AGM?

[Wayne Mook]

Crikey I miss my first AGM in ages and it seems to have been a busy one.

I seem to remember in the past things have been changed at EGMs anf then ratified at the AGM.

I hope your able to stay on board Stephen.

Wayne.

[Rolnikov]

I hope so too! I love the job and was very disappointed to have to step down last time. What I might do is ask for a question to be put to the EGM (or if that's not practical, the BFS committee) along the lines of, is Stephen applying this rule too strictly?

If the answer's yes, stop being an idiot, this isn't what we wanted! we can put Interzone, Black Static and TTA Press back in the running and carry on without a change to the rule being needed (although I would propose a formal change at the AGM to tidy things up).

If it's no, this is what we wanted, no conflict of interest is allowed! the BFS would know this is the rule they have to work with. No one's said that to me so far, but I remember that when the rule was introduced people were going so far as to suggest the job be done by accountants.

[Allen]

Stephen, you know my feelings on this but I’ll reiterate them on the public boards:
We need to apply a level of common sense regarding the Awards Administrator’s connections with titles nominated for awards. Off the top of my head, here’s a few pointers:
If the Awards Administrator has written some reviews, a story, a poem, an article or illustrated an eligible title, the title should still be eligible.
If the Awards Administrator has reviewed a title – on a website, in print, etc – either favourably or unfavourably, the title should still be eligible.
The Awards Administrator will accept that all their individual work – stories, illustrations, poems, non-fiction, editorial work, etc – will be ineligible for a British Fantasy Award.
If the Awards Administrator has published a complete title with a small press publisher – e.g. a book as author, co-author or editor – that publisher should be ineligible for the “Best Small Press” award for that given year.

I hope these are helpful… and provoke some further discussion, which is always useful.

[Peter Coleborn]

Seems sensible to me, Allen

[Rolnikov]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think the rule should be too. But can the current rule be read in that way?

I'll be happy to take a sensible view on things in other places where the rules are a bit sketchy. The problematic factor here is my own self-interest...

Would love to hear further views on this matter.

[CarolineC]

What have the committee said about it, Stephen? Surely they will be the best ones to guide you on how the rules should be interpreted.

[Rolnikov]

I am talking to Lee, but it's about what action to take, if any, rather than how the rule should be read... That bit is pretty clear, when you read it, without very much room for interpretation.

What I'm interested in here is whether the current rule is what members want the rule to be, whether this is how they expected it to work, whether this is an unintended consequence.