4.3.1. Return to 2-Year Bidding - Background & Discussion
The Worldcon is currently selected on the basis of section 4 of the WSFS constitution, specifically: "4.1.1 WSFS shall choose the location and Committee of the Worldcon to be held three (3) years from the date of the current Worldcon." 3-year bidding was implemented during the 1980's in order to make it easier to obtain suitable sites, in a world of increasing competition for them. The first Worldcon selected under the current 3-year rule was Noreascon Three, 1989, selected in 1986. The 1986 Worldcon selected both the 1988 and 1989 Worldcons.
Experience since then has shown several deficiencies with 3-year bidding:
1. Any improvements in availability of sites have been relatively minor, since the large events we mostly compete with for space, tend to book 8-10 years in advance. They have the financial resources to pre-empt a Worldcon booking, and have done so. Most of the time, therefore, if a site is available three years out, it is still available two years out, (and moving to a longer bidding period would not help at all).
2.The three year period requires a Worldcon committee, (all volunteers), to be kept together for a long time, which is hard to do, on top of the bidding period.
3. In the first year after winning there are few activities that need to be done by a Worldcon committee that add value to the convention.
4. There are extra costs in having to produce more publications, pay admin/tax/legal fees etc.
I [the maker of the motion, Vincent Docherty] can speak from experience, particularly around point 2, that the long gap in the first year, when there is little that must be done (except some basic activities which would still need to be done with a 2-year bid), is very counter-productive in terms of generating enthusiasm in the new committee. A 3 year stretch is a long period in anyone's life and it is difficult to persuade people that they should help out, and those already helping can feel it as a 'long slog' and may have difficulty focussing on the convention 3 years away. A 2 year gap after winning is much easier to manage and to sell. The convention organization can begin with a reasonable rolling activity program and the post-selection 'dip' is minimized.
Another advantage of a 2-year bid concerns hotels - if the space is still available two years out, the hotel is much more desperate to fill it, and therefore often willing to offer better terms.
A number of counter-arguments against this proposal were raised at or since the Business Meeting in 1999:
1. Loss of franchise.
It was argued that the constitution enfranchises WSFS members with certain 'rights', including the right to select a future Worldcon. Debate then focussed on possible ways to keep this 'right' by, for instance, giving a 'transferable' supporting membership, or perhaps for the administering Worldcon to compensate WSFS members in some other way.
However no such 'right' is in fact granted, because:
A) The constitution says that the duties of the Worldcon committee include: 2.1.2:"administering any future Worldcon or NASFiC site selection required". Since in the year that misses a site selection no such duty is 'required' then there is no loss of franchise. All Worldcons will still be selected by members of WSFS.
B) In Section 1.2: Objectives, the functions of WSFS include:
"1.2.2 To choose the locations and Committees for the annual World Science Fiction Conventions
1.2.3 To attend those Worldcons.
1.2.4 To choose the locations and Committees for the occasional North American Science Fiction Conventions (hereinafter referred to as NASFiCs)."
However the wording is not clear that these functions are compulsory for every Worldcon (which would be needed for there to be a 'right). For instance, supporting members are members of WSFS but cannot attend, which could be argued to conflict with the strict wording of 1.2.3. Similarly, NASFiCs are not required to be selected at every Worldcon (hence the word 'occasional' in article 1.2.4). Therefore section 1.2 does not unambiguously imply a 'right' that can be disenfranchised by this amendment.
Since no 'right' is granted there is no loss of franchise.
2. Impact on existing bidders.
Announced Worldcon bids have built their plans and budgets around the existing bidding cycle. If this amendment is passed and ratified then they would be forced into an unexpected additional year of bidding, at a different administering Worldcon than they had planned for. This would significantly add to the costs of their bids and to the strain in keeping their committees together.
I accept this as an issue and therefore propose a proviso that delays the effect of implementation of the main amendment. This would take the form of a 'grandfather' provision as was done with the 'no-zone' proposal in 1999. There are currently announced bids up to 2007, so the proviso would delay implementation till 2005 at the earliest, which would therefore not hold a site selection for Worldcon. The 2008 Worldcon would then be selected in 2006.
3. A year to settle-in is useful
It was argued that for inexperienced committees the extra year gives necessary time to build their teams and generally prepare. However several recent Worldcon chairs said that in their experience the extra year consumed more than it gained - it was too exhausting. (My own personal experience from 1992-1995 supports this.)
4. This is too much change on top of 'no-zone'
It was argued that with the ratification of the 'no-zone' amendment in 1999, another major site selection amendment would be too much change in a short time.
The 'no zone' amendment will not come into sole effect until 2003 (with elections in 2000, 2001, and 2002 being conducted under both the new and old rules) and with the 'grandfathering' of this amendment it would not come into effect until 2005 at the earliest.
5. Impact on NASFiC selection.
There would be no need to change the reference to NASFiC bidding since the timing is specified in relative terms. (See article 4.8.1 - "Voting shall be by written ballot administered by the following year's Worldcon, if there is no NASFiC in that year, or by the following year's NASFiC, if there is one, with ballots cast at the administering convention or by mail, and with only members of the administering convention allowed to vote.") Note that NASFiCs would be selected on a 1 - year ahead basis.
In conclusion I believe that there is ample reason to change the current site selection procedure from a 3-year to a 2-year basis and that the experience of several recent Worldcon chairs back this up. I also believe that the counter-arguments have either been dealt with or can be handled by the proviso to 'grandfather' the amendment. I therefore propose this amendment to the members of the WSFS Business Meeting for their consideration.
