In order to change, you have to do things differently
I recently resigned from the WASFF Board, and from my role on the Convention Steering Committee, because I could no longer cope with the sustained negativity, insults and general reluctance to make difficult choices. I have largely lost faith in the ability of the Swancon community to actually achieve the goals it set itself to grow its membership and create a larger, more vibrant, more diverse convention.
But there is a small group of people who still have not lost faith. They're people who put in hours of work on Swancon every week, who care about doing the hard work that building Swancon requires. So for them, I am putting out this call for help.
At the AGM in 2010, after an incredibly long and difficult debate, an overwhelming majority voted to change the structure of our organisation to make it easier for us to build Swancon over a period of a few years. The purpose was to allow greater knowledge retention, the ability to plan long-term without starting from scratch with each new ConCom, and to remove unnecessary repetition of jobs by delegating them to people who would do them for a number of years. This is the vision that the CSC has been working to achieve over the last 2 years.
But, as is the way with fans, there has been a small minority of people who feel that the purpose of the Swancon organising structure is to provide a platform for their opinions to be voiced. Who feel that whether a job is done well or not, is less important than whether they got to discuss the issue at length. Don't get me wrong: including people and seeking out a range of opinions is generally a good thing. But once the right advice has been sought, expecting a new round of meetings and discussions and starting from scratch every time there's a new ConCom, regardless of whether those people have any relevant knowledge, is the opposite of the entire purpose of the CSC. Not only does it get in the way of actually implementing the work that's been done, it's hugely disrespectful of volunteers' time. In my experience, there is an almost perfect correlation between people who work hard and people who hate meetings. We drive those valuable people away every time we force them to sit in on another unproductive meeting rather than just get on with what they signed up for.
Another major hurdle to achieving our goals is the bitchy elephant in the room. Criticism.
Criticism is, again, a useful thing when done well. But it's not something that you, personally, need to offer on every single issue. There are times when, if you're not involved in the work, then shutting up and letting people get on with it is the most helpful thing you can do. Yes! Even when you think you would have done things differently. No, it doesn't make it better if you're "just asking questions". Because the simple fact is, the CSC is a new thing. We need to give that thing room to experiment, and occasionally get it wrong. Doing things the way we've always done them will give us the result we've always had. About 300 members, at the All Seasons. Occasionally a cramped All Seasons when we are the Natcon.
Lastly, we have the issue of ownership. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to letting someone else do a job that was traditionally left to the ConCom to do. The feeling that if someone else the gets to do the job then you've lost control, because you don't get to decide everything. But here's the thing. No, wait, here's the couple of things:
After I resigned, a huge number of people thanked me for my work, and expressed anger, or sadness, at the reasons I made the decision. That was much appreciated.
But while I was doing the job, here are some of the things people called me:
I don't pretend to be perfect. My tolerance for shitheads is low, and I'm not very good at turning the other cheek. But none of the work I did for Swancon was bad enough to deserve those attacks.
I didn't write that so you can leave comments about how terrible it is that people called me names. I'm writing this to offer up a challenge. If you're one of the critics of the CSC, I'm not interested in hearing it anymore, so please don't bother. But if you are one of the people who voted in favour of the changes, if you're one of the people who wants to make Swancon bigger, more exciting, more diverse, then it's time to step up. It's time to stop shying away from controversy, leaving people to defend themselves in order to avoid taking sides or causing a fuss. We need people to volunteer for the board, for the CSC. People who are willing to trust others to do their jobs, and to support them against unreasonable and constant criticism. People who are willing to work hard, but who are also prepared to take some risks, to maybe fail.
Growing Swancon is not going to be easy. It's going to take creative, hard-working people to get it there. It's also going to require a joint effort from everyone else to give them the space and the moral support they need to try new things, and to tell the haters to pipe down.
But there is a small group of people who still have not lost faith. They're people who put in hours of work on Swancon every week, who care about doing the hard work that building Swancon requires. So for them, I am putting out this call for help.
At the AGM in 2010, after an incredibly long and difficult debate, an overwhelming majority voted to change the structure of our organisation to make it easier for us to build Swancon over a period of a few years. The purpose was to allow greater knowledge retention, the ability to plan long-term without starting from scratch with each new ConCom, and to remove unnecessary repetition of jobs by delegating them to people who would do them for a number of years. This is the vision that the CSC has been working to achieve over the last 2 years.
But, as is the way with fans, there has been a small minority of people who feel that the purpose of the Swancon organising structure is to provide a platform for their opinions to be voiced. Who feel that whether a job is done well or not, is less important than whether they got to discuss the issue at length. Don't get me wrong: including people and seeking out a range of opinions is generally a good thing. But once the right advice has been sought, expecting a new round of meetings and discussions and starting from scratch every time there's a new ConCom, regardless of whether those people have any relevant knowledge, is the opposite of the entire purpose of the CSC. Not only does it get in the way of actually implementing the work that's been done, it's hugely disrespectful of volunteers' time. In my experience, there is an almost perfect correlation between people who work hard and people who hate meetings. We drive those valuable people away every time we force them to sit in on another unproductive meeting rather than just get on with what they signed up for.
Another major hurdle to achieving our goals is the bitchy elephant in the room. Criticism.
Criticism is, again, a useful thing when done well. But it's not something that you, personally, need to offer on every single issue. There are times when, if you're not involved in the work, then shutting up and letting people get on with it is the most helpful thing you can do. Yes! Even when you think you would have done things differently. No, it doesn't make it better if you're "just asking questions". Because the simple fact is, the CSC is a new thing. We need to give that thing room to experiment, and occasionally get it wrong. Doing things the way we've always done them will give us the result we've always had. About 300 members, at the All Seasons. Occasionally a cramped All Seasons when we are the Natcon.
Lastly, we have the issue of ownership. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to letting someone else do a job that was traditionally left to the ConCom to do. The feeling that if someone else the gets to do the job then you've lost control, because you don't get to decide everything. But here's the thing. No, wait, here's the couple of things:
- most people think that being a ConCom is way too much work, which is why they don't want to be on one. Taking some of the work that can be done more effectively on a long-term basis, means that ConComs get to focus on the main joy of being a ConCom: guests and program. Delegating means you don't get to do everything. But more importantly it means you don't have to do everything. The point is to spread the workload over a couple of committees - one focussed on making a brilliant con, the other focussed on making sure there's enough money and enough members to make it happen. That is win/win, people! (Win/win, except for those who want to have feelpinions at people, and avoid doing any actual "work". I don't know about you, but I don't think that's the kind of person we should be encouraging to join committees.)
- the work that is being delegated to the CSC is actually, you know, work. It's time consuming, it takes a great deal of thought, passion, and emotional investment. No one is going to volunteer to do hundreds of hours of work if at the end of the day they get no ownership over the direction of that work. Critics of the CSC argue that the CSC should only be an advisory body. CSC members are expected to do tonnes of work, but must understand that their work can be trashed on a whim by the current ConCom. Put up your hand if that's a job you're interested in doing.
After I resigned, a huge number of people thanked me for my work, and expressed anger, or sadness, at the reasons I made the decision. That was much appreciated.
But while I was doing the job, here are some of the things people called me:
- useless moron
- useless nagging retarded cunt
- both [sic] rude, incompetent and a little bit thick
I don't pretend to be perfect. My tolerance for shitheads is low, and I'm not very good at turning the other cheek. But none of the work I did for Swancon was bad enough to deserve those attacks.
I didn't write that so you can leave comments about how terrible it is that people called me names. I'm writing this to offer up a challenge. If you're one of the critics of the CSC, I'm not interested in hearing it anymore, so please don't bother. But if you are one of the people who voted in favour of the changes, if you're one of the people who wants to make Swancon bigger, more exciting, more diverse, then it's time to step up. It's time to stop shying away from controversy, leaving people to defend themselves in order to avoid taking sides or causing a fuss. We need people to volunteer for the board, for the CSC. People who are willing to trust others to do their jobs, and to support them against unreasonable and constant criticism. People who are willing to work hard, but who are also prepared to take some risks, to maybe fail.
Growing Swancon is not going to be easy. It's going to take creative, hard-working people to get it there. It's also going to require a joint effort from everyone else to give them the space and the moral support they need to try new things, and to tell the haters to pipe down.