Difference between revisions of "2018 Natcon BM minutes"

From Australian sf information
Jump to: navigation, search
(Corrected attendee & standing committee listings)
m (Minutes)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
Minute taker: P R Khangure (PRK)
 
Minute taker: P R Khangure (PRK)
  
Present: Peter Lyond, P R Khangure (PRK), Ian Nichols, Frames White, Zara Baxter, Jack Bridges, Candice Schilder, Doug Burbidge, Anthony Peacey, Brian Johnson, Cathy Cogan.
+
Present: Peter Lyons, P R Khangure (PRK), Ian Nichols, Frames White, Zara Baxter, Jack Bridges, Candice Schilder, Doug Burbidge, Anthony Peacey, Brian Johnson, Cathy Cogan.
  
 
Meeting opened at 10:36am, 02/04/2018.
 
Meeting opened at 10:36am, 02/04/2018.

Revision as of 08:50, 4 April 2018

This article includes the minutes of the Business Meeting of the 57th National Australian SF Convention (the Natcon in 2018), which took place at Swancon 2018 in Perth, in the Mount Newman Room of The Pan Pacific Hotel, 207 Adelaide Tce, Perth, WA, 6000, at 10.30am, Monday, 02 April, 2018.

These minutes should be considered unofficial, having yet to be approved by the 2019 NatCon Business Meeting.

Agenda

An agenda was produced, circulated to various email lists and made available to attendees.

Minutes

Chair: Peter Lyons
Minute taker: P R Khangure (PRK)

Present: Peter Lyons, P R Khangure (PRK), Ian Nichols, Frames White, Zara Baxter, Jack Bridges, Candice Schilder, Doug Burbidge, Anthony Peacey, Brian Johnson, Cathy Cogan.

Meeting opened at 10:36am, 02/04/2018.

1. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings.

Confirmation of the Minutes of the 2017 Business Meeting Minutes.

  • Motion: that the minutes be accepted.

Moved: Ian Nichols. Seconded: Zara Baxter.

Carried.

Confirmation of the Minutes of the 2015 Business Meeting Minutes.

  • Motion: that the minutes be accepted.

Moved: Frames. Seconded: Ian Nichols.

Carried.


2. Business arising from the previous meetings.

  • None


3. Natcon Standing Committee Report

Peter Lyons reported that the standing committee was Peter Lyons, Dave Cake, & PRK. Have still not formalised the procedure to allow a Ditmar nominee to withdraw. Carried forward for this year's standing committee. PRK to take on as an action to lead the discussion.


4. Site Selection for the 2020 National Convention

  • Frames & Jack presented a bid for Swancon 2020 to be the National Convention.

In Perth, likely to be on the Anzac weekend. Swancon Committee will be selected by WASFF and presented.

  • Ian asked why moving to Anzac Weekend if it's a Natcon.
  • Frames stated that it didn't give enough people to justify Easter Weekend.
  • Ian stated that Natcons usually bring people over from the Eastern States and they need more time to get here and back, and the Easter Weekend was the only nationally shared 4 day weekend.
  • Zara stated that not all states get the Monday as a public holiday, as Anzac day is on Saturday.
  • Ian stated he would vote against the Swancon 2020 bid for Natcon due to being on Anzac day, and not Easter.
  • Jack stated that Passover runs across Easter and is a reason not to run the Natcon on Easter.
  • Frames confirmed several people didn't attend due to religious observances from multiple religions over the Easter weekend.
  • PRK points out that no other convention will do Easter in 2020.
  • Ian states that conventions have come out of the air before to take that date.
  • Ian would prefer to see a well formulated bid for the Natcon.
  • Frames stated that Swancon 2020 would be willing to consider hosting the Natcon at a later stage, when they have a full team.
  • Motion: That Swancon 2020 will be the 2020 National Convention.

Moved Frames. Seconded Jack.

Carried.


5. Ditmar Subcommittee Report.

  • Peter Lyon reported that he was the Ditmar Subcommittee this year.
  • The process has become easier due to more automation and declining numbers.
  • More total nominations this year, but down from the recent peak of 2015.
  • Fewer than 40 people voted in the Ditmars this year, with four not being members.
  • Long ongoing problem.
  • Promotion on Facebook, Twitter, Email.
  • Not sure what to do to fix this - extend the voting period further?
  • Can we provide a voter pack like the Hugos?
  • Frames asked if creating a voter pack involved negotiating with the publishers for the content.
  • Zara pointed out the NZ Natcons have printed the short form works and have a couple of folders for reading and at convention voting, but this doesn't work for novel or novella.
  • Ian reports he hasn't been getting any notifications from WASFF, and that should be a notification path.
  • Ian suggests letting the magazine publishers send in what's been published to people know what's eligible.
  • Peter states that previously Jeremy was on a large number of mailing lists for promotion, that Peter isn't on, and that will help with nominations.
  • Peter states that voting is a separate issue to nominating.
  • Peter states that at convention voting may disenfranchise interstate members who can't vote at convention.
  • Frames added that people feeling disenfranchised can vote online or attend the Natcon.
  • The Ditmar subcommittee wishes to thank Jeremy Byrne for the continued use of his IT infrastructure to host the awards.
  • Frames re-iterated that a voter pack would help with voting numbers.
  • Peter suggested we could try it with the short form.
  • Ian doubts the publishers will provide the long form works to voters.
  • Ian suggests a newsletter of works eligible each month would serve just as well.
  • PRK thinks we're talking about two separate things - nominating and voting.
  • Ian thinks more people will vote if more people nominate.
  • Peter stated that some people don't vote as they haven't read the work, and a voter pack would help.
  • Frames points out that the Tin Ducks are also going down, even with at con voting.
  • PRK says he voted in the Tin Ducks as they were at convention, but not the Ditmars as he missed the voting deadline.
  • Ian would support at con voting up to the day before the awards.
  • Peter points out having to confirm all the voters are members which can be challenging with at convention voting.
  • Frames states at convention voting is easier, as everyone at the convention is easy to check membership badges.
  • Ian asks how possible it is / how much it would cost to put a barcode on the membership badges.
  • Frames points the current badges have bar codes.
  • Brian pointed out that Grenadine supported surveys which could possibly help with voting.
  • Frames stated that our voting wouldn't be supported by Grenadine.
  • Frames asked what Worlcons due for Hugo Award voting.
  • PRK replied that there are several custom software packages for Hugo nominating and voting.
  • There was further discussion about Grenadine specifics and potential suitability for use in Tin Duck voting.
  • PRK pointed out that Grenadine is only useful if the convention uses Grenadine.
  • Peter added that there are at two conventions worth of voting members.


6. Convention Reports.

a. 2017 - Continuum 13.
  • Peter said the convention went well.
b. 2018 - Swancon 2018.
  • Frames spoke.
  • Convention went well.
  • Didn't use the Natcon brand enough and Swancons could do better at Natcon related marketing.
c. 2019 - Continuum 15.
  • Peter spoke.
  • Peter will be getting in touch with the concom to start the Natcon process.
  • Brian asked whether the Natcon had a marketing plan.
  • Peter replied that no, there was no Natcon budget or overall marketing. Just the standing committee for institutional knowledge.
  • Peter asked if marketing advice around the Natcon would be useful.
  • Frames agreed that would possibly help. Maybe a natcon table at the different conventions.
  • Zara asked if we could defer the marketing talk to other business.
  • The meeting agreed.
  • Zara requested the standing committee request the reports from Continuum and circulate them.
  • Motion to accept the reports

Moved: Ian Seconded: Frames

Carried.


7. Selection of the Standing Committee.

  • Peter said he spoke to the previous members of the standing committee.
  • Peter said Dave Cake would stand unless more active members wished to.
  • Peter stated he wishes to stand again.
  • Zara stated she wishes to stand.
  • PRK stated he wishes to stand again.
  • Ian asked how many people are on the standing committee.
  • Peter said there are four members elected, more can be appointed, and the past, present and future Natcon convenors or their delegates.
  • Cathy stated she wished to stand.
  • Peter stated that Dave would stand aside.
  • Motion to accept the four nominees to the positions.

Moved: Ian Seconded: Doug

Carried.

  • Motion to appoint David Cake as a voting member to the Standing Committee, subject to his acceptance.

Moved: PRK Seconder: Doug

Carried.


8. Motions on Notice.

  • Peter conceded the Chair to Zara for the Motions on Notice.
To add the following text to the preamble (1) as rule 1.3:
       1.3 For the purpose of these rules, all the awards listed in 3.0 Categories, are refered to as Ditmars.
           Including the "William Atheling Jr. Award for Criticism or Review.
Proposed: Lyndon White
  • Frames stated that the Atheling is a Ditmar to all intents and purposes, and proposes this wording.

Seconded Peter.

  • Frames spoke for the motion.
  • Peter said there is a traditional thing that the Atheling is not a Ditmar, but is treated as such to all intents and purposes.

Doesn't feel it's a problematic clause, but it may be against tradition.

  • Zara added the Atheling is for an individual, not a body of work.
  • Frames clarified that sometimes the Atheling is for a body of work.
  • Ian added that the Atheling has traditionally been for a body of work, not a single piece, although it may be, while a series of works isn't eligible for a Ditmar.
  • Cathy asked whether the wording for the award needs to be changed.
  • Frames pointed out it's for the purposes of the rules, not the award itself.
  • Ian added that it's a change that doesn't really make a difference.
  • Frames said he almost didn't print the award as he thought it would be handled like the Chandler or McNamara.
  • Doug stated that he thinks that at the Natcon level, the awards need to be more clearly identified.
  • PRK stated he thought making it for the rules would potentially limit a natcon in the award trophy for the Atheling.
  • Frames suggested he could amend the motion to only refer to the process sections.
  • Brian raised a point of information on whether we could amend the motion.
  • Peter read the section of the constitution.
  • Peter moved to lay the motion on the table for the next BM.

Frames seconded.

Motion Carried.


  • Motion
To replace section 7 Physical Awards with the following:
       7.1 Finalists: Persons listed on the ballot, or responsible for works listed on the ballot, shall receive an A4 certificate
           detailing that achievement for each such listing as described in
       7.2 Winners: Ditmar winners shall receive a trophy as described in 7.4 and an A4 certificate as described in 7.3 detailing
           that achievement for each win.
       7.3 The Certificate
       7.3.1 Must indicate that it is for  nomination, or for  winning as appropriate.
       7.3.2 Must include the category, and year.
       7.3.3 Must include the name of the work a categories awarded to a work.
       7.3.4 Must include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a work.
       7.3.5 Must include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a person.
       7.3.6 May optionally include additional information (for example the name of the publisher).
       7.4 The Trophy
       7.4.1 May optionally feature the 1:4:9 proportions of the monolith in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey"
       7.4.2 May optionally feature a Southern Cross motif.
       7.4.3 Must include the category, and year.
       7.4.4 May optionally include the name of the work a categories awarded to a work.
       7.4.5 May optionally include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a work.
       7.4.6 May optionally include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a person.
       7.4.7 May optionally include additional information (for example the name of the publisher).
       7.5 The Ditmar subcommittee may relax any and all of the stipulations of 7.3 and 7.4 on a case by case basis
           (For example when length of author list stretches the bounds of physical possibility)
       7.6 The Ditmar subcommittee shall place no further requirements on the appearance of the awards beyond those mandated in 7.3 and 7.4
           (but may offer advice and suggestions).
       7.7 The convention committee may make any other physical awards it deems fit. (Beginning in 2010, a pin has been awarded to each finalist.)
Proposed: Lyndon White


  • Motion
To replace section 7 Physical Awards with the following:
       7.1 Finalists: Persons listed on the ballot, or responsible for works listed on the ballot, shall receive an A4 certificate
           detailing that achievement for each such listing as described in
       7.2 Winners: Ditmar winners shall receive a trophy as described in 7.4 and an A4 certificate as described in 7.3 detailing
           that achievement for each win.
       7.3 The Certificate
       7.3.1 Must indicate that it is for  nomination, or for  winning as appropriate.
       7.3.2 Must include the category, and year.
       7.3.3 Must include the name of the work a categories awarded to a work.
       7.3.4 Must include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a work.
       7.3.5 Must include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a person.
       7.3.6 May optionally include additional information (for example the name of the publisher).
       7.4 The Trophy
       7.4.1 May feature the 1:4:9 proportions of the monolith in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey"
       7.4.2 May feature a Southern Cross motif.
       7.4.3 Must include the category, and year.
       7.4.4 Must include the name of the work a categories awarded to a work.
       7.4.5 May optionally include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a work.
       7.4.6 Must include the name of the nominee/recipient for categories awarded to a person.
       7.4.7 May optionally include additional information (for example the name of the publisher).
       7.5 The Ditmar subcommittee may relax any and all of the stipulations of 7.3 and 7.4 on a case by case basis
           (For example when length of author list stretches the bounds of physical possibility)
       7.6 The Ditmar subcommittee shall place no further requirements on the appearance of the awards beyond those mandated in 7.3 and 7.4
           (but may offer advice and suggestions).
       7.7 The convention committee may make any other physical awards it deems fit. (Beginning in 2010, a pin has been awarded to each finalist.)
Proposed: Lyndon White

PRK moves to devolve to a committee of the whole to discuss the two motions. Peter seconds.

Motion carried.

The Committee of the Whole reported back to the Business Meeting:

  • that the Standing Committee should update the Ditmar Runnning Guide to make the mandatory and optional aspects of the certificate and trophy reflect the Ditmar rules
  • that the Standing Committee should update the Ditmar Wiki to list the current Ditmar Sub-committee contact.
  • that the Standing Committee should put together a template communication to a new NatCon, including an information pack on the Ditmar Awards, and update the timeline in the running guide to include this.


Frames moved to lay two motions on the table. Seconded: Ian

Carried.

Zara conceded the chair to Peter.


9. General Business.

  • Peter thanks Zara for chairing the motions on notice. Carried by acclimation.
  • Zara mentioned she has a background in journalism and as a marketer & publicist, and has an interest in the marketing aspects of conventions. Before we can market, we need to work out who comes to the convention, and who doesn't, to build a marketing plan.
  • Brian raised that with a zero dollar budget an initial guide should just have a few dot points about using the Natcon brand.
  • Ian talked about a couple of American and European conventions that lost and gained membership, based on marketing aspects.
  • Zara volunteered to put together a marketing brief for the Natcon brand and report back to the standing committee within three months.
  • Brian queried whether that would include ideas for a longer term plan.
  • Zara replied that it may.
  • Peter asked if the report back to the Standing Committee should then be conferred with the conventions.
  • Zara answered in the affirmative.
  • Frames raised that different conventions had different strategies and budgets and we'd need to take that into account.
  • Peter asked for further volunteers on the Ditmar subcommittee for knowledge transfer and redundancy.
  • Peter volunteered to improve the coding of the Ditmar software.
  • Frames suggested it should be open source for transparency.
  • Peter mentioned possibly going on Github.
  • No other business.

Meeting closed at 12:25pm.