a couple of things to think about -
it would be fine with me if the nominators names and even the names of
the reviewers were never revealed, because it's about paying forward,
not being paid back - and there is that nuance of obligation that some
feel, regardless of if it's acted on. It can create a sense of guilt
in some authors and appearances of cliquishness or favoritism if
authors review each other.
but with the names hidden, some will still be 'in the know' and it
could create and advantage/disadvantage situation between the 'ins'
and the 'outs'.. both in the nominations and the reviewing.
One thing that has been important in these awards from the very
beginning, and I think, in part, key to their success, is the
transparency at every step.
without the names, you have assumptions of machinations behind the
scenes, but once the names are revealed, you have accusations of
cliquishness. I think this is unavoidable to some degree and it will
take those past participants standing up to their own friends,
acknowledging the impossibility of a completely fair system,
explaining how the MEFA's strive to avoid such problems and
encouraging them to participate with the reminder that the more
readers/reviewers participate, the less influence any one individual
or group has.
disclaimer: no one has mentioned not showing the reviewer names and I
wouldn't agree with it if they did, but it is an extension of hiding
finformation ...
--- In
MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
>
> a couple of things to think about -
<snip>
>
>
> One thing that has been important in these awards from the very
> beginning, and I think, in part, key to their success, is the
> transparency at every step.
>
> without the names, you have assumptions of machinations behind the
> scenes, but once the names are revealed, you have accusations of
> cliquishness. I think this is unavoidable to some degree and it will
> take those past participants standing up to their own friends,
> acknowledging the impossibility of a completely fair system,
> explaining how the MEFA's strive to avoid such problems and
> encouraging them to participate with the reminder that the more
> readers/reviewers participate, the less influence any one individual
> or group has.
Thank you, Sulriel. I entirely agree with the main thrust of this
statement--in the end, the awards can make every feasible effort to
take into account such concerns, and the fact that we're having this
extended discussion (we haven't officially even reached issue number 2
on Marta's list of Post-mortem topics) is, I think, evidence tht we
all do want to make sure we've taken every precaution.
But just as in the end, the awards depend on the actual decision by
other people to invest time and effort in reviewing stories, helping
to make sure MEFAs are not wrongly accused of cliquishness or what not
is a task that takes a commitment to communicating with others and
explaining things to those who are going off of hearsay, or who
haven't had the benefit of these discussions.
Dwim