"Charlie Stross says it all here." He does? Is this some kind of premonition?

(The link 'here' leads, well, _here_)

Posted November 30, 2007 8:52 AM by Jules

Left the "=" character out of the URL. Fixed.

Posted November 30, 2007 8:57 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Shaking my head. And to think, Michael and Jane almost had me convinced to rejoin, back at the NASFiC.....

Posted November 30, 2007 8:59 AM by beth meacham

It sounds to me as if SFWA is being destroyed because some people want to be little tin gods. That's more than sad.

Posted November 30, 2007 9:02 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Y'know, the observation that unmoderated forums eventually turn toxic applies to governing coalitions, too.

Posted November 30, 2007 9:02 AM by Randolph Fritz

I notice that a donation to the Haven Foundation is tax deductible, whereas a donation to the EMF is not. Thanks, e-bear and Making Light for solving that little financial/moral dillema for me. I had been planning to give what would be my membership dues to the EMF this past year. Now I'll just send them to Stephen King.

Posted November 30, 2007 9:05 AM by Matt Jarpe

Sigh.

What else is there to say?

Posted November 30, 2007 9:08 AM by Joyce Reynolds-Ward

It's like watching a train wreck. I keep trying to look away, because it's none of my beeswax, but then some tremendous crashing noise or interesting explosion draws my attention back.

Oh, dear.

Posted November 30, 2007 9:36 AM by abi

Well, this makes me feel better about a similar trainwreck in a non-profit that I was involved with. I guess it's hard to tell a colleague in an organization that depends on volunteer labor "you're a nice guy, but you screwed up, and someone else has to do this job from now on".

Posted November 30, 2007 9:45 AM by Seth Gordon

*weeps in despair*

Posted November 30, 2007 9:48 AM by Fiendish Writer

Scalzi mentions that A. Burt voted for his own placement back on the reformulated e-piracy board. Is that correct? He didn't recuse himself from voting on his own nomination?

Posted November 30, 2007 10:04 AM by Steve Buchheit

Gah. It's impressive, in its thoroughly dumb way.

One thing that the Bush administration clarified for me is that in the long run, I have more confidence in (or more doubt about) people than processes. People use processes, and abuse them, and ignore them. A person bent on smashing the effectiveness of an agency, for instance, will find ways to do it no matter what the processes are, and only people who care about that not happening can stop it. Same deal here: processes matter, but the people who will be creating and applying them matter more.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:06 AM by Bruce Baugh

FEMA botches Katrina response. Brownie is sacked. Committee is formed to solve problem. Recommendations are made to change structure of FEMA. Bush reappoints Brownie as head, and changes the name to FEMU. All else remains the same.

Wow. Just... wow.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:09 AM by Greg London

While I'm not directly affected by this organizational insanity, not being a professional writer, I make it some of my business for 2 reasons:

1. It affects writers whose work I admire and enjoy. If it makes it harder for them to write, that affects me.

2. It's a great example for my collection of organizational war stories. As a software engineer I have a fund of first-person observations of this sort of clusterfuck; I much prefer to observe at a distance so as not to get caught in the swirling maelstrom.

TNH has enshrined the previous machinations of Andrew Burt as a prime example of the Fruit Punch Czar Syndrome. This latest mess looks to me like an outcome of what I call the Parent-Teacher Association Catastrophe. For those who haven't been involved in local organizations like the PTA or neighborhood councils, they exhibit self-organization around a common principle: those with the least power and ability to use it well, exercise it the most in the most inappropriate ways. Every such organization I have ever belonged to or observed has had a minimum of one member whose self-imposed task it is to organize everyone else in ways that matter not one whit to any outcome in any alternate universe anywhen, but that the organizers consider vital to the ongoing existence of Civilization As We Know It.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:11 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Scalzi's exegesis of Capobianco's argument here: "I believe what Michael is trying to say here is that he expects the new process itself will keep the same mistakes from happening again, regardless of who is on the committee."

It's a bureaucratic argument, something I'd expect in a civil service whose inept employees are too hard to get rid of: we can't change our people (i.e., fire the fuckups), so we'll change our process (i.e., make it harder for the fuckups to fuck up). Applies equally to organizations whose volunteer pools are limited or closed shops.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:17 AM by Jonathan Crowe

Steve @11: yes, that is correct: Burt voted for himself, despite the clear conflict of interest.

One point I should like to mention is that SFWA's officers are all unpaid volunteers. Now consider the sort of person who volunteers -- without reward -- for the time-consuming and frequently thankless job of running such an organization. In most cases, volunteers in such organizations are just ordinary members with a well-developed sense of duty or obligation. But you also see pathological personality types who are drawn to power for its own sake; and I see no mechanisms in SFWA's constitution to weed out narcissistic status seekers before they can get into a position to damage the organization.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:21 AM by Charlie Stross

I must admit I have a sentimental attachment to my SFWA active membership, which I regard as a real achievement. It's a shame, really. But, like everything else, the worth of something isn't in the concept or the intention. It's in the execution.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:22 AM by Dave Luckett

Another part of the problem, I've become convinced, is SFWA's attachment to (supposedly) private discussion forums, participation in which becomes seen as a status symbol in itself. I say "supposedly" because, really, the idea that SFWA could distribute hundreds of copies of its internal-discussions fanzine SFWA Forum without its contents becoming widely known was always crack-brained. These days, SFWA conducts a lot of its internal discourse in sikrit on-line treehouses, with predictable results: first, there's no actual security to those discussions, and second, their actual "conversational culture" is completely septic.

Right now, in the public statements of SFWA's officers, you don't have to look far to see a lot of Hurt Tone over that darn blogosphere "jumping to conclusions", by which they mean coming to conclusions based on, you know, what's been done and said. In these people's minds, by actually talking to his readers as if they matter to him just as much as (or more than) a bunch of American tie-in writers, Charlie Stross is breaking the rules.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:35 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Charlie @16: Are there such mechanisms in any constitution?

Posted November 30, 2007 10:36 AM by Jan Vaněk jr.

Sometimes I vaguely regret having decided many years ago to drop my SFWA membership. But not often, and not recently.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:37 AM by Dave Langford

I wish I could buy the SFWA board a great big pair of lapels, just so we could all grab on and shake them.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:50 AM by Scraps

What impresses me most is that they didn't even rearrange the deck chairs. They put together a committee, then kept the deck chairs right where they were. It was a Chinese fire drill.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:56 AM by will shetterly

Another part of the problem, I've become convinced, is SFWA's attachment to (supposedly) private discussion forums, participation in which becomes seen as a status symbol in itself.

Let's not forget the SFWA suite. The moment I lost all respect for SFWA was when I saw the booze they were buying for the suite. The frigging corner bar had better booze in the well. This was "Tequlia from Detroit, Scotch from Tape" level booze.

Sheesh.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:12 AM by Erik Olson

re: My Elves Are Different. I am not "Earl Earl". I just wanted to clarify that.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:16 AM by Earl Cooley III

OMG, I can't believe they can be that stupid and still find their mouth with a spoon.

Poor Charlie.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:24 AM by Jo Walton

The Emergency Medical Fund, the Legal Fund, and the Grievance Committee are three big reasons to support SFWA.

And as I've said elsewhere: If people leave because of all the idiots, only idiots will be left.

A better plan would be for Scalzi to put his name in for Prez before the nomination deadline, so he doesn't have to start a write-in campaign after half the voters have already returned their ballots.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:25 AM by James D. Macdonald

#23: booze. SFWA does booze?

Scene from a Nebulas bash:

Wide-eyed author: Oh good, I see SFWA has a hospitality suite!

Hard-bitten editor: SFWA's idea of hospitality is to open another bag of potato chips.

Historical note: To be fair, they had also opened a packet of jelly beans.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:32 AM by Ken MacLeod

Isn't EMF officially a 501(c)(3)?

What Will S. said. Someone please tell Jane Jewell that our household is going to be saving some money that can go to a good cause NEXT year as well.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:38 AM by Ken Houghton

Jo (#25):

As my cats have proven time and again, when you're perfectly capable of lowering your head to the bowl, there's no need to ever figure out how to use a spoon.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:39 AM by Adam Lipkin

James, it can be nice to know where most of the idiots are.

As for the EMF, The Haven Foundation looks like a better alternative.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:41 AM by will shetterly

I'm grateful to SFWA, which has been a great help to me over the decades, and plan to hang in there while it grows up. And somebody should mention the free websites SFWA provides for its members, as well as the flawless and speedy service for those websites.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:52 AM by Suzette Haden Elgin

Jonathan Crowe@15:

"It's a bureaucratic argument, something I'd expect in a civil service whose inept employees are too hard to get rid of: we can't change our people (i.e., fire the fuckups), so we'll change our process (i.e., make it harder for the fuckups to fuck up)."

I tend to view it like that old Samsonite commercial in which the suitcases were savaged by a gorilla, sending the signal that if they can stand up to this, they can stand up to anything. In other words, a solid vote of confidence for the process. Since I was one of the people who handed over a blueprint for the process, I suppose I should be flattered.

James D. Macdonald@26:

"A better plan would be for Scalzi to put his name in for Prez before the nomination deadline, so he doesn't have to start a write-in campaign after half the voters have already returned their ballots."

This assumes I plan to run next year. Rumor has it, I have books to write.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:52 AM by John Scalzi

As I said over at Bear's place, there's another good thing SWFA does, and that's having a lot of stuff on the public part of the site that's useful to newbie writers, including "how not to get scammed". It's not all that relevant to anyone who qualifies for SFWA membership (or at least I *hope* anyone who's managed to qualify knows that stuff by now), and there are other places to find it, including here; but it's still a public service.

There are *good* things SFWA does, often things that aren't all that visible. I'm not a SFWA member, so I'm not sure whether they outweigh the bad stuff. But they seem like things that are worth preserving if it's possible, so I'm really not impressed with this latest round of "how can we cause maximum offence?" idiocy -- especially when it involves someone who appears to have got into SFWA via a certain amount of rules-bending.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:55 AM by Julia Jones

The first unfortunate part of any volunteer organization (and I've been in many) is that sometimes you get people whose chief qualification for the job is that they have time on their hands.

The second unfortunate part of any volunteer organization is that they don't respond well to criticism. Criticism, even of a valid nature, is frequently taken personally. This leads to a "circle the wagons" mentality.

Although Burt obviously wanted to be back on the committee, a quick glance at the vote of the board (8 to 1) suggests that his vote was not critical. So, if the SFWA members don't like what's going on, they're going to have to "vote the bums out" which means getting on the ballot and campaigning.

Lastly, although Burt's back in the saddle, his wings have clearly been clipped, since it appears he can't send out much more then a grocery list without El Capo's approval.

Posted November 30, 2007 11:55 AM by Chris Gerrib

AHhahahahahahahha!

It's starting again! Burt wants input on "What to do with Scribd?"

I am a very, very, bad, bad, bad person. I confess to cackling with glee at each new link I open.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:00 PM by midori

Chris Gerrib@34:

"Although Burt obviously wanted to be back on the committee, a quick glance at the vote of the board (8 to 1) suggests that his vote was not critical."

I think this overlooks the fact that Burt, as a member of the board, was active in discussions and was almost certainly actively lobbying his board members to be on the new committee; we don't know what the vote would have been had he recused himself from both the deliberations and the voting.

I personally feel this conflict of interest should be of considerable concern for SFWAns.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:07 PM by John Scalzi

John Scalzi - I sympathize with your time constraints. I have a full-time job as well as trying to break into writing.

But I have also found time to be president of my Rotary club. I didn't ask for the job, but I believe in what Rotary is trying to accomplish, and I want it to continue.

You (in particular) and the other SFWA members / eligible non-members (in general) need to decide if SFWA is a worthwhile organization, and should continue.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know (or at least I don't think I am) but if SFWA is worth saving, then somebody will have to step up and get involved.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:07 PM by Chris Gerrib

John Scalzi - yep, Burt should have recused himself. Actually, the board should have told him to step out of the room (or whatever) when the vote was taken.

My point was that Burt's not the sole problem here.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:11 PM by Chris Gerrib

Chris Gerrib@37:

Well, you may recall that I did run for president last year, not to mention I just chaired a committee that among other things required me to do hours of mind-sloggingly collating of SFWA member votes while I was allegedly on a vacation. I'm not adverse to being engaged, and I don't think I need to be prodded about the virtue of making an effort.

That said, next year I have three books I need to work on, not to mention a slate of shorter work and quite a bit of other work not relating to fiction, and I would have to see whether I have the actual bandwidth to be a competent and engaged SFWA president on top of that work.

Which is to say, I will decide when it's appropriate for me to make a decision. Until then, I don't think it's wise for anyone to assume I'll be in the running for SFWA president next year.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:16 PM by John Scalzi

**mumble** years ago, when I ran for Secretary of SFWA, I said in my statement that I thought SFWA was a great idea that sometimes lives up to its ideals. Being on the Board for a year was work, was time-consuming, and was illuminating; everyone (including the president at the time, who shall remain nameless) was really striving to do the thoughtful, helpful, right thing. We probably fucked up as often as not.

Being a volunteer officer, with the entire, highly verbal and critical membership of the organization watching your every move and critiquing it in almost-real-time, can make you a little crazy. That doesn't excuse the original Scribd debacle or its sequelae, but it explains it, a little.

This is a mess. I'm still wishing that SFWA could live up to its ideals more often and more intelligently.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:18 PM by Madeleine Robins

Arrrrrgh! I increasingly regret that I went for the life membership way back when.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:26 PM by Kelly McCullough

SFWA certainly does some worthwhile things. A good example is Writer Beware. However, almost all of them turn out to have happened, not as an outgrowth of SFWA's official processes, but rather because one person, or a few people, doggedly built something useful in spite of those processes. Veterans of small-group politics in other arenas will find this a familiar pattern.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:28 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Not a member, so I don't really know, but I wonder if the Iron Law of Institutions comes into play around here somewhere...

Posted November 30, 2007 12:29 PM by Stephen Frug

The reaction to the current SFWA problem reminds me a little of the "captain" problem in Iraq.

Most of the best-graded captains are leaving the Army, despite the promise of a $35,000 resign bonus. The people taking the bonus and staying are the captains who aren't so highly regarded.

It does seem like the people who could best east SFWA into the 21st century are the ones most pissed off and the ones who seem to be leaving. Sad, but not surprising.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:29 PM by Laurie D. T. Mann

John Scalzi - I do in fact recall you running and note your involvement in the e-piracy committee. Those are both good stepping stones to the President's chair :-)

Seriously - I'm not trying to rag on you or suggest that you're not involved. My point, and it goes to all the other SFWA members as well, is that if you don't like what's happening, you'll have to step in and offer to do it.

Madeleine @ 40 - I run a Rotary club. Everybody in there is a business owner or senior manager, and very used to having things done their way. In that regard (and only that regard) I have sympathy for Burt. What was Teddy Roosevelt's line about "the man in the arena?"

Posted November 30, 2007 12:34 PM by Chris Gerrib

ABurt invokes history and community service as his defense. But history can be a two-edged sword:

http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/36429.html?view=990541#t990541

On your blog, you write the following:

I've historically had a reputation as a fair and open-minded person who tries to do good work for the community at large (such as Nyx, Critters, etc.), so I hope that says something.

http://raygunrevival.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1497
Historically, you used the Critters newsletter to take cheap public potshots at Cory Doctorow. When I called you on that, you were neither fair, nor open-minded, nor apologetic. After a lengthy thread seeking, unsuccessfully, to persuade you that it was an abuse of power using Critters as your own private podium for vendetta, I resigned from Critters in protest.

This is the sort of thing that people point to with regard to your activity with this committee. The chorus of voices today is not that of a mindless lynchmob, it is the collection of individual observations of a smart, literate public who see what is there to see - a man with suspect credibility and questionable character. As long as Michael is hitching the entire SFWA wagon to you, personally, the entire process is tainted.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:34 PM by Johne Cook

What does SFWA do that's actually useful?

Well, there's the EMF. And there's Griefcom. And there's the web resources for new writers (including the writers beware stuff), and the social side. And the nebulas.

1. The EMF is only necessary because the US medical system is utterly FUBARed, especially for low-earning self-employed folks (like most writers). Stephen King is trying to set up something similar but more generic and probably with hugely better funding. And if, post-2008 election, you get a president who's serious about healthcare reform, the EMF will hopefully cease to be necessary. (Declaration of disinterest: as a Brit, I have no use for the EMF.)

2. Griefcom -- yes, it's a good thing, but does it need a large organization with a thousand-plus members behind it to make it work? Are there other ways of handling representation and arbitration on behalf of authors?

3. Web resources -- they're useful, but SFWA isn't unique in providing resources for writers; see also absolute write for example.

4. The Nebulas. The voting structure of which is absolutely FUBARed by design, and which were invented out of whole cloth by Damon Knight so that he could run the Nebula award winner anthologies to provide an income stream for the organization. We've got too damn many awards as it is.

5. The social stuff. Which used to be important ... but again: in this day and age, we've got the internet. (Case in point.) The private treehouse mentality of the SFWA newsgroups breeds a toxic stew of exclusionary groupthink and encourages the sort of idiocy that the re-establishment of the SFWA piracy committee exemplifies.

Have I missed anything?

Posted November 30, 2007 12:35 PM by Charlie Stross

Steven Frug, #43: The Iron Law of Institutions is quite certainly a factor here.

Charlie Stross, #47: Just to clarify, Damon Knight did invent the Nebulas, but he bears little to no responsibility for the baroque rules, eligibility requirements, and nominating procedures which they've subsequently accreted.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:44 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick, yes: I know the nebula rules got complexified out of all sanity during the 1980s, long after Damon Knight started the ball rolling. I'm just highly doubtful about their relevance to the state of SF today, given how wildly they've diverged from the Hugos (and the other awards) over the past few years.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:49 PM by Charlie Stross

Re-reading @33, I think I should clarify that I think that SFWA is potentially a good thing, but I'm not impressed with Andrew Burt right now.

Charlie @47: I think point 1 will continue to be important unless/until there is a realistic alternative for the US writers, and I wouldn't pin my hopes on the 2008 election. But I believe there are other writers' organisations that many SFWA members could join for the same purpose. Point 2 might also be something they could get from another existing organisation.

A lot of the benefit of SFWA is collecting useful info and services into one place and putting an sff slant on it, so that the people involved know the particular wrinkles of the genre. It's useful. But it's not *necessary*.

Posted November 30, 2007 12:49 PM by Julia Jones

Burt wants input on "What to do with Scribd?"

Mr. Jaw, meet Mr. Floor.

"They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing."

Posted November 30, 2007 12:51 PM by jonquil

Steve, #11: Politicians routinely vote for themselves. The idea that this is vaguely unethical is left behind along with grade school. Of course, one politician's vote in a general election doesn't carry nearly as much weight, either.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:11 PM by Lee

Lee 52: Yes, they do, and you've put your finger on the problem: Burt is a politician. Committee members in a not-for-profit should be the kind of people who are persuaded to do it because they're good at it, not the power-mad nutbars who make good politicians.

Unfortunately, politicians are what you get.

I remember a planet in the Legion of Superheroes universe where politicians were drafted instead of elected. Presumably some skill-level was established, but after that they were selected at random and induced to serve under penalty of law.

Short of something wacky-extreme like that, all offices will be filled by people who are good at getting into them and staying in them, which has only a slight correlation to being good at actually doing the job.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:23 PM by Xopher

John, #32: The Samsonite argument calls to mind Boccaccio's story of Giannotto and Abraam (Decameron, first day, second story).

Posted November 30, 2007 1:38 PM by y

Lee @ 52: There's a substantial difference between voting for oneself a a member of the general electorate of a body and voting for oneself as a member of a Board or Executive Committee. In the former case, any person voting (usually, subject to various ordinary restrictions) is eligible to hold the post they're voting for. On the other hand, when a Board selects the members of a committee, in most cases the membership is not restricted to Board members.

Xopher @ 53:
I remember a planet in the Legion of Superheroes universe where politicians were drafted instead of elected. Presumably some skill-level was established, but after that they were selected at random and induced to serve under penalty of law.

Ancient Athens did some of that, which is probably where it was taken from.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:39 PM by Andrew

Xopher @53: a planet in the Legion of Superheroes universe where politicians were drafted instead of elected

This is reminiscent of Lafferty's "Primary Education of the Camiroi" and "Polity and Custom of the Camiroi." The government was made of draftees. If I recall correctly, any citizen could enact a law, but the penalty for enacting what was determined to be a bad law (I don't remember how) could be death. Their educational system was inspired by the idea that everyone must be trained to be competent to be the government's chief executive, or to create law.

However cartoonishly extreme Camiroi was, I wish all democracies would keep in mind the importance of teaching critical thinking and history.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:42 PM by Zed

My point, and it goes to all the other SFWA members as well, is that if you don't like what's happening, you'll have to step in and offer to do it.

Please hear this in a mild tone of voice: I don't think anyone in this conversation -- or in most conversations among adults -- needs to be told this. I'm sure you don't intend it this way, but it smacks of lecturing, and implies that a conversation like this has no use, when in fact it is a necessary prelude to intelligent action. And volunteering other people for responsibilities is not only a bit rude, it's counterproductive: it makes people more resistant, not more receptive.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:54 PM by Scraps

@53: The planet Bismoll, home of Matter-Eater Lad. (It's an urban myth that its leader was called the "Pepto". )

Posted November 30, 2007 1:55 PM by Jon Meltzer

Jim C. Hines has posted his thoughts on his LiveJournal: he was also a member of the recommendations committee

Posted November 30, 2007 1:57 PM by SisterCoyote

I would just like to note that I don't consider "politician" an insult, nor do I disdain the skill set that makes a person one.

Posted November 30, 2007 1:58 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Charlie @ #47 - If houses weren't (in)flammable, we wouldn't need much in the way of fire insurance, either. But houses are, by and large flammable, and US health care is, by and large, grotesquely inadequate, especially for the self-employed. And even a best case scenario in the 2008 Presidential election isn't going to change that soon -- Presidents don't make laws, and huge institutional changes like putting the entire country on a completely different footing for health care funding take time, even if the political will is there. The kind of time in which people can sicken, be wiped out, and die. I think we agree that writers dying in poverty has been done enough not to bear repeating, yes?

I sympathize in every possible way with your anger and frustration with SFWA just now, but that doesn't change the genuine need for the Emergency Medical Fund for several years to come, at least.

Posted November 30, 2007 2:06 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

I agree with Patrick about "politician" not being a term of abuse. Politics is important. Every society that ever was and ever will be will have politics. Even the Singularity, if such a thing is possible and happens, won't abolish politics. It's a field of activity worth respecting, understanding, and doing with honor and virtue.

(I realized a while back that I feel about the ostracization of "politics" as some weird thing that's probably a scam very much the way I do about the similar treatment of "religion". Both are fundamental parts of human nature, and deserve better than being abandoned to nuts and villains.)

Posted November 30, 2007 2:11 PM by Bruce Baugh

Scraps @ 57 - I apologize for lecturing. That was not my intent. I intended "step in" to be seen as an alternative to "quit" or "don't join," both of which were mentioned in this thread.

I'm not eligible for SFWA, so this discussion is somewhat theoretical to me. However, having ran volunteer organizations, there were times when I wished the folks in the back would come on up and help. I suspect this impulse is part of why the leadership in volunteer organizations generally don't respond well to criticism.

Posted November 30, 2007 2:15 PM by Chris Gerrib

Bruce Baugh, 62,

I feel about the ostracization of "politics" as some weird thing that's probably a scam very much the way I do about the similar treatment of "religion". Both are fundamental parts of human nature, and deserve better than being abandoned to nuts and villains.

Word, yo*.

*well said.

Posted November 30, 2007 2:17 PM by midori

Back to the OP: did anyone else notice that they intentionally omitted the recommendation that there be oversight and that there be no unilateral action by members of the committee?

Posted November 30, 2007 2:23 PM by Robin Z

Robin Z @ 65 - actually, the order adopted by SFWA requires that the committee give the President the chance to override their letters. Which is actually a bureaucratic slap in the face.

"You can't send out letters on company letterhead unless the President sees it first."

Posted November 30, 2007 2:33 PM by Chris Gerrib

#52 Lee, as a politician myself (my creds) I certainly vote for myself in the general election. However, voting from the desk for my position to be on a committee or to some subcommittee happens only once a year when we determine our organazational structure (I am currently Chair of the Streets and Lands and Building Committees) and then it's an en bloc vote (all committee assignments, all chairs, etc in one vote, if everybody involved recused themselves there would be no vote). When I speak as a citizen of the community (as different than speaking as a councliman), I walk around the table (where we sit for meetings) to signify the difference. If the vote is about appointing me or anything that may seem to personally benefit me, I always (without fail) recuse myself. I've only had to do this three times in my five years on Council. I've had to do it more often as an officer in Ruritans (like Rotarians).

As a side note, my design freelancing comes up more often for both the Village and the Ruritans (of which I am now an associate member, not an officer). I do not vote on issues to give me the work, nor do I accept payment for the work I do for them (Village and Ruritans) specifically to avoid the specter of impropriety. This has come up more often.

As a professional, this is my code of conduct. When I see it not being followed by others it makes me question their professionalism (and their motives).

Posted November 30, 2007 2:39 PM by Steve Buchheit

#53: I remember a planet in the Legion of Superheroes universe where politicians were drafted instead of elected. Presumably some skill-level was established, but after that they were selected at random and induced to serve under penalty of law.

#55: Ancient Athens did some of that, which is probably where it was taken from.

In The Martians, Kim Stanley Robinson has one branch of the Martian government work like this; and in the notes, the fictional character (forget which) points out that there are, in fact, a fair number of different real-world precedents. The basic idea is to have the legislature operate like a Jury.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:10 PM by Stephen Frug

"53: I remember a planet in the Legion of Superheroes universe where politicians were drafted instead of elected. Presumably some skill-level was established, but after that they were selected at random and induced to serve under penalty of law."

That was Bismol, home of Tenzel "Matter Eater Lad" Kem, who was drafted under its provisions. Sometime after the Five Year Gap he began doing increasingly outrageous things to try to convince Bismollians to stop voting for him.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:15 PM by James Davis Nicoll

Patrick 60 and Bruce 62: you're right, of course. I was feeling bitter and also wrote carelessly. Contra myself at 53, not everyone who has the talent and inclination to be a politician is a power-mad nutbar.

They do have to like power, I think. And they do have to be at least able to think in a way that most of us would find distinctly uncomfortable.

My poli-sci prof friend Sondra defines politics as "the authoritative allocation of scarce resources." My politician friend Mike defines it as "the art of the possible." I've been known to define it as "how humans interact in any group larger than one" (that's why I was able to see that Bruce was right in 62, and that I was talking through my ass at 53).

The trouble (and what made me say that at 53) is that politics is a game that, to a limited extent, can be won by abandoning all moral and ethical principles. And the good and decent politicians tend to get trodden on in the process. Too often, the scum rises to the top; see our current President for a particularly egregious example.

The current crop of Presidential candidates is another; of all of them, only Dennis Kucinich would be welcome in my home (none of the rest regard me as fully human, and funny thing, I'm offended by that). I'm not voting for him; I'm voting for Hillary, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere: politics is the art of the possible.

But I digress. In a volunteer organization like SFWA, some of the people who volunteer to serve are just service-oriented people. But it also attracts power-hungry wacko-loonies like Burt.

If this were a campaign for public office, I would call the above a "clarification." But in fact I said something wrong and stupid and I'm saying something different now.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:16 PM by Xopher

Xopher @70 &prev:
It occurs to me that we're a word short in our vocabulary. We need a word n, where "writer is to hack as politician is to n."

Such a word would, of course, be subject to normal grammatical rules:

I am a statesman
You are a politician
He is an n

Suggestions?

Posted November 30, 2007 3:29 PM by abi

Actually, abi, the word 'hack' is used there too. As is the word 'pol', but that's a little more obscure.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:33 PM by Xopher

Xopher @72:

I think we might, in this particular case, want to use another word than "hack". No one is criticizing anyone's writing here.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:38 PM by abi

abi @71 & 73, I usually use "partisan hack", which combines the connotations of "hack" with "views politics as a sport with clearly defined sides" and removes the idea that we're concerned with how well written their press releases are.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:40 PM by Stephen Granade

I am thinking this Andrew Burt is not a power-hungry one, but one who believes he is always the right and reasonable, and so we should all listen to him, him, him.

Not better than power-hungry, merely different.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:42 PM by Fiendish Writer

Reading the Scribd thread broke my suspension of disbelief.

I'm finding myself considering conspiracy theories because this level of stupidity just isn't plausible.

Posted November 30, 2007 3:53 PM by Jo Walton

Jo Walton @ 76
The impression I get from other people in the know is that given SWFA's past, this level of stupidity is coming close to routine.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:00 PM by Andrew

On a side note, I'd like to thank Charlie for smacking down Vox Day on antipope. Veteran Makinglightites/Erloctroliters might remember him.

*snerk*

Posted November 30, 2007 4:02 PM by Josh Jasper

#70 Xopher "The trouble... is that politics is a game that, to a limited extent, can be won by abandoning all moral and ethical principles. And the good and decent politicians tend to get trodden on in the process. Too often, the scum rises to the top..."

Having just been re-elected, Xopher, I'll try not to take that too personally, or at least see myself as the exception.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:07 PM by Steve Buchheit

Vox "Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics" Day showed up in Charlie's comment thread? Excuse me, I have to get out my lawn chair and pop open a cold one.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:07 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

abi @ #71: "Glorified ward-heeler" would do, I think.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:11 PM by theophylact

#70, it may not be possible to disentangle this from a liking for power, but I feel that the better sort of politician is driven more by a desire/willingness to take responsibility.

I don't recall the source, but my preferred definition for politics is the means of resolving disputes without hitting each other over the heads with clubs.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:12 PM by Martin Schafer

#75:Yes, it does seem like Dr. Burt's image of himself, and his actions don't line up.

His cheap shot at Cory Doctorow in the Critters Newsletter, IMHO, was petty. This is not the act of a right and reasonable person. Critters is the only context in which I've had any dealing with him, so I don't know him at all.

I was surprised when he responded to my question to the LJ SFWA community. (i.e., since no one has admitted error, why wouldn't those same people commit the same mistakes all over again.) However, his answer was very much in line with the blame-shifting he's done in the past. I'm a little miffed that he thought this was an adequate response to my question. Did he think there was someone who could ask that question without knowing his previous behavior?

Fortunately, Johne Cook and Teresa, among others, tore his statement apart far better than I could. Thank you.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:19 PM by John Chu

"Vox "Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics" Day showed up in Charlie's comment thread? Excuse me, I have to get out my lawn chair and pop open a cold one."

Currently he's digging in deeper, while at the same time trying to suck up to Stross. And attacking the Queen, I think. It's kind of mind-boggling.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:33 PM by Evan Goer

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 80,
Vox "Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics" Day showed up in Charlie's comment thread? Excuse me, I have to get out my lawn chair and pop open a cold one.

Oh yes, he's there, Mr. Vox "I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated" Day. I made the mistake of reading one of his texts. I summarize my reaction there*.

Very disappointing, btw, to find out that he's raving starkers, as I was interested in his proposal to revise the SFWA. I'm now concerned that I have contaminated my psyche through indirect contact with his emanations.

*even shorter version:
The goggles! Squamous! Rugose! No earthly! erk!

Posted November 30, 2007 4:35 PM by midori

Patrick @ #80 - Yep. I get the sense he wanted to be "one of the cool kids". He will never be "one of the cool kids". Misogyny is uncool. So is Christian Dominionism.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:35 PM by Josh Jasper

I rather got the impression that he is (a) young, and (b) trolling. Unfortunately he may yet grow up to rue his early experiments in fishing with dynamite. "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" has a corollary: "on the internet, everyone you piss off has the memory of an elephant."

Posted November 30, 2007 4:40 PM by Charlie Stross

Well, at least Vox announcing his candidacy for SFWA president has given me a good reason to hang onto my SFWA membership--voting against him.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:41 PM by Kelly McCullough

Abi & Xopher: Polihack? Hacktician? Hacktician leads me to hactastic, but that could just be the pain pills talking.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:42 PM by Laura

Whoops, he wasn't attacking the Queen, he was attacking the EU. I'm so easily confused.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:50 PM by Evan Goer

I've just remembered that Our Host Patrick once urged me to run for President of SFWA; even at that time I felt this was a strange thing for a man to do to a friend.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:51 PM by Madeleine Robins

I've just remembered that Our Host Patrick once urged me to run for President of SFWA; even at that time I felt this was a strange thing for a man to do to a friend.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:51 PM by Madeleine Robins

Lara @ 89... Hackstatic? Hacksecrable?

Posted November 30, 2007 4:52 PM by Serge

Well, if the hack is president, you can call him a hacksident*.

-----
* unless he was on purpose

Posted November 30, 2007 4:54 PM by abi

Xopher #70:

The political side of some big operation (like writing a standard, running an organization, operating a business, etc.) often becomes dominant in the decisionmaking, over the side of getting the actual goal done well. I think that's what many of us find frustrating about politics in general.

That's true in the broader national politics sense, too, of course.

Posted November 30, 2007 4:55 PM by albatross

Evan Goer, 90
Whoops, he wasn't attacking the Queen, he was attacking the EU. I'm so easily confused.
Oh no, he snarked about the Queen here.
I believe the phrase you are looking for is:

a non-democratic political entity ruled by an unaccountable and unelected oligarchy

I say! Does this mean he's also insulted the people of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? (And the other 12 countries that I haven't yet mentioned?) I'm a litte fuzzy on the scope of Her Majesty's rulership, and oddly, Wikipedia isn't helping.

Posted November 30, 2007 5:02 PM by midori

The Bush administration would be proud.

I can't get to the journal in question (work filter) so perhaps someone here can explain.

What in the holy names of heck does the Bush administration have to do with SFWA?

Posted November 30, 2007 5:07 PM by Brian

On the LJ thread responding to Capobianco's announcement, Teresa wins the read-it-twice-carefully snark-of-the-year award:

No prob. It takes work to remember that SFWA occasionally does useful stuff, but I've had decades of practice.

Posted November 30, 2007 5:10 PM by Clifton Royston

Coincidentally, Matthew Yglesias wrote this (it's in a post about addressing climate change, but it's still apt) today:

The mechanism by which we decide what to do is called "politics" and it exists so that individuals and organizations with somewhat divergent interests and ideas can make collective decisions about how to tackle common problems. The rhetoric of anti-politics isn't just an analytic mistake, it's part of the problem. A public that doesn't believe divergent interests can be reconciled and common solutions devised for common problems -- a public that doesn't believe in politics -- is going to be a public that doesn't believe there's anything that can or should be done to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Posted November 30, 2007 5:46 PM by Linkmeister

Brian, I have no clue about AB's politics, but when he talks in the name of SFWA, he always sounds like a Bush administration employee.

Posted November 30, 2007 5:48 PM by Laurie D. T. Mann

Steve 79: I hope you are an exception, and manage to escape being trodden on by the ethically bereft scum as they rise to the top.

Posted November 30, 2007 5:52 PM by Xopher

Charlie #87: I've always heard the second line as "But if you're a stupid fucking idiot, they figure that out immediately."

Posted November 30, 2007 5:54 PM by Seth Breidbart

Vox Day is 39; chalking it up to youthful exuberance assumes a Gallifreyan if not Longian lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale

Posted November 30, 2007 5:59 PM by Jonquil

As if SFWA and the field doesn't have enough trouble with sexism as it is.

Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

It's as though the abyss exerts such a glamor charm that some people cannot resist running over the cliff. What is interesting is that they run over the cliff, and somehow crawl back up the cliff, and then run over it again.

And again.

Etc.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:02 PM by Constance Ash

Jonquil: Really? Wow.

Constance Ash: I think it's more like they enjoy hitting themselves in the face with a two-by-four. Repeatedly.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:17 PM by Charlie Stross

"96: I say! Does this mean he's also insulted the people of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? (And the other 12 countries that I haven't yet mentioned?) I'm a litte fuzzy on the scope of Her Majesty's rulership, and oddly, Wikipedia isn't helping."

Elizabeth reigns but she does not rule. To the extent that she has legal powers in the nations where she is queen [1], she only gets to keep them as long as she never uses them.

Well, legal powers relating to government. She can demand her two beaver pelts from the HBC until the cows come home and nobody will complain.

1: Note that while the same person is Queen of England and Queen of Canada, those are two different positions and there is at least one way for the people holding them to become different people (Short of suicide, there's no practical way for the Monarch of Canada to step down).

Posted November 30, 2007 6:29 PM by James Davis Nicoll

53:

As several have noted, the planet Bismoll did indeed draft its politicians.

It may be worth additionally noting that candidates for president of Earthgov were chosen by computer, prior to a democratic planetary election. In one such election, one candidate was an Indian political science graduate student who'd written an innovative paper on economic policy.

#58: There is some canonical evidence that the capital city of Bismoll is named Pepto.

This is, after all, the utopian science fiction universe that features a character named "Jo Nah" who'd gained superpowers after being swallowed by a space whale.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:33 PM by Greg Morrow

Charlie @105: Either that or it's stepped cliffs all the way down.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:38 PM by Stephen Granade

Xopher, belatedly: My feeling is that anyone who has no bitter moments is simply not paying attention. I think it's really good to go ahead and say "I'm feeling bitter about this and it's getting me down". It's not the whole story, usually, but it is also part of the truth.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:38 PM by Bruce Baugh

Midori #96: I think you're looking for this.

The list of Commonwealth realms (or dominions):

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
St Kitts/Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent & the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

All of them, according to Mr Day, ruled by unelected oligarchies.

Posted November 30, 2007 6:43 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Jonquil, I went to that article earlier to see if Vx Dy was the kind of person that edited his own Wikipedia article. Survey says: Yes.

I was bemused that apparently Vox nuked the "controversies" section in his bio because it linked to his columns as WorldNetDaily, which is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia... gaming the system much?

Posted November 30, 2007 6:47 PM by FungiFromYuggoth

And oh, look, there he goes again. Into the fat jokes, now.

This is my first time encountering him. Is this his usual pattern?

Posted November 30, 2007 6:55 PM by Darth Paradox

Heh! The puns!

Back on the subject of the original stupidity, I actually visited Scribd for the first time thanks to this whole mess. Neat site. Lots of dreck to wade through, but I've got all weekend.

Posted November 30, 2007 7:22 PM by Laura

Tobias Buckell quits.

Posted November 30, 2007 7:26 PM by midori

What's a Vox Day? What a turkey. Gah.

I've been a member of SFWA for about 35 years. I've never been involved in its internal politics, I no longer vote for the Nebulas, and though I occasionally go to the SFWA website, I've never encountered anything there which has held my interest for more than 5 minutes ... unlike at, say, Making Light, or Slacktivist, or Pharyngula, or Orcinus, or -- you get the picture. I continue to pay SFWA dues every year because I might, someday, need the EMF, and a little, I think out of sentiment.

Posted November 30, 2007 7:38 PM by Lizzy L

I have long wondered . . .

The Queen does, on paper, have veto power, isn't that so? Is there conceivably a situation in which she could use it to make a point? Could (for instance) she note that public opinion seems to be that Parliament is being utterly insane about Hugely Important Issue XYZ, have her people confirm this, and refuse to sign the XYZ Bill?

Posted November 30, 2007 7:50 PM by Jenny Islander

Jenny Islander #116: Since no bill passed by Parliament has been disallowed since the reign of Queen Anne, it's beyond unlikely.

The constitutional principle, established since the reign of William IV, is that the monarch attends to the will of the majority in the House of Commons (which William did by agreeing to name additional members to the House of Lords if Lord Melbourne, then the prime minister, should desire it; this had the expected effect of forcing the Tories, then in their proper place, that is to say opposition, to yield on the Great Reform Bill).

Posted November 30, 2007 8:17 PM by Fragano Ledgister

re: #116

Canada appoints a Governor-General as stand-in for the Queen when she's not in Canada (i.e. most of the time). While the duties are mostly ceremonial, s/he is supposed to act as a sort of advisor to the PM, and if the situation you describe were to occur, I think the GG, being around to see what was going on, would be more likely than the Queen to try and intervene. I don't know if in the present day s/he legally can do so - but it has occurred in the past: google "King-Byng-thing" for details.

Posted November 30, 2007 8:27 PM by Sarah

Jenny Islander #116: If she did, well we've chopped the monarch's head off before...

Posted November 30, 2007 8:37 PM by Feòrag

Patrick @18 wrote:

Another part of the problem, I've become convinced, is SFWA's attachment to (supposedly) private discussion forums, participation in which becomes seen as a status symbol in itself.

I've increasingly felt that what SFWA really needs is sfwa_wank, their own fandom_wank spin-off. And, of course, open and transparent communication to give the sfwa_wank readers more to laugh at.

SFWA's e-piracy fun and games have already made fandom_wank at least twice. That's impressive for a community oriented towards media fandom, fan fiction, and gaming.

Posted November 30, 2007 8:37 PM by Xochiquetzl

In New Zealand any intervention by the G-G in politics* would amount to the declaration of the Republic.

I'm not sure about Canada, but I strongly suspect that the G-G's powers are similarly constricted.

It'd be much the same in Britain, except in Britain the Monarch would be held to have abdicated by acting contrary to the wishes of Parliament, or some such fudge, if it were a minor affair, or taken to outside the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall, if it were a serious one. (Just going by precedent...)

* Excepting extreme cases, such as a breakdown of the political process to a degree that the country isn't functioning -- this is what the Australian G-G used as a justification in the Whitlam affair.

Posted November 30, 2007 8:52 PM by Keir

I went looking if any other members of the SFWA committee posted public comments. about what's going on.
• Here's Cat Rambo's

I do hope some good comes out of this and SFWA moves to a more efficient and effective stance on copyright, but I do not believe this can happen with Burt in charge

Posted November 30, 2007 9:33 PM by Lis Riba

Every time I read about Mr. Burt, I see in my head Mr. Clete, of the Musicians' Guild, Pratchett-style. Hat, hat, hat.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:02 PM by Sharon M

Jenny 116,

In Canada we have several levels of over ride on legislation starting with the senate who normally send stuff back for being badly written, then comes the supreme court then the GG then the Queen who is the veto of last resort and has not been necessary. That is if it doesn't die in some fashion in the house by several ways first.
Complex system but so far works ok.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:02 PM by T.W

In practice, the final reserve powers of the Monarch were removed in Britain some ninety years ago, when the House of Lords was effectively prevented from ever denying or long obstructing the will of the party or parties that formed a majority in the House of Commons. Actual practice has only reinforced this position. The Lords can talk, but not too long. They can try to persuade a majority in the House of Commons that the proposed legislation is bad policy, but they can't spend long trying to do it, and that is all they can do. Hence there never can be an unresolvable deadlock between the Houses requiring the exercise of what used to be the Crown's reserve powers.

Her Majesty has no choice but to abide by the advice of her Ministers, an arrangement that, as she knows, produces the pleasing effect that the Crown becomes a symbol beyond politics. In the very last resort, if presented with legislation that utterly revolted her conscience, the only practical alternative for her would be abdication.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:08 PM by Dave Luckett

Xopher, #53: IIRC, it was Matter-Eater Lad who got drafted to be his planet's President. He'd rather have stayed with the Legion, but he went off to do his civic duty. (And Jon at #58 informs me that I was indeed remembering correctly.)

Bruce, #62: There are politicians, and then there are politicians. What we really need here is some way of distinguishing the politicians who are in it because they want to help people from the ones who are in it solely for their own power and/or greed. We've got some options in the similar religious issue. What's the political equivalent of Christianist or Christofascist?

Steve, #67: Yes, that's a well-thought-out ethical demarcation, and I think we're in agreement overall. I also suspect that Burt doesn't think that what he did is any different from you voting for yourself in the general election.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:20 PM by Lee

The Queen can speak to her subjects on her feelings for certain matters and they in turn if they agree can go to the politicians. I recall a kerfuffle over aparthide in the 80's that got tongues wagging and a lot of editorial cartoons.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:31 PM by T.W

Jim says:

A better plan would be for Scalzi to put his name in for Prez before the nomination deadline, so he doesn't have to start a write-in campaign after half the voters have already returned their ballots.

I wish wish wish wish wish wish wish wish more folks would remember that Scalzi's candidacy was pretty unlikely to win for this reason, and that's it's failure says nothing about the organization except that many of its members return ballots the same day they receive them, and that the election results are by no rational standard an indication of the failure of the organization.

Run an opposition candidate in well-thought out, organized way, get them on the ballot, and then, if they lose, start pondering whether the organization is doomed.

But this very basic thing hasn't even been tried yet, and too few people seem to understand that.

The current administration is the current administration not because SFWA is evil, but because no one else has made a serious bid to do the work and put in the time. There's no reason these things can't be tried, and no reason to assume ahead of time they will fail if they are.

Posted November 30, 2007 10:37 PM by Janni

Would someone explain to me why what Burt did ("borrowing" money illicitly and not paying it back) isn't embezzlement? Why aren't they prosecuting him instead of putting him on committees?

Posted November 30, 2007 10:40 PM by Xopher

#122: I think of it as the fog of war. Cory's point, ultimately, was that an author should have the right to distribute his work as he wishes. If Andrew Burt agrees with this, and I think he does, then it doesn't matter if his errant takedown notices were a matter of malice or incompetence. He should have executed his take down notices with the time and care to avoid infringing on authors' rights. If he believes that an author should have the right to distribute his work as he wishes, he should be grief-stricken that he went against his own principle, regardless of cause.

An alternate narrative popped up very soon afterwards that puts "information wants to be free" into Cory's mouth, and recasts Cory's actions as political opportunism. Yes, Cory espouses IWTBF, but, in this case, what he had written was that he had explicitly denied SFWA the authority to exercise his copyright. He wasn't talking about works on Scribd in general, just works whose presence on Scribd was not copyright infringing. The crux of his complaint was that SFWA took down his work without his permission. About the only thing worthy of complaint here is that maybe Cory attributed to malice what turned out to be due to incompetence. (This is speculation on my part. I have no idea to what Cory initially attributed SFWA's action. I certainly considered malice a motive at first.)

This is why I say it was fog of war. Until it was shown otherwise, it wasn't hard to think it was malice. Given Cory's track record of IWTBF, it wasn't hard to think it was political opportunism, despite his actual words. Both sides were wrong. It turned out to be incompetence, not malice. It wasn't IWTBF. It was "please don't enforce my rights for me."

Having said that, the rest of Elizabeth Moon's account looks right to me. SFWA did not intend their potentially legally actionable rights grab. Andrew Burt did in fact make a mistake (but about 80 times over). The president of SFWA did apologize. She mentions that Andrew Burt has never act