From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the November 19th meeting are online
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:25:43 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elspeth Kovar" <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Cc: "Peggy Rae Sapienza" <peggyraes at comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 1:39 AM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the November 19th meeting are online

> At 11:25 AM 11/24/04, samlubell at verizon.net wrote:
> >Thanks Keith.  Since we don't know the exact amount, there's no sense in
> >causing panic until we know for sure.
>
> This was written in response to Keith's post which said:
>
> "It was announced at the meeting that Capclave had lost roughly
> seven thousand dollars.  We don't know the exact amount yet.  I've
> left that number out of the minutes since Sam said he doesn't want
> it mentioned at SMOFcon -- which is where I will be distributing
> the December WSFA Journal, which will contain the minutes of the
> last two meetings."
>
> I've been thinking about that since the Third Friday meeting, and
realized
> that I was reacting in an unfortunate knee-jerk fashion in response to
> concerns rather than addressing them in a useful way.  I'll try to make
up
> for it by doing the latter now.
>
> Which is that far from causing panic, being open about at a local SMOFcon
> about having lost money could be one of the best things that has happened
> to WSFA.  We have a chance at good PR and, more importantly, resources
that
> we usually wouldn't.
>
> I realize that you're worried about what people might think but there's
no
> shame in saying that one has run into a problem and wants to learn how to
> fix it.  In fact, there would probably be far fewer problems if more
people
> did that and it's something to be encouraged.
>
> In this case we've been following the honorable tradition of "if it ain't
> broke, don't fix it."  WSFA held the third oldest SF convention using our
> very casual model, and with a few pauses when we didn't hold a convention
> at all we've used it from 1950 until now for our local convention.  We
are
> rather amazing in that a half-century-old way of doing things worked so
> long despite all the changes that occurred during that time.  We can take
> pride in that, and more relevantly take pride in not hiding problems or
> clinging to tradition.

I think you're absolutely right.  Secrets -- especially those already
broadcast to this list -- *always* come out, often at embarrassing times.
Better to control the event and use it constructively.

(That said, I can think of three *regional* SF conventions older than
Disclave, and that's not even counting the Worldcon.   So what's this "WSFA
held the third oldest SF convention using our very casual model," all
about?)

--Ted White