This is a historical document. If you're interested in what Minicon is like now, you should visit the main Minicon page and follow the links there to read about recent and upcoming Minicons.
The High-Resolution Minicon
A Proposal to the Minn-StF Board of Directors
Revised October 2, 1997
Presented by David Dyer-Bennet, Alice Bentley, Steven Brust, Karen Cooper, Liz Cooper, Beth Friedman, Fred A. Levy Haskell, Susan B. Levy Haskell, Lydia Nickerson, and Geri Sullivan.
Contents
(Revised History Section)
The Thesis
Oh No; Not the Size Issue Again
The Talent Pool
What Needs Fixing?
The Cracks are Showing
Committee Burn-out
What About Those Who Aren't Interested in Minicon's Focus?
Where Have All The Fans Gone?
Conclusion
(Same as before)
Lydia Nickerson
Susan B. Levy Haskell
David Dyer-Bennet
Karen Cooper
Alice Bentley
Geri Sullivan
Beth Friedman
Steven Brust
Fred A. Levy Haskell
Focus Numbers Committee Structure Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
(What I Tell You Three Times is True)You'll Be the First to Know -- Telling the Concom
Departmental Discussions
Hello, World, a Problem in Coordination
Meet on the Web
Operations
Treasury
Hucksters Room
Programming
Parties
Registration
Art Show
Publications
Hotel
A Clarification and Revision of the Original High-Resolution Minicon Proposal
Introduction
In 1991, Minn-StF acted on long-standing dissatisfaction with the state of Minicon by chartering the Long Range Convention Task-Force to investigate future paths. Their report was duly rendered, considered by the Board and the club, and acted on. The chosen action was to attempt to run the Big Minicon better than we had been doing.
That was six years ago. We feel that the experience of the past six years clearly shows that we are not able to adequately run the Big Minicon. Minicon has continued to grow, but its quality has declined rapidly and the personal cost to committee and volunteers has skyrocketed. Each year several departments teeter on the brink of disaster, eroding our reserve of goodwill among fans and Minicon attendees, and requiring heroic efforts from already overstrained committee members to attempt to rescue them.
This can't go on. Some year soon, by a statistical cluster of internal failures, or due to an external cause entirely beyond our control, we'll all go over the edge together. Minn-StF, its members, and its officers cannot afford for this to happen. This proposal is our suggestion of how to stop it.
Executive Summary
Six years ago, Minn-StF acted on the long-standing dissatisfaction with the state of Minicon by chartering the Long Range Convention Task-Force to investigate future directions. Their report was duly rendered, considered by the Board and the club, and a decision was made to try to run a "Big Minicon," an excellent, well-focused, large convention. After six years, Minicon continues to display the very issues of over-crowding, committee burn-out, and departmental catastrophe that prompted the chartering of the task force. This document offers a proposal which will attempt to address these issues.
There has been concern over Minicon's size for more than twenty years. Since 1976, Minicon's size has increased more than seven-fold. There has been considerable debate as to the extent to which this is a problem, but the Long Range Convention Task-Force determined that "A sizable portion of the committee is losing its motivation or `burning out.'" This turnover persists, and continues to exacerbate the shortage of qualified convention-runners, while Minicon's size requires greater numbers of experienced committee members than were available. There are also too few department heads with "real world" management experience. Minicon has found it necessary to put people with little or no committee experience into positions as department heads, with little support or assistance, thereby burning out in a single year the new volunteers who have traditionally worked their way into such roles. We believe that this is an unacceptable use of our human resources.
We are running Minicon badly. There have been major problems in multiple departments every year for some time, and heroic efforts have been necessary to salvage them (when they've been salvaged), further exacerbating burn-out. Suggestions that Minicons 31 and 32 were anomalous in their failures are neither fair nor accurate: committees have been short on experience and appropriate oversight, and long on overworked members who drop the ball; our talent and experience pool has been shrinking, while the workload continues to increase.
The task-force identified a lack of common vision for Minicon, which the "Big Minicon" proposal was intended to address. Instead, this problem has increased in the last five years. Minicon is more like the "Revolving Bid Committees" proposal that encouraged different visions for each Minicon by substantial changes in committees each year; but it has not provided those Minicons with discernibly different -- or even discernible -- visions. Since committees are staffed by anyone who is willing to do the work, rather than by a group with common goals for Minicon, it's an agglomeration of components with little or no clear direction. As the "Big Minicon" proposal itself warned, "The greatest enemy of the large convention is bland mediocrity. " Without a cohesive vision, Minicon is pitched to the least common denominator. We believe that Minicon's focus should be deliberate and considered, not random.
One of the problems with articulating a vision is that it is necessarily exclusionary. Our focus on written science fiction and the fannish community that sprang from it may exclude those whose only interest in Minicon is outside that, but the current "alternative cultures festival" is equally -- simply not as explicitly -- exclusionary. By providing "something for everyone," it has ceased to provide a supportive community for proto- and neofen, and no longer recruits new members -- the other important capital -- for Minn-StF. It has also encouraged -- in many cases forced -- those interested in fannish community to cloister themselves away from the rest of the convention, which fosters the perception that science fiction fandom is unwelcoming of newcomers. The current model develops Minicon fans, who come to Minicon year after year, but doesn't develop -- and may drive away, given the lack of Minicon focus on the community built around science fiction and fandom -- new Minn-StF members. We burn-out Minn-StF members running Minicon, and we fail to recruit new Minn-Stf members by running it. Our current street fair model is not only risking Minn-StF's future financially, but the health of its membership as well.
All of the authors of this document have strong feelings about Minicon: what it is, where it's going, and what it should be. Personal statements from many of the authors are included to provide some context for this proposal and their part in it.
We feel that Minn-StF must resolve to take back control of Minicon, rather than letting Minicon control us. We volunteer to do that, starting with Minicon 34. We propose to focus on written science fiction and science fiction fandom, and exercise editorial control over all of what goes on officially at the convention. We don't propose to limit Minicon's size by capping its membership, but we will strenuously encourage informed self-selection among its members. We will arrange clear, widespread publicity -- at Minicon 33 and throughout fandom -- so that all stakeholders are aware of the change and able to make informed decisions about attending.
We originally proposed to use a strong chairman committee model, with David Dyer-Bennet serving as Chair. We have since developed and plan to use an Executive Council and Coordinator model in response to comments from the Exec Selection Committee and the Minn-stf Board. This model for the transistion period only; we will work with the Board and the Minicon Committee to develop a sustainable, on-going committee structure and anticipate transitioning to that beginning with Minicon 36.
All of the authors of this document have agreed to accept major responsibilities for the convention, but since we hope to induce many people beyond ourselves to accept major roles in the convention, we will not list specific departmental assignments. We continue to feel strongly that there needs to be substantial discussion with all stakeholders about this proposal: to allow people to vent, to allow them to help us identify and fix flaws in our initial planning, and to educate them about what we're doing and why. This is important not only to allow members to decide whether they're interested in our Minicon, but to clarify to our comittee members and potential committee members what we are working toward. The Minicon community, of which the committee is one part, is already deeply divided about what is good and bad about Minicon. Adoption of our proposal will cause new shifts in the committee, as continuing with little focus has; but making clear policy decisions will at least allow people to understand what is being done and why, and to make their decisions accordingly. Our committee must be focused on what is best for the convention, rather than simply what is best for their own department.
While it is not within the scope of this document to detail all of the changes anticipated if our proposal is accepted -- nor is it set, without input from our committee -- we have some clear starting points.
Operations must continue the work done by Minicon 33 to return from the "security" model. We will reintroduce experienced troubleshooters and discontinue the position of ranger. We also expect to be able to continue the open bridge that Minicon 33 is reintroducing, and feel strongly that it ought to be.
Treasury will produce, use, and enforce real budgets with meaningful line items, and will make its books public.
The Hucksters Room will focus on cultivating hucksters with small press, out-of-print, and used books, and craftspeople producing original fannish crafts. We will recruit hucksters who will enjoy Minicon, but not to the extent of offering memberships or other incentives.
Programming will offer a smaller number of simultaneous items, high-quality panels focused on science fiction and fandom. We will have a few large, community-building events directly related to our focus. We will not have any "extravaganzas" or convention television network.
Hospitality will continue to be a centerpiece of Minicon. Our consuite must emphasize conversation space (for smokers and non-). We will edit the allocation of hospitality space (poolside cabanas and suites, if we stay in the Radisson) and plan to recruit party hosts committed to our focus. Minicon 33 has already announced that it plans to implement our idea for seeding the poolside cabanas with author, bookseller, and publisher parties. We plan to build on those efforts after seeing how it works.
Registration must know how many memberships are sold and how many people are in attendance; this information will be reported regularly to the committee, both before and during the convention.
We want the art show to be a first-rate one, worthy of a large regional convention. While this goal is a multi-year proposition in the making -- major artists don't send originals here, since we no longer have a major art buyers' market -- we will start the process by sharply restricting photomechanical reproductions in the art show (and encouraging them in the print shop and Hucksters room) and seeking advice from others on how best to bootstrap the process.
Publications must make clear to all potential members what changes are being made. We will focus our publications on informing those who have stopped attending Minicon that it may be more to their tastes than it has been in recent years, and clarifying to those who may feel disenfranchised precisely what we intend Minicon to be.
If we choose to stay in the Radisson, our changes will require careful coordination with them; if we move to a different hotel, the "breaking-in" process will need careful handling. In either case, our hotel policies must be clear to our members.
There are a substantial number of Minicon fans who have many years of vesting in the current model. While we welcome them to our more clearly focused convention if they would enjoy it, it is our belief that some unknown number of them may not. We hope that if our proposal is accepted, and our convention generates sufficient revenue beyond its goal, that Minn-StF will consider providing some seed money to a group interested in running an "alternative culture festival" of the sort they've enjoyed. Minicon as it has been is not sustainable for Minn-StF to run; but we believe that providing some initial support to another group interested in running such a convention is appropriate and just.
This proposal offers a radical redesign of Minicon. We believe that Minn-StF recognized the need for a radical analysis of Minicon when the Long Range Convention Task-Force was chartered. We believe that the last six years have shown that the selection of the "Big Minicon" model did not provide changes sufficiently radical to address the problems that persist in plaguing Minicon, its committee, and Minn-StF. We believe that Minn-StF must address these problems, or risk its own financial and organizational viability. We request the opportunity to attempt to address these problems, and we commit ourselves to helping to find solutions.
"If This Goes On--"
The Thesis
Minicon is broken.
This statement is at the core of our proposal. We are proposing radical actions because we believe Minicon must take some radical action in order to survive and to eventually thrive once more.
Fans have complained about Minicon for decades, and the convention has weathered many tumultous times. So what's different now? In this section, we'll answer that question.
It's hard to focus on Minicon's problems. The very fact that Minicon still exists -- and is so loved by so many -- is a strong measure of the convention's success. Many things have gone reasonably well most years, and in some years -- such as Minicon 30 in 1995 -- the overall convention has been quite successful by current standards.
Every year, there's magic to be found at Minicon, and even more magic to be made. However, there is also a multi-year pattern of problems. The frequency and severity of problems is steadily escalating. We believe Minicon must scale back in both size and complexity.
Oh No; Not the Size Issue Again
Worrying about the size of Minicon has a long and venerable history within Mnstf. In the 1970s we restricted publicity and attempted to control contact with the press. The fear was that major local press coverage immediately before the convention could expand the membership to an unwieldy size. In 1976, the estimated attendance for Minicon 11 was 500. In 1986, Minicon 21, membership had more than tripled, with an attendance of approximately 1600. By 1996, attendance had more than doubled again; attendance for Minicon 31 was estimated at 3564. (Attendance estimates are from "Robert A. Timeline" by Fred A. Levy Haskell.)
Does this growth constitutes a problem? This has been the subject of considerable debate. There are almost as many views as there are members of all Minicons combined. The question facing us now, however, is not just what kind of Minicon we prefer -- the Big Minicon or the Family Reunion -- but what kind of Minicon we can sustain.
In 1991, Minicon 26 attempted to deal with some of the perceived problems of size by changing the alcohol policy. This caused one of the largest rifts in our community to date, and led to the formation of the Finger-Pointing and Jeering Committee. The bitterness of that debate lost us active, long-time, hard-working fans. The concern about these losses was so deep that the Board formed the Long Range Convention Task-Force, which made its final report in March of that year. The Long Range Convention Task-Force was the last attempt to date to tackle the size issue in a comprehensive fashion. The results were intended to guide Minicon and Mn-stf for five years. A vote was held after the presentation of the report, and Minn-stf/Minicon decided to make a conscious effort to run the "Big Minicon." Six Minicons have been held since that report. It is time to look at the results of our efforts, and at the current situation.
The Talent Pool
There are clearly a lot of talented fans devoted to the success of Minicon. That can be seen in the sheer time and effort spent before, during, and after each convention as we try to make it the best Minicon we possibly can. The task is enormous, and the effort is accordingly high. When things are working right, the rewards are higher still. That's what attracts people to working on Minicon, and keeps them coming back for more.
Despite considerable individual efforts made in several departments, on the whole, Minicon is losing people to attrition and burn-out. Over the last few years, Minicon has had trouble filling department head positions, including heads for publications, programming, volunteers, Minneapolis in '73, child care, and others. In several cases, enthusiastic yet inexperienced volunteers have been put in charge. This is rarely a rewarding experience -- for the volunteer or for the convention. All too often we lose committee members as a result. About half of the committee members listed in Minicon program books for the past decade did not return after their first year. This is one sign that the committee itself is broken.
It has also become less common for committee members to move between departments. This was once the primary way capable, energetic volunteers trained for the exec. As a result, several exec members from Minicon 29 on had recent experience in only one or two major departments (specifically operations, publications, and parties). While any experience is valuable, Kay Drache cited the exec's lack of programming knowledge as a major factor in the programming problems at Minicon 31. And finding the necessary exec members or convention chairs has been problematic, too.
What Needs Fixing?
It's hard to understand how something as wonderful as Minicon can be broken. Yes, lots of fans are complaining but complaining is just another fannish character trait, isn't it? And yes, Minicon 32 lost about $5,000, but what's one financial loss in 32 conventions? If people didn't like the big Minicon, they wouldn't come, right?
Unfortunately, many fans have stopped coming to Minicon. Local Minn-stf members and friends from afar have given up on both working on and coming to Minicon. It's difficult to quantify how many people have stopped coming, but when Jeanne Gomoll, Dan Goodman, and Spike Parsons all report that going to Minicon is too much of a hassle and holds too little appeal, it's cause for concern. And when Scott Raun (Minn-stf's current president) and Michael Pins (Minn-stf's vice president and Minicon's treasurer) both report they expect they'll stop coming to Minicon if it doesn't change dramatically for the better, it raises the questions of who the convention is for, and if Minn-stf should continue to sponsor Minicon.
Quantifying the financial losses is easier. The current estimate of Minicon 32's loss is $5,000. Minicon 31 turned over just $3,000 to Minn-stf. The average directed profit goal has been $15,000 in recent years. That leaves us with a $32,000 shortfall over the past two years. The actual shortfall is a little less, as the Board reduced the directed profit for Minicon 31 in support of the Emsh exhibit. But an additional loss could bankrupt the club. Already we've had to cut back on expenses necessary for the ongoing functioning of both the club and the convention, most notably by postponing the purchase of computer equipment needed for Minicon registration and the OTML.
One of the advantages of the Big Minicon is that when you're big, you can do things smaller conventions can't. The popular Emsh exhibit and NASA displays are two examples of this. But these special events also suffered from a lack of coordination and budget control. Unexpected expenses from each directly contributed to Minicon's poor financial results for the past two years. The Minicon 31 exec handled the arrangements for the Emsh exhibit after a long search failed to turn up a volunteer to coordinate it. This in turn took time and energy away from where it was most needed: the leadership and oversight of the convention itself.
Many fans think Minicon is broken; many others do not. We asked Boston fan Ben Yalow his opinion on the subject. Ben lived through the meltdown of Boskone (aka "The Boskone from Hell") and hopes fandom never has to endure another such meltdown. He believes Minicon is on the brink of meltdown now, and he's doing everything he can to help us avoid going over the edge. Ben wrote:
"I believe Minicon is broken. Any convention where it has been routine to have lots of departments fail, for several years, is broken. And that's clearly been happening.
"For example, Minicon losing money, is a sign that LOTS of places are broken. Finance/treasury is the obvious one -- they should have seen that there would be a loss, and done something to stop it (or, at least, alerted the Exec, which should have done something to stop it). And if it was too late -- too many commitments had already been made -- then everybody should have known that this was going to happen. But it's more than just them -- every department than ran over budget was broken, and I bet there were lots of them." (Many department heads never knew their budget for Minicon 32. Glenn Tenhoff took his concerns about the budget to the Minn-stf Board a few months before the convention, but no action was taken at that time.)
"And Registration was clearly broken -- people weren't getting their checks cashed, or their stuff acknowledged." (Minicon 32 Registration also couldn't determine how many members we had during or after the convention.) "And Program was clearly broken -- lots of people didn't get their schedules until much too late. And Guest Relations was clearly broken -- the fact that they were just being appointed a few weeks before the con is all the proof that was needed.
"When lots of departments are broken, it's a sign that it isn't the people; it's that the convention has become too complicated for the talent pool that puts it on. So you need to (a) find more people, and (b) make the con simpler and smaller. And, since complexity grows much faster than linearly, you can get big wins on the staff/complexity ratio by making the con smaller.
"So the question then becomes how do you make it smaller. You can do it with a limit, of course. But, although that helps, it doesn't make things simpler, if you keep doing all the same things. And, of course, it's hard to enforce fairly.
"The other alternative is to focus the con, which means that people who are only coming for things outside the focus should be told that those things won't be there any more, and they might not want to come back. But anybody who is interested in the focused areas -- regardless of what else they may be interested in -- will be welcome. And that makes things simpler, as well, since a bunch of different things won't have to be done at all."
The Cracks are Showing
Despite heroic efforts, problems are appearing on the user level. (It is a truism that conventions always look worse to the concom than they do to the attendees.) The first edition of the pocket program last year was a serious user problem. It was almost unusable, and required a complete redesign at the last minute. (Thank you, Janet Moe. Janet was still up at 6 a.m. Friday morning, putting a usable pocket program book together.) This error is notable in part because the pocket program guide is a previously solved problem. We know what a good one looks like -- we've had 'em before. Program participants also had a difficult time getting information on when and where their panels were. This is a user level problem with potentially serious repercussions, especially with pros. Pros go to a lot of conventions, and gossip about those conventions at great length. When programming looks unorganized, the pros' opinions of the convention are badly skewed towards believing the enitre convention is disorganized and ill-considered.
Registration also had user-level problems at the convention as well as beforehand. The problems line was a significant bottle neck; waits of up to 45 minutes were common on Friday. There were many instances of missing badges and duplicate badges. There was even a last minute mini-rescue by Geri Sullivan, who drove all over the Cities to get laminator pouches because Registration ran short of them.
The Hotel Suite Ghods took on the enormous task of assigning rooms for every convention member staying in Minicon hotels, which worked out better than many members anticipated. But in the process, those needing suites and cabanas for open parties slipped through the cracks -- those notifications did not go out in a timely manner, leaving many party-throwers frustrated and annoyed. Guests of Honor were left wondering what their room arrangements would be -- even after direct communications with the Suite Ghods.
In response to the changed environment at Minicon, Operations has evolved. It was once a department whose primary goal was to have its workers be invisible; now it recruits a large number of rangers in order to have a significant visible presence at Minicon. This and other Operations policies have proven to be unpopular with many committee members and the convention membership at large. Some Operations subheads in recent years have even referred to themselves as "Security," which is a model Minicon and many other fannish conventions have gone to great lengths to avoid.
We believe that these, and other, user-level problems result from the twin problems of burn-out and inexperienced department heads, compounded by the ever-increasing complexity of the convention. High turnover may occur because working on the convention is not as much fun as it used to be. People whose only fanac is working on Minicon lack the perspective that comes from understanding fandom and seeing how other conventions work.
We have often avoided serious problems only by desperate last-minute efforts and the skin of our teeth. These last-minute bailouts are even more costly in terms of burn-out. Trying to do an entire year's work in the space of a month or so is extremely hard on the White Knight.
We believe that the people running Minicon are making a valiant effort, but that the current Minicon is not sustainable by the existing talent pool, and that efforts to increase it are unlikely to succeed. This is due both to the nature of Minneapolis fandom and the fact that fan-run science fiction conventions around the world are struggling with the same issues, with the same problem of the convention-size-to-talent-pool ratio. We would prefer to do what we can and do it well rather than keep trying to do something we cannot.
Committee Burn-out
The problem of burn-out is not unique to recent Minicons. The Long Range Convention Task-Force said "A sizable proportion of the committee is losing its motivation or 'burning out.'" But like other problems, burn-out appears to be escalating. Minicon 32 never had a publications head, despite Thomas Juntunen asking -- begging -- near and far. Two chairs/co-chairs (Charles Piehl and Thomas Juntunen) abandoned their position just before or just after Minicon in the past four years. Kay Drache recently got off the exec and off the Minn-stf Board because of burn-out. And all three of Minicon 32's programming heads gave up after one year's experience running that department.
Not everyone is burning out. Those who are happy with the convention and with the work they're doing for it often wish those who are unhappy would go away, take some time off, and leave the running of Minicon to those who are having fun doing it. We wish it were that simple. We all care deeply for the convention, and even those who have withdrawn for a year or two find it difficult if not impossible to stand silently by while progress reports are stuffed for mailing without hotel room prices, guest of honor names are misspelled, and we ourselves feel unsafe and unwelcome at our hometown convention.
Burn-out has a significant human cost. It hurts the person who burns out, and often hurts the convention affected by the person's burn-out. It can destroy entire fan groups. Fandom is our community, and the people who are burning out are our people.
Burn-out also negatively affects Minicon as an organization. While Minicon has stated repeatedly that continuity, documentation, and mentoring are all high priorities, in general there has been little carry-through on such plans. In part, formal communication like documentation is just not in the Minneapolis fannish nature. We'd much rather do than document. But it's also true that the essential work of running the Big Minicon is so overwhelming that it leaves neither time nor energy for the finesse of documentation, or even the time to help others understand what we're doing, and why.
And, burn-out hurts Minn-stf. We seem to have trouble attracting new members. Could it be that the people most likely to join us are so overwhelmed with the job of putting on the current Minicon that they have no energy left for fanac the rest of the year? How many of the people who have joined the Minicon committee in recent years have become active Minn-stf members or active fans beyond their involvement with the convention?
Where Have All The Fans Gone?
Too many fans have voted with their feet -- they just aren't coming to Minicon anymore. No fuss, no furor. Minicon just stopped being important to them.
Many of the fans still coming to Minicon use enclaves and other coping strategies. No longer is the entire convention their playground. Some venture out for a look at "Minicon City" from time to time -- yes, even some of the fans have become tourists at Minicon. Others limit themselves to small pockets of safety and magic -- the Tor suite, the Green Room, the PFRC room block, the SEMP, and Minneapolis in '73.
An analogy: the Snotty Elitist Music Party is one example of a survival strategy in the face of overpopulation. Many factors went into the development of the SEMP as a solution. The pressures faced by the open Minicon music party were very like those that Minicon faces, in microcosm: too many good people, and too many unwelcome people. It isn't much fun to wait for three hours for the song "to come round on the gittar," no matter what the quality of the music is in the meantime. In addition, it is difficult and painful to try to work with musicians who do not have the "chops" to keep up. A good music circle, like a good science fiction convention, builds on the work and talent of all the participants. Diversity is a two-edged sword. It can provide an unpredictable synergy, but if the participants are too far away from each other in skill and sensibility, the energy never builds. When the open music parties reached untenable conditions, some people built a smaller party that incorporated elements they felt necessary. While the SEMP lacks some of the wonder of earlier Minicon music parties, it has survived by focusing. But the open music circle in the consuite has not survived. Invitational music parties like the SEMP have been part of Minicon since the early 1980s, but there were still open music circles in the consuite every night of the convention throughout that decade. Some years, the music continued around the clock. The open music circles did not survive the consuite moving to poolside. The scheduled performances in Dark Star are probably a contributing factor.
Conversation is a lot like a music circle. In a good conversation, the participants build upon each other, learn things from each other, and wonderful things are created. Castles in the air. But if the conversation partners have little in common, then they discuss banal things like the weather. "My, but the walls are perpendicular tonight." It is harder to strike up an interesting conversation with a random stranger at Minicon, because there is less likelihood that that stranger will have something in common with you. Conversation is the recruitment tool of fandom. It is the way we build our ties, the way we bind our community. We do it with the exchange of words. If this is true, what does it mean that the consuite, once the center of Minicon, is usually either too noisy for conversation or is totally depopulated?
The Minneapolis in '73 suite is another attempt to deal with overpopulation. Its primary purpose is to provide a fannish haven. Fans should not need a haven at Minicon. An unintended side effect of providing the Minneapolis in '73 suite is that it creates barriers between old fen and the new fen, rather than abolishing them. The Minneapolis in '73 concept works better or worse based on who the host is at any particular time, but the separation of this enclave from the rest of the convention causes a perception of snobbishness that limits Minneapolis in '73's effectiveness in welcoming neos who find it hard to meet people in the consuite. For every neo who comes to the suite for her first, second, or third penguin sticker, several times as many mistakenly think it's a private party, or that they are otherwise unwelcome.
The fans behind closed doors have run away from the crowds. They didn't run away from the neos. It doesn't even make sense for them to do so. Shun an audience who has never heard your best stories (which all your friends are sick of)? Surely not. By focusing Minicon, we believe we will be providing oldpharts and new fen more chances and opportunities to meet.
The street fair model, though it may appear to be all things to all people, is not as inclusive as it looks. It encourages self-selection in its own way. Fans who prefer conventions where they have a lot in common with the people they meet are less likely to attend Minicon. Fans looking for world-class programming mostly go elsewhere. It's not even a terribly good convention to do business at. It is, however, a great convention if you like migrating drum jams, a slightly lawless sense of "anything goes," or gee-whiz costumes. Whom do we exclude by including "everybody"? We exclude the people who don't go to conventions to be with everybody. We make it hard for people to find their fannish family.
Minicon no longer acts as a recruitment tool for Mnstf. Minn-stf puts a great deal of human capital into Minicon, and gets almost nothing except cash back. When a MinnStF member burns out at Minicon, he often burns out of Mnstiff at the same time. However, Minicon does not replace our members. MN-stf is becoming moribund. While Minicon may not be the culprit, it certainly does not contribute to a solution, either. If Minicon were turning protofen into neofen, and providing neofen a place to flourish, then the club would have an influx of new blood which might resurrect it. A smaller convention, which was exciting to proto- and neo-fen, a convention where people like Fred felt comfortable in the consuite, could act as a revitalizing force.
What About Those Who Aren't Interested in Minicon's Focus?
We're glad you asked that question. Everyone who is interested in coming to our more focused Minicon is welcome. Our intention is not to exclude people; it's to help Minicon survive and eventually thrive. We're leaving it to people to decide for themselves if they want to be active participants in the new, smaller Minicon.
One of the most difficult things about making changes in the current Minicon is dealing with the issue of vesting. There are some people who have been working on and attending the Big Minicon for a decade or more who, we believe, may not be interested in the type of Minicon that energizes us and makes us want to work. These people have a significant stake in the Big Minicon. They have vesting. They may have sufficient numbers and experience to run their own convention. If they did so, they could develop a vision and pursue their own goals, and we could dance off in a different direction entirely.
A possible solution to the problem of vesting is for the Board to assist affiliated fans to start their own convention. If Minicon 34 earns $2000 more than the directed profit, we think that it would be beneficial and appropriate for the Board to loan up to $1000 in seed money to a group that is interested in running a convention more like the street-fair Minicon that they love.
Conclusion
We believe that the uncontrolled growth of Minicon has damaged both Minicon and Mnstf. Minicon is no longer serving Minnstf; the tail is wagging the dog. Minicon has the potential to destroy Mnstf. We believe the budget crisis of Minicon 32 is not an isolated event, but part of a dangerous trend. Our talent pool -- with its many strengths and weaknesses -- is not adequate to run a Minicon of 3500+ people year after year. Most "large regional" SF conventions are under 2000 members. Many conventions are taking active steps to limit growth, including membership caps (Boskone, Orycon, Wiscon, Novacon), hotel selection (Capricon, Orycon), and other measures. Arisia appears to be holding at around 2000 without any special measures (and it's interesting to notice that a 4100+ Boskone exploded to produce a 900-person new Boskone and a 2000-person Arisia). Worldcon draws on a world-wide talent pool, seeking out fans who have gained experience on local and regional conventions. Yet the Permanent Floating Worldcon Committee is questioning its own sustainability. Minicon is less complex than Worldcon, but often approaches it in size. It is not reasonable to expect that we will be able to recruit and train the number and kinds of fans needed for the Big Minicon to prosper or even endure.
It is our belief that a reduction in size will allow Minicon to retain its talent pool by both drawing back and re-energizing some of our people, and since it will be smaller and simpler we won't burn-out so many of our friends. Making the concom fun, interesting, and fannish will provide an avenue to fandom for new concom members. By focusing Minicon, we can provide a more entertaining and safer environment for a larger percentage of the membership, even though the total number of members is smaller. By simplifying Minicon, we can control the hemorrhage of money that threatens the existence of Mnstf.
Personal Statements
Rather than limiting ourselves to the things we agree on, we wish to present individual personal statements from everybody who cared to write one.
Lydia Nickerson
I came up to Minicon the usual way: by car. (I managed to avoid the volcano.) There were a bunch of us in Iowa City, and every year, a bunch of us drove the six hours to Minneapolis. We had our own convention, Icon. It was a gem, a sweet little local convention. Icon was scheduled for October so as to be half a year away from the magnificent behemoth which is Minicon. One convention a year isn't enough, however, to someone starving in the wilderness. Iowa, tame and flat as it is, was a wilderness for me. Empty, scary, with prowling growling rednecks.
It's hard to explain how important Minicon, or fandom, was. It's all tangled up in a past life which, in retrospect, scares the hell out of me. I saved my own life, in the end, but fandom was an integral part of my redemption. People who weren't necessarily Christians, weren't normal, didn't value a completely unexamined morality, who -- god help us all -- thought! After a lifetime in Fundamentalist Christianity, fandom was clear water in the desert. It was more than home, more than family. It was salvation. Oh, and it was also sex. Don't underestimate the power of good sex.
Getting to Minicon every year was an adventure. What with flunking out of college due to depression, and living with an alcoholic, and being disowned by my family, I was very poor -- okay, very poor by middle class white standards. Twenty dollars of disposable money was a marvelous luxury for me. Somehow, I made it to Minicon every year. (I did miss one year: I had a fever of 103, I had been throwing up for a week, and my husband wouldn't let me go.)
Fandom was a safe place. I don't mean that nothing bad ever happened, but the bad things were rare. I ended up at a Minicon in the early 80's with almost no money and no place to crash. I think I had $20, total, for food and books. (As I recall, I bought a book and 3 hamburgers that weekend.) Knowing I had no place to sleep, I packed a backpack with a couple of changes of underwear, a book to read, and basic toiletries. Friday, I stashed the backpack in the back of a closet in one of the rooms on the smoking side of the Radisson consuite.
I was worried, not about someone stealing my stuff, but about being accused of taking more resources from the convention than I was entitled to. Of being a parasite. I couldn't think how to manage Minicon. I wasn't good at asking for favors; pride and shame interfered. So, by default, I decided to simply stay awake for the weekend. Ah -- you can kind of guess at the results. I was young, but I wasn't that young. I was also, being young, ignoring a slight cold and fever. It was a marvelously fever-bright, fraught experience.
I snuck a shower at 6 am on Saturday. No one was in the smoking side of the consuite, I think there may have been 5 people, total, on the 22nd floor. I reasoned that I wasn't tying up any resources that anyone wanted, and smelling like a camel was not a kindness to the other people in the elevator. The day was colored with exhaustion, low blood sugar, fever, and delight. I was never so happy. Alone, amongst friends. I wasn't terribly coherent, and tried not to get into conversations. But I loved listening. Everywhere, people talking, talking about things that were interesting, or silly, usually both. Gentle drunks and manic punsters. My people. My friends.
Physiology caught up with me somewhere around 2 am on Sunday morning. The music party was still going strong in the smoking consuite. I was too tired and too stupid to venture into a room full of strangers. I went to one of the bedrooms adjacent to the parlor and lay down on the bed. I was delighted to discover that they were playing music by Jefferson Airplane, rather than filk. Even more delightful, they were good. Really good. It did not surprise me then, though it did, later. At the time, it seemed like an inevitable perfection. I didn't sleep. Of course not! But I drifted away on music beautiful, real, intense, and somehow intimately mine, though I didn't know a single one of the players. It wove intricate patterns of light. Perhaps that was my one glimpse of Indra's net. I don't remember sleeping or waking, but four hours later, there was no music, and I felt weary and refreshed at once. I napped a bit more, dreaming of music and light, and then it was time for the long ride home. I collected my backpack from the back of a closet, and went looking for my ride. (Thank you, Fred. That was you playing in the other room. And thank you, Steven. That was you, too. I didn't know either of you, either by face or reputation, that year. But that's when I met you, though you didn't meet me, and when you gave me something so precious I treasure it still.)
Looking back, there are two things that stand out in my mind. One is the lack of fear. I worried, a little, about my backpack being taken; I was not afraid of molestation. The other thing that stands out is the intense feeling of belonging. For all that I didn't know most of the people, and didn't feel up to conversation for most of the weekend, I felt like I was a part of what was going on. Finally, I had come home.
Times change, and so do people. It's hard to say who's changed more in the last decade, Minicon or myself. Looking at the consuite as it is now, I find it hard to believe that I could leave something in a closet there. And while I am widely known to be able to sleep through anything, I don't know that I could fall asleep in the consuite. Maybe this is just reasonable caution which comes with age. It doesn't feel like it, though. It feels like Minicon has changed. And, oh, but I miss the music in the consuite.
A couple of years ago, I found out I wasn't a troubleshooter. I wish I'd found that out before I did a shift as troubleshooter. In the consuite on the 22nd floor, I found a gentleman badgering a young lady in tears. In the process of trying to discover if there was anything useful to be done, the gentleman threatened to kill me. He was upset because his girl had kissed the wrong boy. I found that I was out of my depth in two dimensions. The threat of physical violence was baffling. This is why I shouldn't be a troubleshooter. But the cause of his distress was even more confusing. Kissed the wrong boy? At a convention? A place where everyone is your friend? I mean, maybe this is cause to drag your beloved off under a staircase and engage in a heart to heart conference. (That's how I spent most of my first convention, Icon V. Yuck!) But the threat of bodily harm, to her and to me, gave me a bad case of cultural shock. He was not my friend.
I don't have any answers, yet. However, I think that refocusing Minicon so that it is both smaller and the attendees have more in common with each other might help rebuild the sense of community and safety that I miss. At very least, I think it's worth the experiment. We've lost so much. Too many of us are either hiding behind closed doors or gone altogether. There has been a lot of self-righteous moaning about how closed parties are killing Minicon. It is my belief that the doors are closed because it stopped being safe in the consuite.
What I have now isn't the home and family of my dreams. It's a lot more like my childhood home and biological family. Minicon has real problems. It is overpopulated, does not have a unifying vision, its politics are dysfunctional, and it is no longer safe. We've tried denial and acceptance as strategies for dealing with these problems. I'd like to try something else, instead. And if this doesn't work, something after that.
Susan B. Levy Haskell
So what's a Minicon supposed to be?
Minicon is a place where folks who have always been ostracized can find community. It's a place where being different, or odd, or socially unskilled, doesn't cost one one's right to be there. In fact, it's just the opposite: we protect & support our own oddballs; no matter how obnoxious, rude, and peculiar, if you're one of us, you belong. It's a place where the folks whose friends in school were books -- 'cause no one else "got it" or was interested -- can find friends & family-by-choice.
The problem is that Minicon's support for differences and "alternative lifestyles" caused us to welcome folks who weren't looking for community -- just wanted a place to do their own thing & have a fun time with their friends (many of whom they brought along) -- then those of us who came to Minicon for a family reunion discovered that it had been crashed by a bunch of people who simply looked like us. They don't love us. They don't want to know the family stories. They don't care who sawed Courtney's boat. They make fun of our eccentricities & all our peculiar relatives -- not that we haven't, but we've never excluded them.
Having crashers at the reunion is lousy, but there's plenty of food, & we've all suffered the pain of being excluded, so what does it hurt? Well, for years it didn't. But now there are so many crashers -- some of whom've been coming for years -- that many folks don't even realize that it ever was a family reunion. And some of them, I believe, are our family, but have never discovered the connection because they haven't been around when Uncle Roscoe told his stories; or they've been trying to, but haven't been able to find any of the family among the look-alikes. Worse yet, some of our family, who've always come to our reunions, have given up because the crashers think they're odd, or obnoxious, or socially clumsy, and have made them feel unwelcome. And worst of all, some of our relations who missed the little reunions -- who grew up twenty years after we did or hadn't heard about 'em, but fit in elsewhere just as well as we did -- may be coming to the reunion, never finding the family, and leaving again because it's another place where they don't fit in. And that I consider intolerable.
I'm sympathetic with the folks who've been coming for years and want to keep doing so. They've spent a bunch of years coming to a grand bash, often bringing their friends, and having a wonderful time. They have a tradition of doing so. But I believe that the party that they're having around my family reunion is keeping me from connecting with my family. And it's burning my family out to run a reunion that's become so big & diffuse. So I believe that it's time to remind everyone that this is a family reunion, plan our events around the family, and quit trying to accommodate the folks who aren't interested in being kin. I don't propose that we tell anyone whether they're family or not; let them hear from us what we're doing, and let them decide whether they belong.
David Dyer-Bennet
I feel a bit like Chicken Little. But if those things cratering into the ground around us aren't pieces of the sky, they're something even worse.
I attend Minicon in defensive mode. There's still fun to be had there, but it's no longer available on the surface. It takes place off in corners, and very often in private. Most people I know do the same thing. You don't go to the con suite Saturday night, it's too noisy to talk and there's no interesting music anyway. Stay away from Great Hall Foyer around the masquerade, it's a total zoo. Luckily, friends tell me where the fannish gatherings are, so I can sneak off to the 8th floor of the Plaza Tower, or whatever. I also hang out in the Green Room a lot, semi-legitimately (I'm generally on programming items myself, and so is Pamela), and of course in Minneapolis in 73. Do you do this? Nearly everyone I've asked does.
The real fun at Minicon is no longer out in the open. To survive, it's had to hide itself away, sometimes even behind closed doors. This is bad in a lot of ways, but one of the worst is that it makes it impossible for people new to Minicon to find the real fun. The people who would enjoy the things I enjoy can't find those things. Often, I suspect, they don't come back. Or they decide Minicon is interesting, but not that important to them.
Karen Cooper
I sometimes think of myself as the last Minn-stf member. Oh, I know some new and interesting people have joined the club since I knocked timidly at Pam and David's door in November, 1985. But they are few and far between. Mostly, new people have been brought in through their own connections to Fandom, such as happened for Lydy and some of the other Iowans. Once in a while, Minn-stf gets a new face from Minicon, like um, erm, there was...well, it does happen sometimes, I'm sure of it.
I've been in love with Minn-STF since we first met, and have tried hard to be as good to the club as it has been to me. I've hosted meetings, been an officer and Board member, and worked on our conventions.
My first convention was Minicon in 1986. It seems impossible to describe the immediate sense of belonging and fun and infinite possibility that overcame me as soon as I walked in the hotel door. You all know what I mean. Folks I knew, friends, were everywhere. The consuite was so crowded with interesting people that I had yet to remember to take off my coat when I'd been there an hour. Nate introduced me to someone from New Mexico -- could it have been Bob Vardeman? Fred introduced me to Singer and Dorothy Parker. Don Bindas sat next to me for my Dispatcher shift on the Bridge, and introduced me to Dave Clement and Okanogan cider and the Winnipeg in '94 bid. Ellen Kushner came bouncing up to help make Easter baskets. And so on, all weekend long. Everything was possible, everything was magic, it was all there and real, and I wanted it never to end.
I wanted to help. I offered to run Childcare at the New Year's Party in 1986, and went to one, or perhaps two, Minicon meetings, before the 1987 convention. Those meetings were fun, and I learned so much about the convention -- what all the departments did, and how they ran, and all the cool ideas for the upcoming convention. Lots of ideas were tossed around, and much advice was given, before the inevitable cries of "Implementation Detail!" began, and we moved on to the next department. As a team, we valued brevity and levity, and everybody, including the lowly head of Childcare, had a good picture of how the convention was put together.
The years change things, as always. The convention got bigger, and we tried to adapt by making policy changes. People got hurt in the process, and left the committee; some left Minn-Stf and have never been back. These wounds scar over, but they don't seem to heal. The committee got bigger, and could no longer afford the luxury of the open committee meeting with its snail's pace. The bigger committee with all its new faces lost its best access to previous experience, and as meetings became less fun, the fun people went to meetings less often. The repeated need to reinvent the wheel left little time, space, or energy for Crazy Minneapolis Fandom to do what it does best.
The Minicon committee wasn't really Minn-stF's any more, but neither was Minicon. Where the consuite had been Minicon's central meeting place and central party, I could no longer find a familiar face there. The bathtub filled with Twinkies was long, long gone. Instead, my good old friends were hiding themselves away in private parties and creating "Fortress Roscoe." We make our little enclaves by hiding from the rest of the convention. We scoot quickly through the hallways from one haven to the next as we avoid the loud, rowdy crowds. Our little corners of civility become smaller with each passing year. And our good new friends cannot find us.
And out in the greater convention, no one is accountable. Our loose, flexible community standards, as far from codified as they are, are being shredded by obnoxious behavior, the debate on appropriate dress, and ever-growing crowds that have no interest in Fandom. Within the committee, problems include budgets run amuck, grandstanding, and empire-building. Departments limping their way through the weekend has become the norm. We cannot congratulate ourselves on a convention well-run, as we used to -- now we heave a sigh of relief that we have survived another Minicon.
There is no doubt that science fiction has become mainstream. Lots and lots of people have discovered SF, found it to be a participatory genre, and leapt in head first. There appear to have been many brain injuries in the process. Nevertheless, the Fandom that created Minicon and all the fannish conventions like it is the Fandom that I love. It is my heart's home and my family. It is still there, under the noise, and spilled beer, and the pile of burned ashes of the dollars we've wasted. I'd like very much to uncover it, and nurture it, and let it flourish again. I want the magic back.
Alice Bentley
In The Beginning (for me) Minicon was a crowded, comfy car ride with Best Friends, some of whom I had not met before. It was reliably running into other people who liked to toss around ideas, and who had read a lot of the same stuff I had -- and best yet a lot of stuff I had not yet read. Minicon was a convention where an extra hand was always welcomed, and sometimes needed.
I like what we have now as well, it's kind of cool to see how media fandom has exploded, I remember a similar rush at the 1975 Star Trek Con in Chicago. And it's nice to see a lot of younger people clearly finding a place that they find comfy and secure (or they probably wouldn't have been making out on the couch in the con suite).
But in balancing the two experiences, then (1976 was my first, and I think I've only missed one since) and now, I find I really miss quite a number of things I enjoyed before. I would like to reasonably expect that everyone would have a shared interest in written science fiction. I felt more comfortable when people chipped in on the chores -- sure it's good that it's someone's responsibility to see that it gets done, but it shouldn't be such a shock to ask people to help. I also miss being able to trivially bop around within Minneapolis, we still make our excursions but it's not similar to just jaunting out for a meal or a browse.
Although I've worked a number of other conventions, including Worldcon, I've only ever gofered at Minicon, and usually without "official" arrangement. I can't realistically attend MNStF meetings or concom meetings, but I would still be happy to volunteer to help with the convention in whatever capacity the concom found useful.
Minicon has the resources, the size, the sheer critical mass to pull off things only Worldcon could touch -- and the vision and idealism to want to make them happen. Worldcon is a one-shot every time. Minicon has been able to use its continuity of people and purpose to develop not only the sense of discovery and adventure that we can find at many conventions but the feeling of homecoming, of family, even though these are all people you are just meeting.
As each new batch of people get involved, I see the same cycle of problem identification and solution discussion. For the last several years now, the choice has been to take the easiest path, the least bumpy road -- after all, this is supposed to be fun; disappointing or aggravating even a few people is definitely not fun (to say nothing of huge crowds to them). To this outsider, it seems like the time has more than come to make a few of the hard choices -- realign the convention to match the enthusiasm of people that you most want to be there instead of the largest number of reasonably content people.
And I would be happy to help.
Geri Sullivan
(Provocative title goes here)
Over the past two years, I've written thousands and thousands of words regarding my concerns, beliefs, and attitudes about Minicon. Most of those words have been in messages sent to the Minicon List and are readily available for review through the archives, but here's a 600-word summary to save you the trouble.
Simply put, I believe the following:
- We have repeatedly demonstrated that Minicon has grown beyond the size and scope of our abilities to manage and run it effectively. While there have been good Minicons during the past 8-10 years, each has been accomplished at the expense of our volunteers, especially exec members and department heads.
- Things have fallen to the point where we're regularly hurting committee members. They are responding by burning out and leaving in record numbers. It used to be that for any given Minicon, one major department would be on the verge of collapse. These days, rare is the department that isn't on the edge. Even the simple act of working together on the convention isn't building community as it once did. We've devolved to argumentative, department-based empires. Blecch. Instead of attracting neos and showing them what fun it is to create the wondrous, mythic beast that is a Minicon, we're pushing inexperienced volunteers off the high dive without even checking to see if the pool is filled. All too often, we're even giving those who bellyflop in spectacular fashion chance after chance after chance, simply because "she's the only one who volunteered."
- It's easy to point at one year, or one thing, and say, "yes, that was a problem, but we're fixing it." Especially when we have a year like Minicon 32, where the exec, treasury, registration, publications, and programming all experienced major failures while operations, parties, and hotel each failed to measure up to basic community expectations. But Thomas Juntunen is not the first exec member to crash and burn. And significant problems are already emerging on the Minicon 33 committee. Our efforts to manage what we've become continue to fall short of what Anne Gay recently described as "the great beauty and majesty of it all."
As Bruce Pelz wrote to me before Minicon 31,
"that Minicon has had a Basic Problem -- too few (competents) trying to do too much for too many (attendees + incompetents) -- has been paid lip service for years now. You (collective) need rather sweeping analyses (plural) and recommendations, preferably from any previously available competents who are no longer available but are still competent."- Minicon has lost most of the fannish cachet we once enjoyed throughout fandom. Our consuite and operations bridge were once recruiting tools. Now they're places to avoid. The few things that still attract trufans to Minicon are being drowned out by the lack of civility and community that dominates the convention.
- It's become harder and harder to meet people at Minicon, especially people with whom we might form lasting relationships. Minicon du jour also fails to strengthen existing relationships. For example, there's nothing at Minicon that celebrates the multitude of connections between Minneapolis and Winnipeg fandom, or even helps us find each other.
- The problems aren't just inside the Minicon committee. The Minn-stf Board has failed to take appropriate action several times over. Minicon finances have floundered and a bad exec was left in place even after the Board's directives on the matter were ignored. Minn-stf itself has lost its energy and focus, with longtime members avoiding meetings in droves and newcomers finding little to bring them back.
- Running something the size and complexity of the current Minicon isn't in our nature. It is simply not something we can do well. We're fans, we're Minneapolis fans. We procrastinate, we don't keep track of things from year to year, we don't pass on information. We used to dance along the path of chaos, but now we mostly stumble, slipping all too often into the mire that surrounds the route. Whew. I'll stop with seven points rather than going for 73. If you want the full 4-part harmony, check the archives or ask me for a print-out.
What's next? Why now?
The problems are many, and striking out in a new direction won't be easy. Our plans for Minicon 34 and beyond won't magically fix things, and following a new path won't mean people stop getting hurt. We've searched long and hard for a clean, pain-free path, but such a path simply doesn't exist. The change we're pursuing will be traumatic, but we must do our best to build a bright and shining new Minicon lest we lose everything we've stood for over the past 30 years. I want to help build a Minicon that contributes mightily to the overall health of fandom, locally, nationally, and internationally. I want to help build a Minicon that is fun to work on and fun to belong to. I want Minicon to reflect the wondrous people we are rather than one that only exposes our warts to the world and leaves evermore of us among the walking wounded.
Why am I willing to throw myself into the chaos that will accompany a major change in Minicon? I think our plan is Minn-stf's and Minicon's best chance to dance along the path of Crazy Minneapolis Fannishness once more. While much of my fanac today takes place in the international arena, I want to help Minneapolis fandom be the best it can possibly be. I want us all to be proud of Minn-stf, Minicon, and the wondrous community that's been so ill-served in recent years.
Beth Friedman
My first Minicon was Minicon 11 in 1976. It was almost my first exposure to science fiction fandom as well. I came in knowing two people and clutching a piece of paper with Karen Johnson's name on it -- she was the person the hotel found to share a room at student rates (which I think were $6.50 per night!). The consuite was friendly but overwhelming, and the pivotal moment of the convention for me was when I walked past a room full of people singing, stopped to listen, and they invited me in. I haven't seen most of those people in 20 years, but that room party was when I knew that science fiction fandom was "my crowd."
After graduation (fast-forward through the three awful years where Minicon and MINNEAPA were almost my only relief from the mundania of Cleveland), I moved to Minneapolis and became involved with Minn-stf and Minicon. It's interesting to note, by the way, that at that time there was no differentiation between the Minicon crowd and the Minn-stf crowd.
Over those years Minicon continued to grow. Minicon reorganized its structure (my first years on the concom were the last years of the "working anarchy" model) a couple of times. Meetings became large, tedious, and unwieldy, then either became committee head meetings with restricted attendance or open meetings where no real decisions were made.
I'm not sure when Minicon became the de facto "gathering of the tribes." I'm even less sure when Minicon started becoming the "Minneapolis alternative culture festival." I suspect both of these are a result of the lack of focus that Minicon has experienced in the last several years. I do not like the vision of Minicon as the yearly gathering of SF fandom, media fandom, pagan fandom, BDSM fandom, and technoculture fandom (plus whatever I've forgotten). If this is what Minicon has become, it's been purely by accident, and by a decision to avoid making decisions (which is, of course, itself a decision).
After all, if there's a gathering in one's town that's inexpensive, vaguely related to one's interests, and provides a forum for one's own crowd to meet, it's going to attract a great deal of unfocused attention. I don't think Minicon is trying to be all things to all people, but it appears to be trying to be some things to all people, with the result that it continues to attract more and more of the local unfocused crowd, while losing out-of-towners who find other, more focused, conventions to be more worth their money and time.
I think there's a big difference between striving toward a particular vision, and drifting along because no one is paying attention to where one is going. And I think there's too damned much of that latter with regard to Minicon. That's not evolution or change; that's cancer.
I'm very disappointed at what Minicon is becoming. A number of people have commented that we're not doing any worse than most conventions. That may be true. If so, it's a sad commentary, not on everyone else, but on us. We used to be the best regional convention around-the best consuite, the best operations, and the best publications. Now, all we are is the largest. Frankly, I don't think that's anything to brag about.
Minicon has felt more and more unstable for a number of years. For the last three years, at least one department has either needed a major bailout or has had significant problems at the convention. This year, Minicon had an exec member resign a week before the convention, and lost a substantial sum of money. I think we're burning out our talent at an appalling rate, without anything worthwhile to show for it. I think Minicon needs to decide what it considers important, and prune away the parts that don't look like a Minicon.
I'm pretty sure that Minn-stf's goal was never to run a huge mediocre convention. And that's what I think we're achieving. If we're lucky.
I think Minn-StF can do better.
Steven Brust
Patrick Nielsen Hayden once explained it to me this way: "There are three fannish centers in the country," he said. "Boston, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. Boston is Law, Los Angeles is Chaos, and Minneapolis is Faerie." I like that. I wish it were still true.
The last two Minicons I've mostly spent making enough money playing poker to pay my hotel bill. This sounds good, but it isn't. I like poker, and it can even, thanks to Mike Glicksohn, be said to be fannish. But it isn't what I want to spend my time doing at Minicon. And I wouldn't, if there were something else to do.
I began attending Minicon at the Leamington, in about 1976 or so. At that time, it was a group of people all throwing a party for each other; now it seems to be a group of people asking others to throw a party for them. The reward for throwing the party was the pleasure of doing a job well, and the pleasure of having your friends appreciate that you did the job well. These days, I see no pleasure at all in helping to throw the party. It would be grand if that changed.
For several years I did recruiting. It was fun, and it was fairly easy, because so many people saw themselves as part of the whole Minicon experience and they wanted to show each other a good time.
For many years I looked forward to the music sessions at Minicon, until it became a choice between being offensively exclusionary and punishing myself by being where I'd druther not be.
One year someone came up with the idea of using the hotel's TV system to put fun, fannish things on. It was cool. It was cheap. I enjoyed turning it on occasionally. Now it is horribly expensive and high-tech and no one watches it. Somewhere in there it stopped being fannish. Somewhere in there it assumed the form of Law with the essence of Chaos and no trace of Faerie whatsoever.
Minicon has never been known for outstanding programming, and that's all right as far as I'm concerned; but I do remember when panels produced more conversation than how you had been double-booked at a time you had said you were unavailable for two panels you had said you didn't want to be on.
I don't know if there is any way to go back to all that, but if we try, I'll work on the convention again. I can play poker the rest of the year; in Faerie, playing music seems more appropriate.
Fred A. Levy Haskell
It is said that the Neofan approached the Secret Master and asked, "What is the meaning of Minicon?" Whereupon the Secret Master hit the Neofan with a stick.
I believe that I'm in a unique position to view and comment upon Minicon -- having been an attending member of all the Minicons so far. (True, there are, to my knowledge, two other people who have been to all the Minicons, but I think that the level and nature of my involvement over the years has been sufficient to make the claim of uniqueness). I've also been to a lot of other conventions throughout the United States and Canada, including some WorldCons, so I have something with which to compare Minicon.
When we first started putting on Minicon, it was a celebration, a way of giving back something to fandom (as we knew it then, and not just locally -- internationally), a way of proving our merit for our WorldCon bid, impressing our friends, meeting new friends, spreading the myth... a bunch of different things. It was something "we" did for "us". And the we who were working together on it consisted of more than just those people who happened to be "on the committee" that year -- we all pulled together to make Minicon a good place to be.
Lately it appears that the prevailing view is that some "we" is putting on Minicon for some "they"; and, further, that everybody is pulling in different directions rather than together.
My "bright and shining new Minicon" will be a karass, not a granfalloon. It will be made up of people who, if they don't already know the meaning and the location of the first use of those words, at least stand some chance of stumbling across it some day.
It is said that the Neofan approached the Secret Master and asked, "What is the meaning of Minicon?" Whereupon the Intergalactic Squash descended from space and stomped them before either could say another word.
Time was, when a mundane friend or acquaintance would, for one reason or another, ask me what "Minicon" was, I'd trot out that old: "A party with (a couple hundred ... a thousand ... fifteen hundred ... a couple thousand) of my closest and most intimate friends." This, of course, is one of those "explanations" that only explain to those who already know, so I'd then try to expand on that statement and relate Minicon to things they might understand.
Well, there's alcohol there, but the similarity between Minicon and a kegger begins and ends there. The liquor is used as a social and conversational lubricant, but the similarity between Minicon and a cocktail party begins and ends there. There's lots of music there, but the similarity between Minicon and a coffeehouse or a concert begins and ends there. People of both sexes meet and or become better acquainted and sometimes even end up in bed with each other, but the similarity between Minicon and a frat party begins and ends there. We have and attend panel discussions, but the similarity between Minicon and an academic or professional conference begins and ends there. Some of us wear funny hats, but the similarity between Minicon and a Shriners' convention begins and ends there. Finally, odd things have been known to turn up in the swimming pool at a Minicon, but they tended to be weather balloons -- not television sets....
Unfortunately, none of this seems to be as true about Minicon any more -- there's a lot more similarity between Minicon and all those other things than there once was, and I'm not comfortable or happy with that.
It is said that the Neofan approached the Secret Master and asked, "What is the meaning of Minicon?" Whereupon the Secret Master ate a pickle and smiled.
By the time I was done, I had walked all around it and had done a pretty good job of explaining what Minicon wasn't, but still hadn't done a good job of explaining what it was. That seems to remain ineffable. And that's a pretty good point to make -- it may sound a bit like I'm saying "Minicon should be like it was," when that's not really what I'm saying at all. But it's the same problem again -- I'm having to define what I want it to be mostly in terms of what I don't want it to be. To do otherwise would be scruting the inscrutable; f-ing the ineffable....
Added to that is that even if I start explaining what Minicon is to me, it's a lot like that old story of the five blind men trying to determine what an elephant is. That is to say, there are a number of conflicting perceptions which are, nevertheless, "correct," or, at very least, accurate.
It is said that the Neofan approached the Secret Master and asked, "What is the meaning of Minicon?" Whereupon the Secret Master turned and ran away without uttering a word.
In the old days, I would sometimes meet people other than through fandom who would come over to visit. Upon seeing my library (in the dining room) they would say: "Wow! That's an awful lot of books! Have you actually read all of those books? I haven't read a book since I got out of High School." It seems to me that more and more of the people I encounter at Minicon would make these same statements....
It is said that the Neofan approached the Secret Master and asked, "What is the meaning of Minicon?" Whereupon the Neofan hit the Secret Master with a stick.
Proposal
We feel that Minn-StF must resolve to take control of Minicon, rather than letting Minicon control us. We volunteer to do that, starting with Minicon 34.
Focus
To realize our vision of Minicon, we must narrow our focus. We have tried to be all things to all people, and we have failed. The pain of failure is particularly keen because we have stopped being the fine fannish convention we began as; we have squandered our reputation. People who once attended Minicon to revel in the vastly larger society that comprises fandom no longer find such revels possible at Minicon, and no longer come.
Definitions are tricksy things. Attempting to define "fandom" or "fan" leads us either to an impossibly inclusive definition (e.g.: "anything two fans do together is fanac") or to an impossibly exclusive one (e.g.: "it's what I point to and say 'that's fannish'"). But we must find some way to scale back. The ever-expanding convention has stretched Minn-Stf's resources beyond the breaking point.
And yet we cannot shut the door on newcomers. We believe that new people (some of them proto-fans) are coming to Minicon, failing to find, among the teeming hundreds of attendees, the like-minded souls of our community, and deciding not to come back. We are hurting ourselves doubly: by running an event more complex than our means, which in itself is harmful, we are also misusing what might be a marvellous resource for enriching our club and fandom in general.
Who, then, are these like-minded souls we'd like to encourage?
Sharon Kahn wrote one of the best definitions we've seen for the people who would be at home in fandom: "Specifically, what we're looking for is: extraordinarily high intelligence, high creativity, independence of thought, a true love of ideas, and an intense love for language and the ability to use it well. You can call these people Fans if you want: I've always thought of them (us) as Space Aliens."
Geri Sullivan said: "Y'gotta read. No, there won't be an admissions test, and you don't need to submit your reading list for the previous year, but Minicon is for readers. The more widely read you are -- inside and outside the genre -- the more fun you are likely to have at Minicon."
Teresa Nielsen Hayden said: "... people who are attracted by the prospect of discussing (say) 'Similarities of expository structure in science fiction and the historical novel' are exactly the kind we like to party with (drinking champagne out of Spike Parsons' sneaker, trying to recreate the Astral Pole Initiation from written accounts -- you know, all that serconnish stuff), whereas people who are attracted by large brightly-colored banners saying!!! PARTY!!! PARTY !!! PARTY !!! ... will never be much fun at all."
Bear in mind that no matter how many of these descriptions we produce, no matter how well, how precisely, we write them, there will be oddballs who fall outside the descriptions but nevertheless belong in fandom. Reading is the mark of a fan, but there are well-loved and -respected fans who read very little. Feeling like an oddball is the mark of a fan, but there are fans who feel pleased and at home in the mundane world. If this essay makes you think you'd be bored at our Minicon, you are probably right; if it makes you feel you wouldn't be good enough for it, you're probably wrong.
Consider the delight you find in a new friend who was just as dazzled as you were by the stories in all those library books with rocket ships on the spines. We want Minicon to provide this delight. If you've never had the opportunity to feel it, we'd love to give you your first chance.
Geri again: "We expect Minicon members have (or will eventually have) involvement with fandom beyond this one convention. Newcomers welcome -- if you've never heard of fandom, or don't know if you want to be a part of it or not, come and find out. We'll give you a taste and hope you want more." We want to give new people a handhold in fandom by explaining what APAs are, by telling stories about other conventions, by handing out copies of fanzines, by spreading fannish history and culture. This is why we're here.
Conversation is the heart and soul of fandom, and will be at the center of Minicon. Our intention is to make spaces for conversations, to provide fodder for conversations, and to attract the sort of verbal, creative, clever people we want to talk to.
It's been a truism for a number of years that new people bring their friends to Minicon, and we've encouraged this. We have made welcome all the myriad local groups with connections to things science-fictional. We've handed over entire departments and respectable budgets to people whose involvement in fandom apart from Minicon and whose interest in the lore, the activities, and the common ground of fandom are indiscernible.
This approach has taken much of the burden of running the convention off of Minn-stf, but it has compartmentalized people. Minicon attendees have fewer and fewer reasons to break out of the security of their own social set or even to notice that the bigger, broader world of fandom is still present at Minicon. We believe that some of these folks are very much the interesting Space Alien type, and are "the friends we haven't met yet."
We believe that continuing this compartmentalization is bad for the convention, bad for Minn-Stf, and bad for fandom. Our purpose is not, however, to drive away whole groups of people who like a certain television show, or who like to wear costumes, or who want to play music in different ways than we do. We want to break down the walls between our club and all the other groups out there, show people who we are and what we like, and make them feel welcome should they choose to join us.
Creating this bright and shining new Minicon means not being all things to all people. Aspects of the convention that do not specifically help us sort for Space Aliens are likely to be dropped. As we've said elsewhere, Minicon in its present state is wearing us out, and we must carefully choose where we expend our energy.
We will emphasize quality over quantity. We will not exclude individuals or groups, but we will exercise editorial control over what goes on officially at the convention.
We will not institute a membership cap, but will attempt to reduce size selectively, by carefully editing the convention and encouraging self-selection among the members. We will arrange extensive, clear, and widespread publicity, starting at Minicon 33, saying that Minicon 34 will be different. There will be heavy publicity aimed at fandom to attract more fans. In all our publications, we will do our best to explain to all fans, from First Fandom to Middle School kids, from fans who have never attended a Minicon to fans who have attended all of them, and from professional writers to Trekkies, just what it is that we are doing, so that they can make an informed decision whether or not they would enjoy our Minicon.
For this to work, we need a commitment from the Board that the goal of a smaller, more focused, and much better run Minicon will be carried forward beyond Minicon 34. And we need the Board to choose us to run Minicon 34. We, in turn, commit ourselves to more than a single year of involvement.
Numbers
We don't know how many people will choose to come to a focused Minicon, nor do we know how large a convention Minn-stf can sustain. We're guesstimating 2000 members, though anywhere from 1200 to 2800 wouldn't be a huge surprise (we'll have a better idea, of course, closer to the convention, when the reaction to our publications starts to appear). The first year of major changes is always the hardest to predict accurately. Because of this uncertainty, we'd like to budget for a very low must-make profit, with a very high likelihood of making far more, rather than aiming our best estimate at a higher figure. Pre-registration rates may rise significantly (but not to levels higher than typical for a large regional convention). If the size reduction goals are not successful, even higher profits are quite possible.
Committee Structure
The structure we propose is intended as a transitional committee structure. Changing Minicon is a difficult task, and the type of leadership best suited to attempt this is not necessarily the type of leadership that would be best for a sustainable Minicon. The Executive Council cum Coordinator is intended to guide the concom and the convention for approximately two years. During this time, we will gain a great deal of experience and information directly applicable to future Minicons. We expect to move into an ongoing committee structure (supported by the committee and approved by the Minn-stf Board of Directors) by Minicon 36.
Don Bailey has said that any structure will work if you have the right people. We agree with this assessment. We believe that the biggest strength of our committee structure is not the formal chain of command, but rather the people involved. Throughout this proposal process, we have worked well as a team, discussed serious questions, had significant disagreements, and resolved vital issues.
Our discussions of focusing and filtering have revealed, not surprisingly, a wide range of opinions.
Each of us has the Florida problem; we each remember a different "Golden Age" of Minicon. We know different people within the current concom, and have different perceptions about what has and has not worked in the past. Our work styles are very different. In the course of putting this proposal together, working with the ESC, and revising our proposal, we have worked through a number of potential communications problems. We have developed a "change token" system so that we know who is responsible for edits and decisions on a particular piece at a particular time. We have discovered that for our group, e-mail is a very efficient mode of communication. We have been able to pass information, comments, and control to each other in ways that made it easier to get the work done, without losing track of what needed to get done, or who was doing it.
We have developed good formal and informal channels of communication.
It is necessary, however, to specify the _formal_ chain of command. It is important for the Board to know who is responsible, so that they can provide appropriate oversight. It is also important for people outside of the Executive Council to be able to accurately identify decision makers, so that ideas and objections don't get lost in a maze of "that's not my responsibility."
We propose an Executive Council (EC) made up of the ten people who authored the High Resolution Proposal: Alice Bentley, Steven Brust, Karen Cooper, Liz Cooper, David Dyer-Bennet, Beth Friedman, Susan Levy Haskell, Fred Levy Haskell, Lydia Nickerson, and Geri Sullivan. Although we are already a diverse group, we believe that we need a broader range of opinion and experience, especially from people who are currently involved in Minicon. We will add additional members by consensus. These additional people must have served as a department head for a significant department at Minicon or have had a position of similar responsibility with another fan-run SF convention.
We expect to choose additional EC members from the current concom. However, we want to be able to remain flexible and be permitted to choose from outside that talent pool. While the Minicon concom is our most valuable resource, we don't want to be unable to capitalize on unusual opportunities, either.
The EC will be responsible for choosing all department heads. We are strongly in favor of single department heads, with subheads as appropriate or necessary. We wish to make one person, rather than two or more, responsible for each department, as we believe this simplifies communications issues and enhances responsible behavior. However, we will make exceptions as seems wise. There are certainly examples of duos or trios who work much better as co-equals than in a hierarchical structure or by themselves. In those cases, however, the EC must be sure that we are not squandering talent or causing unnecessary communication problems. The EC will also be responsible for firing department heads, should that become necessary.
Policy will be set by the EC, normally in consultation with department heads and other concom. We anticipate that most policy discussions will happen at concom meetings, and we will actively seek input from the concom. If extraordinary circumstances arise, it may be necessary for the EC to make a policy decision that is not supported by the remainder of the department heads. This is a frightening prospect, and will be approached carefully.
However, in order to adhere to our vision of a focused, fannish Minicon, we acknowledge that it may be necessary. Tough decisions may have to be made, and if so, they must be made by the persons responsible: the EC. These decisions will be made, however, in the open, with input.
The Coordinator serves at the pleasure of the EC. David Dyer-Bennet is our choice for this role. He has previous experience in a similar position, and has an in-house secretary (Lydy). The Coordinator will be responsible for developing a master schedule, in consultation with the concom, and making sure that the schedule is met. The Coordinator will discuss budgetary priorities with the Financial Officer (FO) based on policy decisions of the EC. The Coordinator will be especially responsible for keeping track of inter-dependencies between departments and overall structural issues. He will ensure that the various departments are having constructive conversations about those interdependencies, and mediate as necessary.
The Coordinator will implement policy set by the EC on a day-to-day basis. His job will be similar to that of the exec, without the responsiblity of setting policy. If necessary, he will make decisions with policy implications if there is no time to consult with the full EC. Decisions of this nature will be reported to the full EC, and may be overridden if necessary. We do not expect this will be required often; indeed, we hope it will never happen.
The FO will discuss budgetary priorities with the EC and the Coordinator, develop an overall budget that reflects those priorities, and help department heads create budgets that reflect these priorities and goals.
The FO will also do planning and forecasting for the master budget (and work with department heads on departmental budgets), based on the policies and priorities set by the EC, and report to the Coordinator.
The FO will report to the Coordinator.
The Bookkeeper, otherwise known as the Treasurer, is responsible for the day-to-day handling of the financial paperwork. He will report to the FO.
During Minicon, the Coordinator will function as the "exec on duty" at all times. He will be available 24 hours a day via beeper or cell phone, and any situation that requires quick response will be routed to him.
It is unlikely that it would be practical to convene the full EC during the convention, as it would be time-consuming to assemble all the members, and would require pulling many different department heads away from their departmental responsibilities; they may well have crises of their own. Crisis calls that cannot be handled at a departmental or lower level should be very rare, assuming competent department heads. The Coordinator will keep a log of calls and decisions, which will be available for review by any member of the EC or the Board.
We will also be forming a non-voting advisory council, referred to as "The Pros from Dover." We will be communicating with them via e-mail and personal contact. These will be people inside and outside of Minicon with significant experience and expertise who can provide insight and advice. We anticipate that Ben Yalow, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden will continue to serve as our Pros from Dover, along with experienced locals.
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
(What I Tell You Three Times is True)The biggest challenge that the High Resolution Proposal faces is communication. Based on our experience so far, we believe that this is a huge, but surmountable problem. Our first draft,
although flawed, has garnered positive responses from a wide variety of people, including some from whom we expected negative responses.
Working with the Exec Selection Committee to refine the focus (which resulted in the "Focus Statement") has been a valuable lesson in effective communication. We have found that one-on-one communication of our dreams and goals works best. Unfortunately, this is not possible for the majority of people who will be affected by the proposed changes. Because of the size and complexity of the problem we are working on a plan to help us manage communications flow. We will need to utilize many voices and many media if we are to be effective.
We believe that communication is something which flows both ways. A top-down, hierarchical flow of communication breeds discontent and resentment. Minicon 34 will be a delicate year, with much old pain at the forefront. This means that listening has to be at the very center of our communications plan. Listening, however, is not sufficient. We must also respond, as honestly and rapidly and as possible. People who have contacted the concom must get feedback so that they know they have been heard.
This portion of the proposal will not address intra-concom communications. That is not because it is not important (in fact, it is vital), but because internal communications will be addressed in the committee structure portion.
You'll Be the First to Know -- Telling the Concom
We need to start telling people what's up as soon as we know ourselves. If the Board approves this (revised) proposal, that's our starting date.
Our first and top priority following the Board's approval of this proposal is to coordinate with Minicon 33, working with them to manage communications and minimize potential damage. We will listen carefully to their concerns; the success and well-being of Minicon 33 is the top priority at this point.
We will make personal contact with a significant portion of the current concom, primarily by phone and email. We will the contact every named department head or subhead within one month of our meeting with the Minicon 33 exec. We intend to have a full slate of department heads by Minicon 33 and to reconfirm each of those positions by May 15, 1998 (one month after Minicon).. Additionally, we need feedback from the current department heads as to what kind of problems and pitfalls we may encounter, even from those who do not like the Hi-Res proposal, perhaps most especially from them. It is important that the current concom have a realistic understanding of what the future of Minicon is as soon as possible, so that they can factor that into their own planning. A change in Minicon starting with Minicon 34 will affect Minicon 33. The current concom need one-on-one communication. They have a lot invested, and a lot at stake. We have demonstrated that of all the communication options available, individual contact works best. It is our best, perhaps only way to create buy in and enthusiasm.
Within two months of our meeting with the exec, we will have made contact with 80% of the people listed on the concom list. Recruitment is important, but this contact will also focus on getting feedback from these people. We are aware that some of the most valuable feedback will be coming from concom members who will not work for us, at least not in the first year. Every person contacted will be asked if they are familiar with the Hi-Res (Revised) Proposal. A copy will be sent to anyone who requests it. We will allow the people contacted to comment extensively, and take notes. If they prefer to contact via email or snail mail, an acknowledgment of that commentary will be returned via the same medium. The Resolutionaries will create a log for these contacts, which we will be willing to turn over the Board if they would like to review it.
After we do our one-on-one communications with the concom, we plan to hold a public meeting for Minn-stf and Minicon members. (If we hold it at a Minn-stf meeting, it would further help Minicon people get/maintain their voting rights.).The exact agenda would be determined based on how our other communications had gone/were going. But at the very least, we will further introduce ourselves and our plans for Minicon 34, and invite input and suggestions. We'll also ask for input on our Minicon 33 communications ideas.
Hello, World, a Problem in Coordination
There are both benefits and drawbacks to sending out a PR pror to Minicon 33. At current time, there are significant external communications which are ongoing about the High Resolutionary Proposal. Should our (revised) proposal be accepted by the board, that communications traffic would not only continue, but would increase as people got in touch with us to ask questions or voice concerns. Sending out a PR would help provide authoritative information and would therefore help slow the rumor mill. However, it could also increase anti-social behaviour at Minicon 33 from a small miniority who feel that this is their least Minicon at which to be rowdy. The drum jam proponents are almost certain to be confrontational at Minicon 33 if they understand that it is their last year. The benefits and risks need to be evaluated in conjunction with the Minicon 33 exec and committee. All pre-convention communications will be subjected to this collaboration.
We will not accept pre-registrations at Minicon 33 for Minicon 34. We do not want people to register for Minicon 34 until we have had some chance to explain to them what will be different, so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to attend. The model for Minicon 34 is informed consent. People who register an the convention may or may not have been exposed to enough publicity to understand the changes.
Comment cards would be responded to prior to PR 1, preferably within 90 days of the end of the convention.
Responses from the postmort are due at the same time as responses from comments at the convention: 90 days from the end of Minicon 33. Ninety days seems like a long time, but we must allow for post-con burnout and consultation based on the feedback. The timeline will be made very clear to anyone making comments so they know when to expect a response.
If the first open forum is held less than 60 days after the convention, then the deadline for the response for that first forum should be the same as for at the con and post mort responses. (That is, 90 days from the end of the con.)
We have not yet decided the number of PRs that we will be sending out. This is partially a budgetary constraint. At present time, we envision either 3 or 4 mailings.
The mission of pre-con publications will be to describe our new, bright shining Minicon in such a way that people will know, just from the publications, whether they would have a good time or not. To do this, the publications have to be (in no particular order), interesting, literate, funny, intellectually challenging, honest, illo'd, precise, descriptive, and fannish as hell. Pamela, Steven, Fred, and Geri have all agreed to help work on this. We hope to tap the talents of Laurel Krahn, as well, who is an exceptionally good writer. We hope to draft Ken Fletch and Derek Dasenbrock to do illustrations, although we haven't asked them yet. We already have a lovely illo from Laramie Sasseville, and we think she may be willing to do more. Patrick Nielsen Hayden has promised to help, and we hope to inveigle him into writing copy for us. And there are others. Print communications are crucial to our success and we'll put our best talent to work on making them sparkle.
Meet on the Web
We believe in the internet. A lot. The web site will be updated and maintained. It will provide easy, email access to most, hopefully all, department heads. Minutes and discussions that can be handled via email will be, both for cost considerations and for speed considerations. A number of the Resolutionaries are on the Minicon-L, and expect to remain there. While the Minicon-L is not our primary communication venue, it is certainly one more avenue to reach people, and will be used as such.
Departmental Discussions
Operations
Operations is an especially critical department for any greatly-changed Minicon. There's a much-greater-than-normal risk of people deliberately causing trouble, plus a greater risk of the committee itself not having planned everything right.
Operations has been a major problem area for at least the last five years. It has devolved into a "security" department, which is an entirely different function. Perhaps the emblematic change is the degradation of troubleshooters to "rangers." We need to restore the troubleshooter position, and staff it with clueful people with the right people skills.
The closed-bridge model evolved in response to problems with workload on the open bridge as the convention grew. It may or may not be the best solution to that problem, but since our conventions will be significantly smaller, we should easily be able to return to an open bridge.
Minicon 33's attempt to fix Operations appears to have been subverted and derailed. The experienced co-head put in as a resource has somehow ended up as a sub-head with a strictly limited technical brief.
Treasury
Treasury is basically simple, if painstaking. You track cash, and you track expenditures against approvals, and you keep records of it all, and you make regular reports. Minicon needs to be much more open with financial figures than it has traditionally been, and department heads and the committee need to get frequent (at least monthly), clear, reports of the current situation.
The "finance" position is a good idea. This used to be part of the treasurer's job, but as workloads have increased, the benefits of separating anything separable loom larger and larger.
We will produce, use, and enforce real budgets with sensible and meaningful categories (not just "party supplies"). We will produce frequent and up-to-date reports to make it possible for departments to stay within their budgets. We will adjust budgets as needed to fit reality; but the solution to a problem is not to ignore the budget, it's to fix it.
We will work with the Minn-stf Board in developing our financial plan. In specific, we will need start-up funds and the club has a limited ability to provide those at this time. We're happy to take a silly, fannish approach to this problem -- we may well hold a bake sale. But whatever we do, we'll keep the Board informed, starting with providing the first draft of our financial plan within 90 days of the Board's approval of our bid.
Hucksters Room
We want to refocus the Hucksters Room. The first-come first-served model currently being used has the advantage of being perceived as "more fair" by the hucksters than a selective model. The disadvantage is that it does nothing to prevent the slide towards the mediocre.
We would like a Hucksters Room with used, out-of-print, small press, and collectible books: books that can't be found in every B. Daltons. We would like to see original, fannish craft, such as Darlene Coltrain's or Giovanna Fregni's jewelry. We would give the head of Hucksters the authority to select hucksters, and backup from the chair to address complaints. The Executive Council would discuss the goals of the convention with the head of Hucksters, and encourage the head to recruit hucksters who sell items that enhance the focus and vision of Minicon 34. Most importantly, the head should recruit hucksters who would have a good time attending Minicon 34. The recruitment, however, should never extend to offering free memberships or rooms. We are trying to recruit members, not bribe merchants.
Based on Minicon's past performance as a mercantile venue and the number of hucksters in the fannish population, we expect to be able to fill the available space. We will use a selective model to reduce the number of hucksters in direct competition with each other. We believe that by emphasizing excellence, we can re-energize the venue. These two factors may cause an increase in per-member spending. Decrease in sales will come from decrease in membership. Number of tables sold will be tied to pre-registration numbers so that the hucksters can have a reasonable expectation of a profitable convention.
Programming
Programming has labored far too long under the "scheduling" model. We will run programming on the "editorial" model, in which the job of the department is to assemble a mix of high-quality programming items that meet our goals. Several fans on the SMOFs mailing list have suggested intellectually stimulating programming ideas from both all sf & fantasy genres that will trigger ongoing conversations -- that's what we want.
Our scaled-back, focused approach will mean considerably less programming -- perhaps four tracks plus readings. It will mean fewer "main-stage" or "extravaganza" events -- we won't have a masquerade, for example. With the smaller convention and fewer main-stage events, there will be no need for a convention television channel on the hotel system. These changes will save several thousand dollars. We'll work closely with our guests and build program items that play to their interests and talents.
Parties
Hospitality is the key to a Minicon in the grand Minn-StF tradition. Much of that feeling comes from the work of the parties department. Our hospitality areas will emphasize conversational space, where people can get to know each other and have those fascinating late-night conversations you remember 10 years later.
People have different requirements for conversations, so we will provide spaces with different atmospheres (oxygen only; provision will also be made for the nicotine-breathers) to serve people with different preferences. At this time the Radisson does not have facilities for chlorine- or methane-breathers. We will investigate the facilities in other hotels, but so far Minicon receives very few registration inquiries from such entities.
We will edit the allocation of hospitality space (poolside cabanas and suites, if we stay in the Radisson) and plan to recruit party hosts committed to our focus. Minicon 33 has already announced that it plans to implement our idea for seeding the poolside cabanas with author, bookseller, and publisher parties. We plan to build on those efforts after seeing how it works.
Registration
Checks must be cashed, confirmation cards sent promptly, and new addresses made available for other Minicon and Minn-StF mailings in a timely fashion.
It is an important part of registration's job to know how many memberships have been sold and how many people are present at the convention, and to report this information to the committee regularly, both before and during the convention.
Art Show
We want to begin moving the show from one that is dominated by photomechanical prints, with essentially no original work by national name artists, to one composed nearly entirely of originals, with a good proportion of first-rate work by new and established artists.
Reaching this goal will take some time. There are circular dependencies -- major artists don't send originals here, because this isn't a convention major art buyers attend. And why should they, since there isn't any major art for sale here?
As a beginning, we will sharply restrict photomechanical prints in the show (they're perfectly welcome in the Hucksters room, and we'll probably continue the print shop as well). We will publicize this change, and seek advice from others on how best to bootstrap the process of becoming a major art show again.
Publications
Publications will have a very heavy load to carry, since we need to make clear to all potential members what changes are being made to the convention. We will also be doing considerable out-of-town publicity to attract back fans who used to come to Minicon from far away, and reach new members who would like the changes.
The words they contain are the real content, but the appearance of publications is important,. Bad appearance deters reading in various ways, and interferes with communication. Publications costs have risen dramatically over the last 5 years; they can probably be driven down again.
Hotel
Our changes will require careful coordination with the Radisson, if we stay there, or else we'll have to break in a new hotel (if we move). Either way the hotel department will have its hands full. A smaller convention at least means fewer room requests to process, and perhaps less need to hand-optimize all the room allocations.
it is particularly important that our members understand accurately how room allocation decisions are made. hotel is one of several departments widely seen as unhelpful and uncommunicative by those on the "outside", especially by people trying to throw open parties. this must be addressed.
Appendix
A Clarification and Revision of the original High-Resolution Minicon Proposal
September 8, 1997
Three weeks ago we published the High-Resolution Minicon proposal to refocus Minicon, starting with Minicon 34. The proposal was presented to the Minn-Stf Board, the Minicon 34 Executive Selection Committee, and the fannish and Minicon communities. We have received a variety of responses, nearly all of which confirm our observation that we must scale back Minicon; but many of which have caused us to reexamine some of our strategies for doing so. We thank everyone who has taken the time to respond for their thoughtful -- and thought-provoking -- comments. This document is intended to explain some of the issues we've reconsidered, clarify our positions where they need clarification, and address concerns that we've heard expressed.
The most pressing issue that our responders cite is the need for very clear communication. Most of those who have responded recognize that we aren't intending to exclude anyone whose interests include science fiction and fandom; but we must find more ways to communicate that we're excluding activities not people who may participate in them. All Minicon committees decide what they will and will not include; we are proposing to make that very explicit from the outset, rather than by default.
Our initial communication, our proposal itself, outlined our intentions, as well as the need for them. It has successfully generated discussion locally and elsewhere about how to refocus the convention without excluding the very people we seek to keep. One of the issues we must keep foremost in our minds is that the fen we want to continue seeing at Minicon -- or see return -- are often those most sensitive to messages of rejection, whereas the people who aren't interested in the community are likely to be less so. We have learned that each of us is more effective at communicating our goals and plans to some people than to others; we recognize that we must speak with a variety of different voices.
Generally, our communications with the current committee have been in personal conversations. Many of them are interested in working with us on Minicon 34. Some have reservations about parts of our proposal -- and some are very enthusiastic (like the four of our authors who are on the current committee ;>) -- but we have received confirmation that we needn't concern ourselves with wholesale revolt. We have also received support and offers of aid from many past committee members who no longer work on Minicon; they are eager to work again on a Minicon they're putting on for their friends (the ones they know and those they've yet to meet).
Our proposed committee structure has been of concern to the Exec Selection Committee. The ESC has said that it is too likely that a single executive will be distracted by a faltering department; they are concerned about the Chair "white-knighting" one department while the rest of the convention receives too little attention. In fact, at least one of the ESC is inclined to return to the original Executive Committee model, wherein a variety of department heads serve. While we don't concur (our proposal states that an Executive Committee is an inappropriate use of our human resources), we are aware of their issues, and propose an alternative that we believe will satisfy their concerns and ours. We propose to use a variation on the common Worldcon model: the authors of this proposal would comprise a convention Executive Council, at whose pleasure our Coordinator will serve. Other members of the Council would take on specific departmental responsibilities. In the event that the Coordinator requires replacement (or simply remonstration) for inattention to the convention as a whole, the Executive Council can act; but they would not be required to spend precious time in routine oversight of departments other than their own.
We have heard concern that we are excluding media fen from Minicon. While most of those who have read our proposal recognize the distinction between excluding people and curtailing the activities that cater to them, we want to clarify our position. We neither want nor intend to exclude people who want to be a part of Minicon. We have shown, however, that Minicon must become less complex; and in simplifying it, we will be excluding activities that may be the sole reason some people attend Minicon. That's the reality, and we are unwilling to deny it. Without being explicit about it, the "alternative cultures festivals" have excluded people who came to Minicon for community; we feel that that's not being forthright with the community, and will not continue that pattern. We will continue to work to communicate to everyone whether they're likely to enjoy our Minicon, but we will not deny that some will not.
We have heard it alleged that we're going to "kill" Minicon. We're certainly proposing radical surgery. But Minicon is on its way to explosion now, and the gradual solutions we've been trying for years have been ineffective. We must make radical changes to fix Minicon. We must find ways to reduce its complexity and its size before another catastrophic failure destroys Minn-Stf along with Minicon. And those who say that our goals are achievable by less radical means have shown no evidence that this is so.
[Top]
[Minn-StF] [Minicon] [Minicon 34]This document was put on the Web by David Dyer-Bennet. Both Gabe Helou and Laurel Krahn helped update the HTML.
This is a historical document. If you're interested in what Minicon is like now, you should visit the main Minicon page and follow the links there to read about recent and upcoming Minicons.