This is not an invitation to a flame war

[stephbg]

I am concerned about Swancon 2008. There, said it.

This is also not an attack on the committee, many of whom are good friends. It's mainly for this reason and a general desire to support Swancon I've refrained from speaking until now, but at two weeks to go I've got to vent a little worry.

Comments

[redbraids.livejournal.com]

Anything in particular?

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I'd rather not get too specific, although there'll be several program black holes due purely to my personal indifference to most of the guests.

Are you home this afternoon?

[angriest.livejournal.com]

Your worry is noted, although without specifics I obviously can't respond to much. In regards to guests, I'm a bit sad they don't excite you - they were specifically chosen to give us an acclaimed and popular author in both SF and fantasy, and someone who writes for SF television and radio. That's a pretty broad spread - add in that one of them has a degree in zoology and a masters in biomechanics and another works in rainforest conservation, I think they're a pretty exciting bunch!

If you want to give me an email at fanboy at gmail dot com and tell me specifically your concerns, I can either allay or confirm them as we go.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I think you've done a good job with guest selection. My tastes are far from universal, and it's far more common than not for me to be unfamiliar with or uninterested in the guests' work. In one case I happen to actively dislike the person's work, but that's just me.

However, sometimes they're complete dudes, so I look forward to finding out.

I'll drop you a line about the rest, but it's nothing you can change.

[angriest.livejournal.com]

Of course we have a Doctor Who guest for the first time since Jon Blum and Kate Orman came in 2001, so I hopelessly and enormously biased.

[fred-mouse.livejournal.com]

this is not all I want to say, but the important piece is this:

surely the best way to communicate that there is a problem is directly to the people concerned, rather than a public forum? There has been rather too much of this style of approach recently, and some of the committee are somewhat gun shy.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

As far as I am aware the people concerned are fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the current process.

The purpose of this post was to express my feelings in my blog, which I've been self-editing for purposes of solidarity, because I feared to be seen as attacking something I'm very fond of. I've explained to angriest off line in a bit more detail, most of which is absolutely nothing at all to do with the committee.

"This style of approach"? I'm sorry if you saw it as a sly attack or something similar.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy to pass on the exchange I had with angriest, but I've only got an ancient e-mail address for you that I don't trust. I too have had several address book disasters in the last couple of years.

If you're still worried about me I urge you to look very carefully at the language I used in this post and my comments.