A Proposal for Fixing the Hugos
Jan. 22nd, 2024 12:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribAs many people already know, the Hugo nomination statistics for the 2023 event have been released. There are a number of glaring anomalies and the relevant committee members are providing vague and uninformative answers. Unfortunately, unless somebody has access to a working TARDIS, fixing the 2023 event is simply impossible. What we need to do is figure out how to prevent this from happening again.
I believe this year’s problem results from a fundamental flaw of the unincorporated literary society which administers the award, the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS). Simply put, the organization was designed for an era in which everybody who cared about the Hugos could fit into a large hotel ballroom. As both Sad Puppies and this current incident prove, those days are long gone.
Some in fandom have said that this year’s problem was because the con was held in China, a country that is quick to censor people it disagrees with. This is probably true, but hard to fix. Simply put, any organization with membership open to the public is vulnerable to being diverted by a sudden influx in new members. There is no easy way to ensure that future Worldcons will only happen in “friendly” countries.
I believe, therefore, that the solution to fixing the Hugos is to, as much as possible, to decouple the Hugo process from the administering of the seated convention. I propose:
1) Creating a standing committee of people to administer the Hugos. I propose five people, each elected for a two-year term with those terms staggered such that the WSFS membership is voting for at least two seats each year.
2) This committee’s primary function would be to hire and direct a third-party firm to administer the election. This firm would:
a. count the votes for both nomination and finalists and administer the website for voting.
b. Make recommendations to the committee for eligibility, leaving the committee to make the final decisions.
c. run EPH.
d. report results including nomination statistics.
e. Administer the committee election. (I assume that the initial committee would be appointed by WSFS at a Business Meeting.)
3) The committee, once created, would develop their own internal rules which would be reported to and approved by WSFS at a Business Meeting. Thereafter, the committee would make an annual report to WSFS at the Business Meeting which would also fill any unanticipated vacancies.
4) The seated convention would still handle all the logistics of the award ceremony and provide to the committee a list of eligible voters.
To be clear, this would require a significant and ongoing financial commitment. My personal guess would be around $20,000 USD for year-one startup costs and somewhat less for ongoing operations. This is just a guess – our committee would have to get firm numbers. I do, however, feel there will be a number of benefits. Specifically:
1) The committee can select which country they are based in and therefore which local laws apply. There will be less concern (at least with regards to the Hugos) where the con is held and the local fans can say to their government “all we do is hand out the awards to the people we’ve been told to.” Any censorship (denying of visas, etc.) will have to be explicit.
2) The actual administration of the award will be easier. Currently, each sitting con has to create their own voting system. With a standing committee, this work would be done once.
3) Reporting will also be easier as we don’t have to rely on the availability of somebody who’s also running a con and has a day job. We can also define specifically what information we want in the report (for example, author names with their nominated work).
4) Currently, the Hugo Administrator has significant power to determine eligibility and the larger fan base has no visibility into these decisions. Having a committee alleviates these concerns. Part of the actual rules for the committee can include requiring more specific explanations with regards to eligibility decisions.
In summary, this recommendation splits the functions of the WSFS into two buckets – administering an award and running a convention. The convention-running portion remains the same while a new apparatus is created for award administration. This is clearly a radical change to the way WSFS does business. But a ruleset written when Hugo results were typed up and mimeographed to the membership may not be the best ruleset for the second decade of the 21st century.
I believe this year’s problem results from a fundamental flaw of the unincorporated literary society which administers the award, the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS). Simply put, the organization was designed for an era in which everybody who cared about the Hugos could fit into a large hotel ballroom. As both Sad Puppies and this current incident prove, those days are long gone.
Some in fandom have said that this year’s problem was because the con was held in China, a country that is quick to censor people it disagrees with. This is probably true, but hard to fix. Simply put, any organization with membership open to the public is vulnerable to being diverted by a sudden influx in new members. There is no easy way to ensure that future Worldcons will only happen in “friendly” countries.
I believe, therefore, that the solution to fixing the Hugos is to, as much as possible, to decouple the Hugo process from the administering of the seated convention. I propose:
1) Creating a standing committee of people to administer the Hugos. I propose five people, each elected for a two-year term with those terms staggered such that the WSFS membership is voting for at least two seats each year.
2) This committee’s primary function would be to hire and direct a third-party firm to administer the election. This firm would:
a. count the votes for both nomination and finalists and administer the website for voting.
b. Make recommendations to the committee for eligibility, leaving the committee to make the final decisions.
c. run EPH.
d. report results including nomination statistics.
e. Administer the committee election. (I assume that the initial committee would be appointed by WSFS at a Business Meeting.)
3) The committee, once created, would develop their own internal rules which would be reported to and approved by WSFS at a Business Meeting. Thereafter, the committee would make an annual report to WSFS at the Business Meeting which would also fill any unanticipated vacancies.
4) The seated convention would still handle all the logistics of the award ceremony and provide to the committee a list of eligible voters.
To be clear, this would require a significant and ongoing financial commitment. My personal guess would be around $20,000 USD for year-one startup costs and somewhat less for ongoing operations. This is just a guess – our committee would have to get firm numbers. I do, however, feel there will be a number of benefits. Specifically:
1) The committee can select which country they are based in and therefore which local laws apply. There will be less concern (at least with regards to the Hugos) where the con is held and the local fans can say to their government “all we do is hand out the awards to the people we’ve been told to.” Any censorship (denying of visas, etc.) will have to be explicit.
2) The actual administration of the award will be easier. Currently, each sitting con has to create their own voting system. With a standing committee, this work would be done once.
3) Reporting will also be easier as we don’t have to rely on the availability of somebody who’s also running a con and has a day job. We can also define specifically what information we want in the report (for example, author names with their nominated work).
4) Currently, the Hugo Administrator has significant power to determine eligibility and the larger fan base has no visibility into these decisions. Having a committee alleviates these concerns. Part of the actual rules for the committee can include requiring more specific explanations with regards to eligibility decisions.
In summary, this recommendation splits the functions of the WSFS into two buckets – administering an award and running a convention. The convention-running portion remains the same while a new apparatus is created for award administration. This is clearly a radical change to the way WSFS does business. But a ruleset written when Hugo results were typed up and mimeographed to the membership may not be the best ruleset for the second decade of the 21st century.
