Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:01:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the November 5th meeting are online
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Thanks to Wade, Elspeth, and Richard for their corrections.

I attempt to split the difference between the extremes of simply
listing what motions passed, and providing a verbatim transcript
of every word spoken.

Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Elspeth did a walkthrough of a newly built Marriott near White
> Flint, and checked out two other Marriotts."

> Actually, Elspeth, Michael, and Ben Yalow had a walkthrough of the
> Bethesda North Marriott and a meeting with the sales rep there, ...

> That didn't get said at the meeting so doesn't go in the Journal.
> But I hope that I did say, or at least mumble, "we" had a
> walkthrough etc. as there were certainly other people there
> and working on things.

Fixed.  You did say "we," and I was aware of it, but couldn't figure
out a graceful way of phrasing it, since the others weren't named.
I've changed it to:

  Elspeth said "we" did a walkthrough of a newly built Marriott near
  White Flint [The Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center,
  which opened November 1st] ...

I considered phrasing it something like that in the first place,
except that the quotes might be mistaken for "scare quotes," which
might lead some to wrongly believe I was expressing skepticism.

You definitely said the Marriott near White Flint.  Googling just now
confirmed that you weren't *correcting* that in your email -- those
are the same Marriott.

> "Elspeth said that we had been stressed by Capclave and by the
> election, both of which were now over, and that certain people's
> messages should be taken with a grain of salt. Trying to moderate
> for tone is extremely difficult."

> I read this as my meaning that certain people's messages should be
> taken with a grain of salt because of Capclave and the election,
> which wasn't my intent.  Instead, I was making -- or hope I was
> making -- three separate statements.

I knew you you were making three separate statements, but I see how
someone could read what I had written as implying otherwise.  Fixed.

> If the latter, don't change it; I hate the thing with the
> Congressional Record where people can go in and do all sorts
> of things that don't reflect what actually happened.

Me too.  I put clarifications and elaborations in square brackets.
I think I've succeeded in always keeping editorializing out of the
minutes, in square brackets or otherwise, even when I go back and
think "I wish I'd said during the meeting that I agree with what
that person said, and disagree with what that other person said".

My editorialization drive also sneaks in via words such as "claimed"
and "pointed out".  I've ruthlessly turned all such intrusions back
into "said," even though that may make the minutes a little more
tedious to read.  "A said this, B said that, C said some other thing."
(If I've missed any, someone please tell me.)

Of course I reserve the right to editorialize in editorials.  But not
in the minutes.  (Everyone else is also free to submit editorials to
the WSFA Journal.  Just not ones that attack fellow WSFAns or involve
current US politics.  Or sports scores.)

> "Elspeth has adopted a new Seal Point Birman cat."

> I've adopted her, but she's not here yet.

Understood.  That's why I used "adopted" rather than "has," which was
the word I used for Steve's cat.

That was the sentence that took me the longest to write.  Mainly
because I had to view several sites on breeds of cats to figure out
what you were saying, how it is spelled, and which parts of it should
be capitalized.  I had never heard of that breed before.

Madeleine's "naginata" was a close runner up, however.

Remember, announcements should be submitted in writing.  Especially if
they contain words unfamiliar to the secretary.  When in doubt, assume
that *all* words are unfamiliar to the secretary.  I won't be offended.

> Other than the correction about my having company at the Bethesda
> North Marriott, and being confused about what I actually said
> concerning the list, the minutes look very good.

> Thank you, as always, for not only doing the minutes but putting
> them up where we can read them and comment!

You're welcome.  I'm glad to know my efforts are appreciated.

Rich Lynch <rw_lynch at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Just now reading the minutes, and I see that "Madigans'" is
> mis-spelled.

Fixed.  Wade also noticed that.

> I should also note that what I actually said was that since we
> magnanimously spent $1,000 to sponsor a WFC event, could we expect
> Leprecon to spend a similar amount on CapClave?

Fixed.

Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> (And, for that matter, I think that the money didn't come from WSFA
> but was advanced to the '05 Capclave.)

Advanced for that specific purpose.  The September 17th minutes have:

  Mike wants to spend $1000 at this year's World Fantasy Convention,
  which will be in late October in Tempe, Arizona, to promote Capclave
  '05.  The money will be counted as an advance to Capclave '05.

Not that I see that it matters how it's counted, since it's all the
same pile of money.

> As said later, WFC is an independent convention which is sometimes
> but not always hosted by groups.  In '03 it was hosted by WSFA, in
> '04 it was hosted by Leprecon, one of their local conventions.

It did strike me as odd that our WFC had no name since it "just isn't
done," but theirs did have a name.

I now see that it's also the name of their annual convention.  And
that WFC 2004 was *not* combined with their annual convention, which
is in the spring.  I also see that they also hosted -- or will host --
this year's World Horror Convention.  (They have a dreadful website.
After ten minutes I gave up trying to figure out *when* that con was
or will be.)

> The $1,000 was an investment with the intent of attracting
> publishers, editors, authors and artists as members.  Some might
> wind up being comped, if we put them on programming, but overall
> becoming known as a convention where they congregate would be a
> useful thing and make us more attractive.

I wonder how many people come to a con because of the pros.

Of course there may be a positive feedback effect.  Maybe ten fans
come to the con because of the pros, then twenty come because they
know those ten will be there, then forty come to chat with those
twenty...  And pretty soon we have a 4000+ person con, like Boskone
in the mid-80s.

> This is a part of the discussion of what we want Capclave to grow
> into.  The overall impression that I've gotten is that people feel
> that there is already a 'big tent' convention in the area

What convention is that?

> and that we should continue carving out the niche that we started
> with when we focused on short stories.

We should definitely dump the Ancient Egyptian theme.  What did
that have to do with anything?  (On the other hand what did the
'98 Worldcon have to do with pirates, or '96 with rats?)

> So it *sounded* like we were paying $1,000 for a poster and flyers.

Yes.  I was one of those who objected, since it sounded to me like we
were paying a dollar each for bag-stuffing fliers that wouldn't even
mention a hotel or a weekend, and that most members would toss out
unread -- the usual fate of fliers given to people, as contrasted with
fliers picked up by people.

The good thing about having lots of money is it gives us the freedom
to experiment.  At the February 20th meeting, when we were being asked
what do with our windfall, I suggested, only half in jest, that we
keep holding Capclaves until the money runs out.

History shows that we can recover from such doldrums.  One Disclave
had just 22 (!) members, none of whom were pros.  A few years later,
Disclaves had over 1400 people.  (For sufficiently large values of
"a few years".)