Hacker News Reader

Comment by ncallaway | Hacker News Reader

> apart from (in theory) having to abide by the WSFS constitution

Wasn't the concern that they _didn't_ abide by the WSFS constitution?

> The Chengdu concom appeared to be following the rules right up until they didn't any more and went "rules? what rules?"

Right, but WSFS then seemed to loudly proclaim that they have _no ability_ to enforce that each Worldcon obeys the rules? Which, if false, is a lie to avoid accountability, and if true demonstrates a deep level of organization ineptness.

It seems like the WSFS has fallen down either on the enforcement side, or on the contractual relationship with the Worldcoms if enforcement isn't possible.

View on HN

if true demonstrates a deep level of organization ineptness

It's true, but your mistake is in assuming an actual organization exists.

WSFS is just a club, the membership of which consists of the paying members of the current worldcon. The WSFS constitution is a set of rules for the WSFS business meeting which handles stuff like the bidding process for the next-but-one worldcon, and running running the Hugo awards. But there's no continuity of WSFS membership or governance from one worldcon to another except insofar as some people may be members of two or more consecutive worldcons.

It worked for 80 consecutive worldcons, then broke when it ran up against folks who didn't abide by the norms of behaviour that the rules presuppose.

Right, which I understand could be a huge legal problem, because it means they cannot effectively police their trademark. Policing a trademark is often a requirement of holding a trademark, so there's some concern that this legal "structure" of the WSFS and the way that it has chosen to license its trademarks to subsequent worldcon's could put the trademark itself at risk.

Basically, "the WSFS rules presume norms of behavior" may not be compatible with "holding a trademark". If that's the case, it could mean other non-worldcon entities could put on their own "Hugo Awards".

I've understood that the WSFS does not really exist. That there is nobody who could act on its behalf outside limited circumstances. It's kind of like a meme in the original sense of the word. It's a parasite that attaches itself to a convention. That convention then holds a WSFS business meeting and does a few other things, and its attendees vote for a future host.

> Right, but WSFS then seemed to loudly proclaim that they have _no ability_ to enforce that each Worldcon obeys the rules?

Where are you seeing that the WSFS has loudly proclaimed that?

As far as I know, there isn't even anyone who is authorized to make statements on behalf of the WSFS with the exception of getting a resolution passed at the business meeting at Worldcon, but that doesn't happen until August.

I’ve been mostly reading Kevin Standlee on bluesky, for that interpretation.

Comments like: https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjl...

> I ask again: how could you take away the license from an organization based in China? And what do you do when they tell you to get stuffed?

And:

https://bsky.app/profile/kevinstandlee.bsky.social/post/3kjj...

> The WSFS Constitution depends upon its members to abide by it. There is no external enforcement mechanism. There is no Strong Man who comes in and imposes their will upon committees. And the members have nearly always rejected anything that would make it more enforceable.

(It’s hard to point to specific links, because a lot of it is back and forth conversations that have taken place over several days)

I assume Kevin Standlee is a reasonable authority on this because of this infodump:

https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html

> Further disclaimers: I am the current Chair of the legal entity that owns the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society (“Worldcon,” “Hugo Award,” etc.)

He can certainly be expected to be well-informed, but he does not officially represent WSFS in this scenario.

He is the chair of the Mark Protection Committee. The Mark Protection Committee has the power to enforce trademarks. Nothing else.

The concern from the IP attorneys I was following on Bluesky was that the fact that the WSFS cannot require that the Worldcon follow its rules, puts the trademark at some level of risk. That is, if WSFS and the MPC cannot effectively police the trademark there is a risk that they could lose the trademark.

Which is why is position on the MPC is relevant, in this context. The lack of _ability_ to enforce the WSFS constitution, _threatens the validity_ of the trademark.

But, that's a good correction, that it's not a formal position of the WSFS as a body.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com