Back to previous post: Indistinguishable from parody

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: Feeling the Heat

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

April 26, 2008

SFWA election results
Posted by Patrick at 05:15 PM * 48 comments

Since, this time, they’re of interest even to many non-SFWAns:

President:
Russell Davis 330
Andrew Burt 53
Full results here.

Comments on SFWA election results:
#1 ::: Madeleine Robins ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 05:32 PM:

And the Angels rejoice.

#2 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 05:38 PM:

Best of luck to the new officers.

They're gonna need it.

#3 ::: Serge ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 05:47 PM:

I see that Spiro Agnew lost to Elizabeth Moon for the Veep position.

#4 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 05:58 PM:

And I'm sure Orlando Bloom is crushed to miss out on being Treasurer.

#5 ::: Zeke ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:08 PM:

Congratulations to all involved with the organization; here's hoping that smoother waters are ahead. (Also, I'm guessing that the Agnew vote didn't come from a Davis voter, but no matter.)

#6 ::: Lee ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:13 PM:

That's terrific news for anyone who wishes SFWA well (as I do, though I'm no writer and never will be). Let's hope it's a harbinger of similar good news for America as a whole.

#7 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:19 PM:

Wow. I wonder who the other 52 boneheads are? Hey, 52, that's one for every card in a standard deck...no, that doesn't make sense, because Burt is definitely NOT playing with a full deck!

#8 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:21 PM:

Xopher, there's an extra joker in his deck.

(May I add to the cheering?)

#9 ::: Marilee ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:36 PM:

Good news! I hope they manage things better.

#10 ::: Serge ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 06:51 PM:

abi @ 4... Orlando didn't have it as bad as Angelina Jolie, who lost to Bud Sparhawk.

#11 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 07:05 PM:

Those are good numbers. May they be for an omen.

Congratulations to SFWA, my most hearfelt best wishes and condolences for the winners (back in my college days the typesetter for the paper (Elaine, a wonderful woman) would give congratulations to the people who ran for EIC, and lost, and condolences to the poor sod who won.

We understood, but it didn't keep us from trying for the slot. I was the blessed recipient of such congratulations, and I offer my condolence in that spirit.

#12 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 07:32 PM:

Burt has fifty-two relatives with voting rights in the SWFA? Amazing.

#13 ::: Rachel ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 08:34 PM:

But imagine if Charles Stross had won all the categories for which he was voted....

#14 ::: Adam Lipkin ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 09:00 PM:

Let this be a lesson for future nominees: Pandering to the Gentlebeings does not win you elections.

#15 ::: Kevin Riggle ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 09:04 PM:

WOOHOO!

Rachel @13: I suspect Charlie would have just downloaded his consciousness into several separate human-equivalent AIs and staffed the board that way. ;-)

#16 ::: Magenta Griffith ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 09:41 PM:

Kevin @15: But would the same person in more than one AI "body" be fair? Are we going to need to have rules that a given personality can only serve in *one* position in an organization? How about clones? Do they count as one person or more than one?

We're going to have to figure these things out, sooner or later.

#17 ::: SisterCoyote ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 10:12 PM:

Yep. I already wished them congratulations and condolences on the LJ SFWA community.

#18 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 10:30 PM:

It may not be surprising that Burt got 53 votes, but I find it appalling that Milton Friedman got at least one for Treasurer.

#19 ::: John Chu ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 10:59 PM:

Oh, thank God...

This bodes well for SFWA. I wish all the officers the best of luck.

In particular, Mary Robinette Kowal had some ambitious, but sensible, plans for streamlining SFWA. I hope she pulls them off.



#20 ::: heresiarch ::: (view all by) ::: April 26, 2008, 11:08 PM:

*sigh of relief*

#21 ::: Matt Austern ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 12:26 AM:

The absolute numbers surprise me. Only 400 votes total? Somewhere my intuitions are badly wrong. Is SFWA a much tinier organization than I would have guessed, or does the vast majority of its membership just not care who runs the thing?

#22 ::: Mary Dell ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 12:46 AM:

Oh Yay! YAY! I can continue to aspire to joining someday.

#23 ::: Lawrence Watt-Evans ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 01:57 AM:

SFWA has about 1,500 members, last I heard. Many of them don't bother to vote.

400 is a fairly low turn-out, though; I'm pretty sure I remember certain previous elections drawing well over 500.

#24 ::: Steve Taylor ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 07:29 AM:

Fragano Ledgister at #12 writes:

> Burt has fifty-two relatives with voting rights in the SWFA? Amazing.

Perhaps there's some residual good will from Critters? I've always thought it a good thing, and it's the only context I knew him from before all this copyright committee craziness started.

I am very happy with the results of the election though.

#25 ::: John Chu ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 08:34 AM:

#24:Perhaps there's some residual good will from Critters

One of the reasons why I quit Critters was because that he used his weekly Critters newsletter once to character assassinate Cory Doctorow. I don't know if he's done anything similarly egregious with it since. (Normally, the newsletter lists markets, sales, and the current week's stories.) I'd been pondering quitting for a while, for unrelated reasons, but this put me over the edge. Yes, there was a certain "cut off my nose to spite my face" aspect to this. I mean, he shouldn't care one way or another whether I'm a Critter. However, I didn't want any involvement with him at all.

Another reason, by the way, for those 52 other votes is that there may be writers who actually approve of Andrew Burt's policies and tactics. Condemnation of Andrew Burt's actions is not universal. During the scribd fiasco, I definitely remember blog posts in Andrew Burt's defense, even though he acted in ways not only inexcusable, but also counterproductive to his own cause. I'm not surprised he received some votes. To reference the Eric Clapton thread, artists whose works you admire may not also have views you admire.

However, I'm glad that Russell Davis received the vast majority of the votes. SFWA is in good hands, at least for the next year.

#26 ::: Nix ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 08:41 AM:

Magenta @#16, obviously clones are more than one person, unless downloaded minds are also involved. I mean, most clones will grow up at a different time and in a different environment than their progenitor, so they'll be quite distinct.

I mean, identical twins are much closer (same upbringing, usually; same uterine environment, even) and *they* are eligible to have one being President and the other Prime Minister of Poland at the same time...

.. hm. actually, perhaps that's a good argument against such things being allowed. ;)

-- N., theoretical identical twin

#27 ::: A. J. Luxton ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 09:05 AM:

Rejoice that ballots counted in the night

Sum up to show there's sanity this year.

As joining these illustrious ranks comes near

In prospect, better futures come in sight,

And my ilk will no longer need take fright

Of arms that hold the written word too dear.

Now, hold the hope that truth remains so clear--

While lawyers ploy, a writer always writes.

The news of fair elections now should bring

A bright foreshadowing into the plot:

November comes, and questions yet remain,

And we can only hope freedom will ring.

But that is out my hands, and not my lot.

I persist, writing, hopeful, pixel-stained.

#28 ::: Mary Dell ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 11:02 AM:

Nix @#26

I mean, most clones will grow up at a different time and in a different environment than their progenitor, so they'll be quite distinct.

Not if you use a cloning hammock.

#29 ::: Serge ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 11:34 AM:

Mary Dell... Speaking of clones, ever read Joshua, Son of None?

#30 ::: Chris ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 12:13 PM:

We're going to have to figure these things out, sooner or later.

As soon as the personality is copied into another "body" the two copies will have different experiences and will start diverging. Clones start diverging with their first cell divisions, as anyone who knows naturally-occurring clones ("identical" twins) already knows. (There are, of course, several sf works on the subject; _Cyteen_ and _Brothers in Arms_ come to mind.)

#31 ::: CHip ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 12:40 PM:

Serge@29: or the downmarket version, The Multiple Man?

Chris@30 et al: I remember \somebody/ (probably Charlie) writing about deliberately creating mind-copies to deal with multiple events, then dealing with integrating the experiences.

#32 ::: David Wahler ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 01:10 PM:

David Brin's Kiln People, maybe?

#33 ::: Serge ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 01:18 PM:

CHip @ 31... You mean, Jamie Maddrox, right? I never could quite figure out how he also managed to have his instant clones wear the same clothes as the original. I have the same problem with that episode of Wonder Woman where some bad guys clone Hitler, and the process works, down to the clone wearing a Nazi outfit and leather boots, but luckily WW puts a stop to the whole business by decloning Hitler. (Boys from Brazil was better.)

#34 ::: Scott H ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 01:31 PM:

The Boys From Brazil didn't have Lynda Carter.

#35 ::: Ken Houghton ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 03:38 PM:

Now the question is how many ex-SFWAns will rejoin. (One, at least.)

#36 ::: Steve Buchheit ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 06:13 PM:

The 53 doesn't surprise me, Mr. Burt does have supporters for all the actions he's taken. Just because many people have been vocal in public about their view of his actions being detrimental doesn't mean that there aren't people who agree with him that his actions were very necessary, very much on point and wildly overblown by the opposition. I don't think they were, but then I don't understand the appeal of a certain news channel either.

For the new SFWA board, though, now is when the hard work begins. I wish them a whole bunch of luck and energy.

#37 ::: NelC ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 06:39 PM:

As a stop-gap to prevent multiple iterations of the same personality occupying multiple governing positions, I can see having an age of majority as a viable option. That is, it has to be at least eighteen years from the copying event before they can run for office, to allow the iterations to diverge a significant amount.

BTW, I guess we're in agreement that having multiple iterations on the same governing body might be more efficient for getting things done, but less efficient in finding the correct thing to do?

#38 ::: heresiarch ::: (view all by) ::: April 27, 2008, 11:16 PM:

CHip @ 31: "I remember \somebody/ (probably Charlie) writing about deliberately creating mind-copies to deal with multiple events, then dealing with integrating the experiences."

In Accelerando a multiplicity of different mind-copying strategies are used--at one point, a couple spins off copies of themselves and runs them through a couple million iterations together to see if they would be compatible.

As I recall, in Accelerando copies are treated as part of the same person, splitting and recombining at will. Sounds like fun, really.

#39 ::: David Goldfarb ::: (view all by) ::: April 28, 2008, 04:58 AM:

Serge@33: He might mean the novel by Ben Bova.

(That's "Madrox" with one d, btw.)

#40 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: April 28, 2008, 11:57 AM:

Nix 26: Identical twins raised together are similar--but usually not as similar as identical twins raised apart. This is because they differentiate themselves on purpose, but also because when they're raised together, one tends to dominate, and the pattern affects their later lives.

#41 ::: Charlie Stross ::: (view all by) ::: April 28, 2008, 06:32 PM:

I have only just seen these results.

And the write-ins.

(Screams, faints, and flees, in no set order.)

#42 ::: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey ::: (view all by) ::: April 28, 2008, 07:27 PM:

Xopher writes in #40:

Nix 26: Identical twins raised together are similar--but usually not as similar as identical twins raised apart. This is because they differentiate themselves on purpose, but also because when they're raised together, one tends to dominate, and the pattern affects their later lives.

Tangentially, a letter I recently had published in Physics World.

#43 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: April 28, 2008, 09:17 PM:

heresiarch #38: There are also very good copies available for people (with your choice of whether to fire-and-forget or reintegrate) in the Culture, I think. This plays a small part in Use of Weapons.

At any rate, I, for one, welcome our new uploaded clone Strossian overlords. Or will, once they stop screaming, recover from the fainting, and realize there's no point in fleeing.

#44 ::: NC Hanger ::: (view all by) ::: April 30, 2008, 01:06 AM:

Am I the only one here who's had close business relations with Russell Davis, prior to his arrival on the entire SFF.Net and then SFWA scene (which, god help me, I recommended to him in the first place before he knew much at all about fandom)? Just curious.

#45 ::: Dave Bell ::: (view all by) ::: April 30, 2008, 02:51 AM:

Speaking of clones, and assorted artificial people...

Freefall: is this more important than First Law?

#46 ::: Mary Aileen sees undeleted spam ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2012, 03:03 PM:

looks like #46 got missed a couple of weeks ago

#47 ::: Mary Aileen blinks in surprise ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2012, 03:05 PM:

I swear when I posted that, there were two more comments: spam and a spam-spotting post by Xopher.

#48 ::: Raul Flugens, Duty Gnome ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2012, 03:07 PM:

When a post is sent straight to the Spam folder or Deleted (rather than being unpublished first then dealt with), a visible ghost remains until someone posts another comment on the thread. It's a Moveable Type weirdness.

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Jim Macdonald, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

If you are a spammer, your fate is in the hands of Jim Macdonald, and your foot shall slide in due time.

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="http://www.url.com">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.















(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.