So the World Science Fiction Society is the governing body of WorldCons and thus also the Hugo Awards. They have one town hall style legislative session every year, known as the Business Meeting which takes place at worldcon every year. The agenda for this years meeting can be found here
(warning long pdf). I'm not going to worldcon this year so I can't attend the business meeting and vote on any changes, but I have lot of thoughts and feelings so you'll have to bare with me.YA award:
Yay! I served on the YA committee this last year and I'm happy to say that we were able to get a proposal for an award together. It is for a Campbell-like "not a Hugo" award. I don't think this solution is prefect but I think it has good chance of being a comprise that everyone can accept. I'd really like to see WSFS honor more YA so I hope that this passes. If you have questions or feedback about this proposal please let me know. Nomination Rights Grab
The motions "B.2.2 Short Title: December is Good Enough" and "B.2.3 Short Title: Two Years are Good Enough" would reduced the number of people who are eligible to nominate work for the Hugo awards. Currently all members of this year's, last year's, and next year's worldcon before Jan 31 can be Hugo nominators. One of these measures would put the deadline to register back to December 31, and the other measure would restrict nomination to members of last year's and this years (or if amended just this year's) con. The reasons stated for this are the administrative burden of dealing with large numbers of nominators and coordinating between cons. I have some sympathy for the administrators here, but really feel that this an unwelcoming move. For years Hugo admins have been trying to get more people to nominate, and WSFS has been making it so more people could, and now that more people have, some admins seem to be saying that having lots nominators is just too much trouble. It feels like going backwards to me. Best Series Hugo
I don't really care whether or not this award passes but I'm very amused by the committee report which features, not one, not two but three minority reports.Nominating Systems
So there are a lot of potential changes to how the finalist are selected which are supposed to reduced the impact of slate voting. I'm kind of skeptical of all them. I fell down the rabbit hole and read a lot about EPH and EPH+ including skimming the academic paper about it, and still don't understand the difference between the two. Three stage voting which allows people to vote yes or no on the long list seems kind of mean spirited, plus it seems like people might reject less traditional work, or works but marginalized authors. Additional Finalist, which would let admins add works to the ballot seems very heavy handed. So I want the slate voters to stop winning but I'm not very convinced that any of the solutions proposed are good ideas. Basically democracy is very hard to protect from trolls. Non-transferability of Voting Rights
I don't understand the point of this one either. It is the only proposal without any commentary, and I think it could really use some. Anyone understand this?
That's all for now. If you are going to WorldCon consider going to the business meeting and having your vote count in these issues.