Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:26:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net> To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> This is a combined reply to all comments about October's minutes. Elspeth Kovar wrote: > "Keith asked if there would be something in City Paper. Elspeth said > yes." I think that I chimed in as Sam Lubell was talking, ... It was Sam who said it. Thanks. Fixed. > "Elspeth said another concern was the force majeure or act-of-God > clause, which says that under some circumstances the hotel can > cancel and not reimburse us." > I believe that I also said that I'd gotten it written two way: > if various things happen, such a terrorist attack shuts down > transportation, that makes it impossible for us to hold the > convention we don't own them anything. A minor correction but > not getting clauses like that so they both go both ways is a > standard mistake. I'm pleased that that was in the contract. But you didn't say it during the meeting. > "Two Worldcon bids are hosting parties. The Kansas City bid withdrew > their plans for a party. Barry said KC had had three people coming." > You might want to put in a note that I checked the housing list > afterwards and some rather old email -- the more recent things are > filed in a separate folder -- and they'd said they were coming so > long ago that I'd forgotten that they'd replied. So we have all > three of the current Worldcon bids. At our little convention. Fixed. > I think that it's worth noting that Lee later said that since a > number of people would be missing Third Friday because of Scott's > wedding she'd like to ask if the vote could be postponed. That was already in there. Perhaps it shouldn't have been in the announcements section, but that's when she said it. It's moot now, anyway. > I don't want Deirdre reading the minutes and wondering who the heck > Elspeth is and why she's asking about her. Too late. Deirdre was already on the email list when you posted the above. > "Elspeth's cat Tribble has diabetes. She spent nearly all day either > at the vets or at the con hotel." > Sorry, it's Fribble ... Fixed. > ... And *she* didn't have to spend all day at the con hotel, the > lucky beast. I thought it was clear that "she" meant you, not your cat. Fixed anyway. "Mike B." wrote: > I think it was the *other* Judy... Fixed. > The Boulder Pledge: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase > anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited email > message. ... That will work well at wiping out spam if 100% of the people on the net follow it. Unfortunately, only a mere 99.99999% do, so it's pretty much useless. Nicki Lynch wrote: > I'm very disturbed by making remarks, which one is lead to believe > to be hateful about another member, attributed to "anonymous." It > makes the minutes inaccurate ... Rich Lynch wrote: > I absolutely agree. WSFA meetings are public events, and I object > to any censoring of the minutes. It's a balancing act between keeping the record accurate and complete, and protecting privacy. For instance the club voted that the names of the companies that owe our World Fantasy Con will not go in the minutes. And just three days ago, I got the following email: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:53:58 -0700 (PDT) From: [redacted] Subject: [WSFA] WSFA journal Keith - Can you remove my name from the online WSFA journal? I'm currently being stalked by an ex-girlfriend, who is trying to find out the full name of my current girlfriend, and the only place that our names are online together is in the October WSFA journal. If she finds it, she'll then be able to find out all sorts of things about [redacted] that I'd rather she didn't. I'd really really like to have my name removed from it as soon as possible - by the end of the day if possible. - [redacted] The names appeared in the meeting minutes. (Instead of deleting the name I altered it slightly in a way that should be invisible to humans, but completely Google-proof.) The current situation is quite unusual. A hostess has banned club members from her house for saying completely innocuous things that she didn't like. (She has rescinded the ban, but apparently only for the business meeting proper, not for the social hour.) As such, it's possible that the majority of club members would like to change our meeting place, but none dare speak up at a meeting for fear that if the motion fails, they'll be made unwelcome at half the meetings. Offering people anonymity under such circumstances is no more dishonest than is having elections with a secret ballot. Of course it would be better if such situations didn't arise. But given that one did, it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil. As it turns out, nobody has asked for anonymity. Mike Bartman wrote: > "Ernest said Capclave was listed on OkCupid." > That was me, not Ernest. Fixed. > Not a correction to the minutes, but to the data given at the meeting: > "Rebecca asked when free parking is available across the street. > Mike Walsh and Bob both said 6 pm." > I believe the meters said 7pm. I was wondering about that, since I remembered it had been 7 pm two years ago. Someone should keep an eye on this next year. > I don't believe I suggested that we change the First Friday meeting > place (if you have exact language from the tape that says otherwise, > I won't argue, but that's not how I remember it, or intended it). > I raised the question of whether the First Friday meeting would be > held at the Gilliland's due to the number of people saying that they > would not attend a meeting there (not lack of comfort there, but > lack of willingness to attend meetings there), ... Fixed. > "No vote having taken place, the next meeting will be at the > Gillilands', as usual." I felt I should put that in there to conclude that section, so that it doesn't just trail off, leaving the reader wondering. > There wasn't an attack by Velociraptors either, and no mention of > that lack was made. If at the meeting there had been discussion of hungry velociraptors trying to get in the door, I think a mention that they hadn't actually attacked would be appropriate. > Given how emotionally trying both of these meetings were for you, > and that the tape ran out before the meeting did, the minutes are > remarkably accurate. Well done. Thank you. One thing I appreciate about my day job is that as emotionally charged as the material I proofread often is (one of today's depositions involved someone who had been convicted of molesting a child), none of them have anything to do with *me*. I have no problem remaining rigorously neutral, since I've never met any of these people. And however angry the lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses get, they are never ever angry at *me*, because they don't know I exist. "Ernest Lilley" wrote: > Nice work on the minutes as always. Whoever tries to fill your > shoes will undoubtedly find the several sizes too large. Thank you. > "Jon Smart" should be "Jon Smoot" Fixed. > If you could add somewhere that during the con it was noted that > Future Washington had climbed to about 4700 on the Amazon sales > list, which is a fairly astronomical figure, though the short term > result of publicity by its authors, it would be appreciated. I'll take your word for it that that's good. Being in 4700th place doesn't sound all that impressive to me. There aren't all that many books published, after all. I see that at the moment they've fallen to 35,722 (paperback) and 70,348 (hardback). > If you'd conceder adding to the minutes that the money received for > Future Washingto has all been from local sales during its first > month of publication, and its too early to have gotten any sales > data or monies from our distributors, I'd appreciate it as well. I did say "Mike Walsh explained that lots of money was in the pipeline, due to how the publishing industry works." Colleen Cahill wrote: > "Rebecca asked when free parking is available across the > street. Mike Walsh and Bob both said 6 pm." > Er, that was me (Colleen) who asked about the parking: I do not > believe Rebecca was at the meeting. What meeting do you mean? At First Friday Rebecca was present, and you weren't present. At Third Friday, nobody asked about parking at Capclave, since the con was over. If you mean some prior month, it's too late to change the minutes, as they're in a WSFA Journal that has been printed and distributed. Thanks once again to everyone who helped keep the minutes accurate. I hope you'll do the same with WSFA's next secretary.