From: anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com (Dave Anderson)
Subject: Re: What really happened after Boskone 24 (was Re: Arisia vs. Boskone)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 31 DEC 92 15:26:09 EST


In article <9212311816.AA20997@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>, dee@ranger.enet.dec.com ("Donald E. Eastlake 3rd, LJO2/I4, 1-508-486-2358  31-Dec-1992 1315") writes...
>(Sorry this isn't linked to the earlier messages but my local new server seems 
>to have developed a problem where posting appears locally but don't get 
>propagated so I'm posting throught the DECWRL gateway via mail.)
> 
>>From: anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com (Dave Anderson)
>>Subject: What really happened after Boskone 24 (was Re: Arisia vs. Boskone)
>>Message-ID: <1992Dec30.194328.5873@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
> 
>>In addition to this problem our new hotels, though interested in our business,
>>were rather skittish (based on what they'd heard about the previous Boskone).
>>If we'd had any significant problems at Boskone 25 they almost certainly would
>>have refused to have us back, and Boskone would have died.  As a result, we had
>>to restrict anything that might cause hotel problems.  We were forced to be
>>more restrictive than we wanted to be, since excess restrictions would merely
>>annoy people (unpleasant for all concerned, but the convention would survive)
>>while too little restriction could destroy the convention. 
> 
>The restrictions adopted were just one a praticular set of restrictions.  I 
>don't see that NESFA "had" to or was "forced" to adopt that particular set.  

My point was not about the exact set of restrictions actually adopted, but
rather that *some* unpleasantly severe set of restrictions was *required* at
Boskone 25 if we were to have a reasonable assurance of being able to hold
Boskone 26. 

>>                                                          It did say that, as
>>part of 'downsizing' the convention, we intended to refocus it on those things
>>of most interest to the group doing the work of running the convention.  This
>>was not because we were 'against' the aspects that were being eliminated, but
>>because there was too much to fit comfortably in a smaller convention (and
>>because a number of people were getting tired of the additional work caused by
>>including areas in which they had no interest -- refocusing Boskone had been
>>discussed for a couple of years before this time, but previously inertia had
>>won). 
> 
>Much of the above is substantially wrong.  Boskone was restricted to exclude 
>media, gaming, costuming, etc. as a matter of policy, not due to staffing or 
>facility availability.  Many of the more dominant people in NESFA are 
>explicitly and vocally anti-media, anti-gaming, and anti-costume at least in 
>terms of what they want at a con.  This is certainly their right if that is the
>way they feel.  The restriction of Boskone to SF literature, SF art, science, 
>and their fandoms was announced before it was certain what facilities were 
>going to be used.  No effort was made to determine if personnel would be 
>available for activities outside the restrictions, as they had in previous 
>years, or not.  In fact some people who had enjoyed and taken pride in running 
>or working on facets of Boskone that were considered particularly attractive to
>people being dropped were effectively told to go away unless, in some cases, 
>they were willing to run things within the new restrictions.  It is also true 
>that some such people were not active in NESFA activities other than Boskone, 
>were not voting members of NESFA, and thus did not have a vote on the final 
>decision.

We seem to be remembering events somewhat differently.  While there were some
people in the 'anti-' camp, most of the active NESFen felt much as I have
stated.  I don't remember it ever coming to a formal vote (though people who
only worked at Boskone would still have tended to miss the discussion, by not
being around during the spring and summer).

[If I remember correctly, most of this was discussed at various informal 
 meetings and was never written down.  Since memories (mine included) aren't
 generally all that accurate, I don't intend to pursue this any further.]

	Dave (anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com)

Me? Speak for DEC? HA!