But that's not the issue that was highlighted. It might be how it then ran, but it isn't what started it.
What started it, was that when a committee member was told that the decision had been made to have Person A as host, the committee member responded that it was a controversial choice AND SHOULD BE PUT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.
The chairs then said "No." And made it clear that the decision stood even if people were going to be upset. They acknowledged that they KNEW at least one committee member would be upset.
Committee member then said "I'm sorry, I can't work with this, without criticizing the decision, therefore I'll resign so I can speak freely and say I think it's a bad decision that will casue problems"
Decision was announced. Two things happened side by side. As the decision went out, cries of disbelief and outrage flew through the air.
The committee member said "I'm sorry, I have to resign, in order to say I don't agree with this."
Do note, the outrage happened independently and INSTANTLY.
Person A then started to reactive blog about the problems arising on Twitter THUS PROVING HE WASN'T THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is about the Chairs of Worldcon deciding they could have a controversial person to host the Hugos and no, they weren't going to open up the decision and actually discuss it with their own committee.
That's the issue. If they'd opened it up to the committee as they were asked, a private response from the committee would have likely stopped this in its tracks.
But no. "We're chair. Our decision. Not listening to you." *sigh*
no subject
What started it, was that when a committee member was told that the decision had been made to have Person A as host, the committee member responded that it was a controversial choice AND SHOULD BE PUT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.
The chairs then said "No." And made it clear that the decision stood even if people were going to be upset. They acknowledged that they KNEW at least one committee member would be upset.
Committee member then said "I'm sorry, I can't work with this, without criticizing the decision, therefore I'll resign so I can speak freely and say I think it's a bad decision that will casue problems"
Decision was announced. Two things happened side by side. As the decision went out, cries of disbelief and outrage flew through the air.
The committee member said "I'm sorry, I have to resign, in order to say I don't agree with this."
Do note, the outrage happened independently and INSTANTLY.
Person A then started to reactive blog about the problems arising on Twitter THUS PROVING HE WASN'T THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is about the Chairs of Worldcon deciding they could have a controversial person to host the Hugos and no, they weren't going to open up the decision and actually discuss it with their own committee.
That's the issue. If they'd opened it up to the committee as they were asked, a private response from the committee would have likely stopped this in its tracks.
But no. "We're chair. Our decision. Not listening to you." *sigh*
All words in quotes paraphrased my me.