This is one of a series of posts about the 2025 World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting. They are all tagged bm2025.
There are twelve resolutions on the agenda for this year’s Business Meeting (of a total of 48 items to be voted on). I’ve already dealt with seven of them, so here goes with the other five.
D1, D2 and D3 (on pages 20 and 21) are all pleas for extended eligibility for films released before 2025 which allegedly had only limited release in 2025. I used to incline to instinctive generosity here, but last year the Business Meeting allowed extended eligibility (and then withdrew it) for a film that had missed being on the final ballot by a single vote. So I am looking more critically at these proposals now.
All three proposed cases are of shows that, according to the proposers, were released to streaming networks only in 2025, having been made earlier. However IMDB does not support the statements made in the resolutions.
For D1, IMDB states that the episodes of the second season of Pantheon were available in the United States as well as Australia from October 2023. In that case I don’t see how it qualifies for an eligibility extension.
For D2, the film The End was reviewed by Variety on 31 August 2024, by The Hollywood Reporter on 1 September 2024, by the New York Times on 5 December 2024 and on Roger Ebert’s site on 6 December 2024. So the case that nobody knew about it before 2025 is not really made out.
For D3, IMDB states that the film Rani, Rani, Rani was released in the USA on 28 May 2024, so I don’t see how it qualifies for an eligibility extension.
More broadly, I think we should consider whether eligibility extensions are still relevant in the age of streaming. It’s really rare for something to get on the ballot as the result of an eligibility extension anyway, and it’s one more bit of hassle for the Hugo administrators to deal with.
I have dealt with the next three resolutions already, which takes us to D7 (on page 23), a minor clarification of the rule about accepting site selection ballots. (The word “amendment” has crept into the text here and in the related F1, but I think is not itself meant to be part of the amendment.) I struggle to see the difference in meaning but I guess I would vote in favour to get to out of the way.
Since I’ve already covered the last four resolutions, I’ll finish for today with D8 (on pages 23 and 24), which is a resolution disapproving of the use of generative AI and encouraging future Worldcons to integrate statements on the ethical use of technology into their codes of conduct. This is of course in the wake of the use of AI by Seattle this year and its disastrous handling both internally and externally, which prompted my own resignation from their committee.
Politically I am completely aligned with the resolution. However I don’t relish the WSFS Business Meeting becoming a debating society for the issues of the day. I prefer it to concentrate on improving the rules, which is what it is there for (along with financial accountability for past Worldcons, and announcing the ballot for future Worldcons). So I am not completely convinced that I will vote for this.
2025 WSFS Business meeting posts:
Mark Protection Committee Report
Investigation Committee on the 2023 Hugo Awards report
Software Committee
Hugo Administration Process Committee report
Business Meeting Study Group
C1, C2, C3, C4
C5
D1, D2, D3
D4
D5, D6
D7, D8
D9, D10, D11, D12
E1, E2
E3, E4, E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
F1, F2
F3, F4, F5, F6
F7, F8
F9, F10
F11
F12
F13
F14, F15
F16, F17, F18, F19
F20
F21
F22