2026 Natcon BM minutes

From Australian sf information
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article includes the minutes of the NatCon Business Meeting conducted at SwanCon 51 in Perth in 2026.

These minutes should be considered unofficial, having yet to be approved by the 2027 NatCon Business Meeting.

Minutes

31st May 2026, 9am, Perth (Swancon 50)

Co-chairs:

  • Deb Costello - Swancon 50 / NatCon 2026 Convenor
  • Cat Sparks - Ditmar Awards Coordinator

1. Welcome

Deb thanked everyone for coming along

Cat

  • The purpose of this meeting is to get a structure started.
  • Conflux committee: With the passing of Karen Herkes, there is a big gap in what is happening -- they did a lot of behind the scenes work, and we are not sure what is going to fail because we don't have a full list of what was being done.
  • Well done on getting SwanCon back up and running
  • We need some infrastructure for how the NatCon works, because Covid broke things. We want our cons to continue. There is a good reason to get us all together and make decisions together going forward. There isn't the competition for NatCons; finding a host is more of a concern.
  • Conflux don't want to be putting up their hands for NatCon, because of the loss of Karen. However, they don't want it to fail. We very much don't want to be in the situation where everyone is trying to skip doing it, and we don't want one con to feel obliged.
  • This year, Swancon were proactive about it.

Discussion

  • Things exist, but not everyone knows about what.
    • Doug: there is a mailing list
    • PRK: there is an sf wiki, has the constitution, links to the rules of the NatCon standing committee that establishes members - four voted by the business meeting plus past, present and future NatCon chairs. thus it is documented and changeable.
  • Previous Natcon standing committee.
    • Dave Cake, Jeremy Byrne, Peter Lyons - given the passing of two of them, things fell over.
    • PRK was but stood down some years ago.
    • Samara was a long time back
    • Belle (McQuattie) was on it - Samara volunteers to find contact details.
  • We digress on the history of the standing committee and need for structure
    • The way it used to be is that the NatCon committee was the NatCon concom and then next NatCon took it over.
    • We are looking at the national equivalent of WASFF - that structure is so valuable
    • The NatCon has no legal status - not a registered organisation, no bank account. do we need it
    • The structure is there, but it isn't being used. Is the issue that the positions are not being filled? Or is it that the current structure isn't fit for purpose?
    • Concern: if there are four members, doesn't that set us up for stalemates? Rules are exactly four (not counting the NatCon reps); the points about stalemates recognise that this are relevant in larger organisations, but here this is unlikely.
  • People on their (and others) availability
    • Tim has offered to work with the Ditmars.
    • Cat is in the situation that they have to step back from their NatCon related activities.
    • Dave cake might help - we would have to ask
    • Samara - not available
    • Nathan is willing to chair this / coordinate this
  • The constitution is not long; is it fit for purpose?

2. Apologies

none provided.

3. Present / Attending

  1. Deb Costello (chair, Swancon)
  2. Cat Sparks (Ditmars, Conflux representative)
  3. Doug Burbidge
  4. Catherine De Croy
  5. Jean Weber
  6. Marty Young
  7. Nathan Phillips (Conflux representative)
  8. Samara Morgan
  9. Tim Reddan
  10. PRK
  11. Anna Hepworth
  12. Rohan Wallace (9:08)
  13. Sarah Xu (9:33)

4. Confirmation of previous minutes

The last proper minutes that we have are from 2022. The last meeting that occurred was the one that happened last year (online), which took very little time, in which it was approved that Swancon was to be the NatCon. Minutes for the 2025 meeting taken by Doug, can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/12YoLiCQ-X626sDAfHRac8u-e3HtgghJiNsXjILqMtF4

Of the people in the room - Nathan, Doug, Cat, Deb were in that meeting.

Motion: That the minutes from that meeting be sent out with the minutes from this meeting and both approved next meeting. Moved: Anna, Second: Nathan. Approved.

5. Business Arising from Previous Meeting

None raised

6. NatCon standing committee report

No formal report; see Welcome for relevant details.

7. Ditmar Sub Committee report

No formal report; see Other Business > Ditmars for relevant details

8. NatCon Site Selection 2027

Discussion of options

  • Tim: there was some encouragement to NSW to do this
  • Cat: Stephanie Johnson and Adeline Teoh have a group - Speculative Scribes. The issue in Sydney is the cost of hotels. Genre con at Parramatta was good; then went back to QLD and now they are more about self-pub. Cat is involved in this as consultant. Stephanie and Adeline are doing a test run; they have done a library based one, but they are working up to a con. they are not ready to be Natcon next year, but a few years time absolutely. they could benefit to being part of this . We should invite Stephanie and Adeline to existing memberships
  • There are a lot of people with knowledge in WA, sharing that information via the Natcon standing committee is valuable. We should not be reinventing the wheel
  • There is already a guide
  • If we are not going to appoint a NatCon now, we should authorise the Standing Committee to appoint one. Going forward, we should change the rules so that in the situation that a NatCon is not appointed, the Standing Committee is authorised to make the appointment. This would be a constitutional change, so would need to be done next year with a Motion on Notice.

At this point, Sarah Xu (SwanCon 51/2027 Convenor) arrived. Sarah noted that they were not originally seeking to hold the Natcon; that WA fandom is aware of the concern that the Natcon should move around but that due to the lack of options, they are putting SwanCon 51 forward as the NatCon -- that this is a decision based on the lack of options

Sarah then provided the following pitch to be the NatCon:

As we haven't had a launch, I don't want to tell much - people are asked to be quiet about this; no guest information. The plan is to return to the Pagoda, and the same long weekend. Using the momentum from this year and the template of this year to keep things simpler. It will be a 2.5 day con, rather than a 3 day con, because that is the compromise to do with the financial constraints of being at a hotel. there will be an optional social event on the Monday.

Proposal: That we

  1. accept Sarah's bid
  2. authorise that the natcon standing committee appoint next year's if we get a bid
  3. and then we do constitutional change starting with changes at the next year's con.

Vote: That Swancon 51 be appointed at as the 2027 NatCon. - unanimous.

Round of applause for Sarah.

9. NatCon Site Selection 2028

While Brisbane WorldCon is the obvious choice, none of the WorldCon reps were in this meeting.

Motion: The standing committee is authorised to appoint the NatCon for 2028, to be ratified at the next NatCon Business Meeting. Moved: Cat, Second: PRK. Unanimous

10. Selection of the NatCon Standing Committee

Tim nominated Nathan to be the chair of the NatCon standing committee. Nathan said that if they are proposing changes, they are not the right person to chair, but interested in being on the Standing Committee. PRK noted that the Standing Committee elects the chair.

Anna volunteers to join, PRK volunteers to resume their position, Deb volunteers. We now have the necessary four volunteers/nominees; no-one else put their hand up.

Motion: That we appoint Nathan, PRK, Anna, Deb to be the NatCon standing committee. Moved: Cat; Second Catherine. Passed unanimously.

11. Motions on Notice

There were no Motions on Notice.

12. Other Business

WASFF has a 'and friends' group - can we do that?

  • follow up task: 'Anna/Doug will invite everyone in this room to the existing list'

Cat: we need the community knowledge, and we want to invite more of the community. Melbourne had an issue.

Future Ditmar Committee

Peter was doing this solo, Cat got involved with promotions when Peter was struggling with social media. Cat no longer can deal with this - they do not have the technological capability for the forms; they have a friend doing it on software that costs, and Cat no longer wishes to impose on this friendship.

What we need

  • capture the knowledge
  • have a committee
  • someone else to be in charge

And important question: The Ditmars are quite an archaic thing, and they are worth preserving, but are they in the right form for the modern age? If Cat steps down, is there anyone willing to step up? or should we look at retiring them and setting up a new system?

Discussion:

  • The writers love it - doesn't matter how many people are nominating or voting.
  • While the Constitution says that the NatCon committee do that, that was being reinvented.
  • Sam captured a lot of information on the running of Ditmars because when they on the convention committee they were tasked with running the Ditmars and they didn't have the relevant information. This running guide is on the wiki; from 2010
  • The option to move them away from the cons completely, given the interest is primarily from writers. The counter point is that the awards are part of why writers come to cons. The more writers who come to cons the more momentum there is for both. Strong support for continuing the Ditmar/NatCon relationship
  • Three points in the NatCon instructions - Natcon standing committe OR ditmar committee, so this can be multiple
  • Conflux has had the Australian Shadows award for a large number of years. The system that the Aurealis awards was using, of having a home con for a few years was good.

Move: That Ditmar commit be formed by the standing committee within two months. Moved: Cat, Seconded: Tim. unanimous.

Meeting closed at 9:59

Retrieved from "http://wiki.sf.org.au/index.php?title=2026_Natcon_BM_minutes&oldid=1185"