This is one of a series of posts about the 2025 World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting. They are all tagged bm2025.
Having vented about the stuff I feel most strongly about on the 2025 WSFS Business Meeting agenda, here are my thoughts on the five proposed changes to Standing Orders.
My first thought is that there are too many. There are a total of 48 issues for voting on this year’s agenda, which I understand is a record, and none of these five changes is of such overwhelming urgency that they needed to be on the agenda this year. I hope that they can all be addressed expeditiously without absorbing too much time or energy. It’s unfortunate that they go first in the agenda, and need to be got out of the way before we get to the interesting stuff.
C1 gives the Business Meeting staff ten days rather than seven to prepare the agenda for publication. This is obviously sensible. If WSFS members continue to generate material at the current rate, even ten days may not be enough. Support.
C2 tightens up the rules on reports from committees, a clear example of something that is basically a good idea but didn’t really need to be raised right now. Support in order to get it out of the way.
C3 amends the rules on the Motion to Reconsider, which currently can only be raised by someone who was in the room and voted on the winning side of the vote whose reconsideration is being proposed. I think the wording of C3 is poor. It says:
5.13. Reconsideration. For the purpose of the motion to Reconsider, all those not present for the original vote are considered to have voted on the prevailing side.
It would be better to say that the Motion to Reconsider cannot be proposed by someone who was on the losing side first time round. Counting those who were not present as having voted in favour, even theoretically and for limited purposes, is a falsification and a rewriting of history. I’ve been a victim of this arcane bit of the rules myself in the past, and would like to see them changed, but I don’t like this solution as currently written.
C4 requires committees to include the proposers of the relevant material. It’s a huge flaw that Roberts does not already require this. Support in order to get it out of the way.
C5, as previously discussed, requires a two-thirds vote to set up an investigation committee, and I am among the proposers. Support.
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