From: "Robert MacIntosh" <macbuccfo at msn.com>
To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Local Worldcon bid (WAS Re: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the August 6th
 meeting are online)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:50:29 -0400
X-Loop: WSFAlist at 
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

>From: Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
>To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
>Subject: [WSFA] Local Worldcon bid (WAS Re: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the
>August  6th meeting are online)
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:29:08 -0400
>
>At 10:17 AM 8/11/04, Michael Walsh wrote:
> > > kfl at KeithLynch.net 8/10/04 8:23:17 PM >>>
> >
> >[stuff snipped]
>
> > >Actually, it's still not clear whether that's a *WSFA* bid or not.
> > >After all, the '98 Baltimore Worldcon wasn't a BSFS project, nor is
> > >Noreascon a NESFA project.  I notice he also didn't say if he wanted
> > >volunteers for the bid table and the bid party at Noreascon.
> >
> >N4 is an MCFI project.
> >Both Bawlmur Worldcons were separate corporations, but they had
> >reasonable active support from both clubs.
> >
> >Considering the financial aspects - and lets be honest, the ego aspects
> >- of Worldcons, it best to divorce them from the local club.
>
>Very, very strong agreement here.  Mike N. is talking about a bid for 2011
>so there's time to work out the business details, but I'm certain that
>there's going to be a separate corporation.  (Also, one assumes, a separate
>bank account.  I just noticed from the minutes that when Bob was saying how
>much was in the treasury he didn't say if part of that was SMOFcon funds or
>not.)
>

At the moment, those of us considering the '11 bid are using a clause in the
Baltimore Worldcon 1998 articles of incorporation that allows that
organization to support other worldcon bids. The corporation is currently
doing just that for Nippon '07. It simply means that Baltimore Worldcon
supplies the Tax ID number, and the other organization will operate their
own bank accounts.

I exclude the SMoFCon money from the reports to the club. It has some 3K to
use for the December effort.

>I have no idea about the bid table; you'd have to ask Mike. But since he's
>running the newsletter for N4 and, I think, most of the other people
>involved in the Washington bid are also going to be working on the con, it
>might be interesting.  It's possible that they're planning on sharing a
>table and the manning of it with another bid or seated convention.  On the
>other hand, one can always volunteer and find out what happens.
>

The '11 bid will not have a table - it is far too early in the game for
anything like that. The table in question at N4, I believe, was for
Capclave.

>
>The one thing to consider is that the bid and, if it wins, the convention
>is going to suck a lot of time, energy, and attention from a lot of
>WSFAns.  When talking with Bob (who I don't think is on this list) I got
>the impression that they're not going to seriously start bidding until four
>years out, assuming that Worldcons go back to two year.  But I expect that
>the bidding will start ramping up before then, as will the work of finding
>a site, hotels, etc..
>
>This means that we have maybe two to three years to get Capclave solidly
>established.  At the meeting on Friday I suggested that we should do some
>long range planning; with people declaring for 2011 I'll go from suggesting
>it to saying that we need to.
>
> > >I haven't gotten much feedback about the minutes themselves.  What do
> > >people think of my longer format?  Note that I've started putting a
> > >brief summary at the bottom.
>
>I've been thinking about it.  I do like the fact that there are more
>details on various proposals and such, and since it's long I appreciate the
>summary.
>
> > >
> > >Wade pointed out that I left out a chair collapse.  I responded that
> > >since it collapsed before the meeting started, it didn't count.
> > >
> >
> >I don't recall noticing Lee, myself, or Elspeth collapsing.
>
>I don't collapse: I gimp.
>
>Elspeth
>
Bob M.