standlee.)

The final session of the Business Meeting on the Monday considered the last three amendments proposed by the Hugo Awards Study Committee. All of these were bad ideas; one was kicked to a committee and the other two defeated. The first was the attempt to hardwire definitions of Fan and Pro into the Constitution, a proposal which the HASC leadership themselves admitted was not really ready for ratification and which had been proposed to the Business Meeting without the knowledge of most of the Committee members. To my frustration, this was referred to the same committee which had been set up the previous day to refine the Artist categories; they may or may not choose to do anything with it, but I felt shades of 2017, when my proposal to set up a committee to look at the Artist categories was transformed into the Hugo Awards Study Committee as it came to be. (It seemed like a good idea at the time.)

I stood up and proposed that the Business Meeting’s recommendations to the Artist committee on this point should include consideration of whether a global change is necessary at all, or whether a category-by-category approach might be better.

To my surprise there was a passionate but incomprehensible speech against my proposal, followed equally surprisingly by Dave McCarty (at 42:32): “Everybody note the time! I am about to say that, in general, I agree [on this issue] with Nicholas Whyte, and that’s really freaking rare.” The meeting included a fair amount of sensible stuff in its recommendations to the committee, and one or two silly things, so that’s that. (They are detailed by Kevin Standlee; Alex Acks had gone home by now.)

Finally came the Hugo Awards Study Committee proposals to further restrict eligibility for Best Series by over-riding the wishes of voters and making administrators’ lives more difficult. I spoke against the second of these (at 1:14:14), but it was clear from an early stage that the Business Meeting as a whole had lost patience with the HASC, and both proposals were defeated by substantial margins.

Apart from getting itself abolished, the HASC overall managed to get only two amendments passed (Best Game, which had originated elsewhere, and another very technical one on low-participation Hugo categories), with three rejected outright and another two referred to committee. The HASC had lost internal support from its own members, including me, and then failed to move the Business Meeting. As I said above, it had seemed like a good idea at the time, but it did not work out.

Other stuff

I spoke at one panel, and attended another and a couple of Table Talks (Kaffeeklatsches without the coffee). The panel which I spoke at became somewhat chaotic – we had received mixed messages as to whether it was meant to be in hybrid format, tried that out and failed, ultimately splitting into a virtual and a physical panel. I very much enjoyed talking to Olav Rokne and L.D. Lewis about award culture, but wished we could have had more from Farah Mendlesohn and especially Mame Bougouma Diene. I am not impressed with Airmeet, and would have preferred to stick to Zoom, which we are all familiar with. The Table Talks that I attended (virtually with Neon Yang, physically with Fiona Moore and Jason Aukerman) were great fun but a bit sparse; I was 50% of the audience for the first two, and 100% for the last. I very much enjoyed the panel discussion of Titus Groan where I said a few things from the audience.

The space for hanging out was generally fine, and I enjoyed the parties that I went to. I found the background noise in the Big Bar generally too much for my middle-aged ears, but there were alternatives, and Dell Magazines kindly took Kat and me outside for a drink one evening to discuss the Astounding Award and other matters. Kat and I also dined on the north side of the river and got thoroughly lost in the scary northshore car parks on our way back, eventually reaching safety by way of the Sheraton Hotel basement. To be honest, most of my time was spent dealing with the Hugos, and after all that’s what I had signed up for, but I had many chats and a few meals with old friends (and some new friends).

I had originally planned to participate in Chengdu next year as a senior adviser, but something else has come up which will absorb most of my fannish energy (announcement soon) and I’ve stepped back from Chengdu and do not expect to attend. So I’ll hope to see you in Glasgow in 2024, where I will be WSFS Division Head and Kat Jones will again be the Hugo Administrator. Join up, if you haven’t already.

My tweets