I would have liked to have seen questions on more concrete proposals, like the stuff suggested in the awards thread - the "Conan" amendment, preferential voting, different approaches to producing the shortlist.
I think we were also forced to choose between panels and voting, whereas it would have been better to simply say for each individual option whether we liked it or not.
I voted against the "British" idea - members struggle to think of stuff to nominate as it is! But other "British" awards do it, so I suppose it wouldn't be that big a deal if we did too.
Disappointed to see the question on whether the rule against recommending yourself should be dropped - it's the one thing that's kept any sanity to the longlist! Disappointed too to not see a question as to whether it should be extended to partners, which is something I think is urgently needed.
The eligibility list question is an odd one too - if doing that, you might as well drop the recommendations stage altogether. Finding every eligible short story (and checking their length) would be fun.
Those two questions, taken together, seem to indicate that the plan is to get publishers to supply lists of eligible items, which we would then vote on. I can see some benefit in that, so long as there aren't Gemmell Award-style limitations on which publishers can submit.
