Swancon restructure
There is a proposal for a major restructuring of WASFF that will be moved at the WASFF Business Meeting at Swancon.
I think there are significant problems with the design of the proposed restructure, and I would like to recommend voting against it.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present at the WASFF meeting (for the first time in at least a decade!) so I will have to present my case outside the meeting.
I think WASFF does need structural changes. I am in favour of WASFF structural change. But not these changes, and not now.
I think that we have had too little discussion of these changes to accept them this year, especially considering that this is a flawed model that contains many controversial changes.
These proposals are far reaching changes to the way WASFF operates, and have received relatively minimal public discussion, and discussion by the board. I think for proposals of this depth, we need more public discussion. I think a quick discussion would be fine if the proposal were uncontroversial and there was a consensus acceptance, but I do not think that this is the case.
There are several specific issues I have where I either think the proposed restructure either addresses the wrong problem, or is misdesigned to poorly address the problem it tries to fix.
In particular:
By design, the restructure is designed so that the board spends far less of its time dealing with Swancon issues. This is intentional, so that the WASFF board can devote more time to other science fiction promotional activity. I believe this is a mistake. While WASFF has broader objectives regarding the promotion of SF in WA, Swancon is where the majority of WASFFs funds and membership comes from and is essential to the health of WASFF. The board devoting most of its attention to Swancon is not a problem and does not need to be solved.
I think the Convention Steering Committee in the proposal does not have a well defined role. It is designed to take over a large part of the oversight role of the board, plus provide direct operational support to Swancon committees, plus do long term planning. I believe the oversight role should remain with the board, and the other two functions are better performed by a different structure. I believe that while this change is intended to help convenors, in practice it adds another set of responsibilities, and takes convention convenors focus away from their own conventions. I also believe that it is inappropriate for a committee that is 50% composed of convention convenors to be performing most of the boards oversight role over convention convenors.
I believe that while the proposal is intended to provide additional continuity for WASFF, it provides continuity in the wrong places. The proposal increases board continuity, by giving board members 3 year terms. I do not believe we currently have a significant problem with board continuity, and I can't remember it being a significant issue on WASFF while I have been a board member or convention convenor in the past. And longer terms for board member reduces the ability of the business meeting to democratically replace poorly performing board members. While I am not 100% opposed to longer board terms, I believe it deserves wider discussion, is not necessary to achieve the goal of continuity in Swancon planning even within the proposed structure, and addresses the wrong issue.
I think Swancon very much needs operational continuity, with more people repeating their roles over subsequent convention committees, and for convention committees to work closer together and pass on skills, but the proposal focusses on continuity of oversight and board membership, which I do not believe will help significantly with passing on skills. Without passing on skills and committee continuity to assure more consistent running of conventions, a lot of long term planning goals will falter. I do not think there is a strong basis for believing the proposed system will work much better than the current system for passing on skills, and at best it passes on skills only to convenors and not other committee members.
I think there is a demonstrated need for long term planning for Swancon, but I do not believe that we need to restructure WASFF to enable it to enforce such a plan. I think if WASFF had created a long term plan for Swancon, the majority of elected convention committees would choose to follow that plan fairly closely, especially if current and potential convention committees had an opportunity to participate in creating the plan. A long term planning process does not require a restructure.
In essence, the proposed restructure attempts to change the way we run Swancon from the top-down, by changing the way the board performs oversight on Swancon, and I believe this is the wrong approach. I think we seriously need to rethink some of the ways we run Swancon, and I think we need to rethink this from the bottom up.
I think that for many other issues, particularly those involving the various smaller conventions and events WASFF is involved in, this structure adds a layer of bureaucracy and spreads discussion between multiple meetings without adding much.
In short, I think the proposed restructure has many potential problems, and at the very least deserves a wider discussion, and it would be premature to vote it through this year with the limited discussion it has received.
I think there are significant problems with the design of the proposed restructure, and I would like to recommend voting against it.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present at the WASFF meeting (for the first time in at least a decade!) so I will have to present my case outside the meeting.
I think WASFF does need structural changes. I am in favour of WASFF structural change. But not these changes, and not now.
I think that we have had too little discussion of these changes to accept them this year, especially considering that this is a flawed model that contains many controversial changes.
These proposals are far reaching changes to the way WASFF operates, and have received relatively minimal public discussion, and discussion by the board. I think for proposals of this depth, we need more public discussion. I think a quick discussion would be fine if the proposal were uncontroversial and there was a consensus acceptance, but I do not think that this is the case.
There are several specific issues I have where I either think the proposed restructure either addresses the wrong problem, or is misdesigned to poorly address the problem it tries to fix.
In particular:
By design, the restructure is designed so that the board spends far less of its time dealing with Swancon issues. This is intentional, so that the WASFF board can devote more time to other science fiction promotional activity. I believe this is a mistake. While WASFF has broader objectives regarding the promotion of SF in WA, Swancon is where the majority of WASFFs funds and membership comes from and is essential to the health of WASFF. The board devoting most of its attention to Swancon is not a problem and does not need to be solved.
I think the Convention Steering Committee in the proposal does not have a well defined role. It is designed to take over a large part of the oversight role of the board, plus provide direct operational support to Swancon committees, plus do long term planning. I believe the oversight role should remain with the board, and the other two functions are better performed by a different structure. I believe that while this change is intended to help convenors, in practice it adds another set of responsibilities, and takes convention convenors focus away from their own conventions. I also believe that it is inappropriate for a committee that is 50% composed of convention convenors to be performing most of the boards oversight role over convention convenors.
I believe that while the proposal is intended to provide additional continuity for WASFF, it provides continuity in the wrong places. The proposal increases board continuity, by giving board members 3 year terms. I do not believe we currently have a significant problem with board continuity, and I can't remember it being a significant issue on WASFF while I have been a board member or convention convenor in the past. And longer terms for board member reduces the ability of the business meeting to democratically replace poorly performing board members. While I am not 100% opposed to longer board terms, I believe it deserves wider discussion, is not necessary to achieve the goal of continuity in Swancon planning even within the proposed structure, and addresses the wrong issue.
I think Swancon very much needs operational continuity, with more people repeating their roles over subsequent convention committees, and for convention committees to work closer together and pass on skills, but the proposal focusses on continuity of oversight and board membership, which I do not believe will help significantly with passing on skills. Without passing on skills and committee continuity to assure more consistent running of conventions, a lot of long term planning goals will falter. I do not think there is a strong basis for believing the proposed system will work much better than the current system for passing on skills, and at best it passes on skills only to convenors and not other committee members.
I think there is a demonstrated need for long term planning for Swancon, but I do not believe that we need to restructure WASFF to enable it to enforce such a plan. I think if WASFF had created a long term plan for Swancon, the majority of elected convention committees would choose to follow that plan fairly closely, especially if current and potential convention committees had an opportunity to participate in creating the plan. A long term planning process does not require a restructure.
In essence, the proposed restructure attempts to change the way we run Swancon from the top-down, by changing the way the board performs oversight on Swancon, and I believe this is the wrong approach. I think we seriously need to rethink some of the ways we run Swancon, and I think we need to rethink this from the bottom up.
I think that for many other issues, particularly those involving the various smaller conventions and events WASFF is involved in, this structure adds a layer of bureaucracy and spreads discussion between multiple meetings without adding much.
In short, I think the proposed restructure has many potential problems, and at the very least deserves a wider discussion, and it would be premature to vote it through this year with the limited discussion it has received.