I wanna say a thing that I said yesterday in a Zoom barcon with other, much smarter folks like @SarahPinsker & @BenCKinney:

we need to do a better job of recording con process. Part of why 'we have seen' or 'we're taking notes' feels... hollow sometimes is... where do notes go?

This is not a subtweet, of course! I appreciate that 2021 and 2022 are indeed seeing and endeavouring to do better. This is what I want.

My concern is that 2023 doesn't have a location yet, and 2027 doesn't have a *bid* yet.

Who shares notes with them?

We tend to think of 'Worldcon' as *an entity*, and in a lot of ways, it absolutely isn't. It's a series of decently sized microorganisms that collectively create the large-scale ~legacy~ (I'm beginning to hate this word) object that we consider Worldcon.

I'm sure concoms communicate to each other across years, of course. I'm sure individual chairs and staffers get together and compare battle scars all the time.

You know why I know this.

But do you want me to remind you why we know this?

We know this because--

do you know the sheer number of panels at literally every genre con is dedicated to discussing con-running? To reminiscing about past process, to sharing general knowledge about the mechanics of it, to encourage people to engage with the process?

We talk about con-running a lot in fandom. I'm not going to use the acronym, but for the longevity of creating fandom communities and the joy of reminiscing about ~legacy~ (ugh), con work comes up a lot.

The issue, to me, of course, is that sometimes the way it's actually discussed is sort of like encouraging folks to become electricians by a.) reminiscing about our first light bulbs and b.) reminiscing about the first time you got electrocuted on site.

We need manuals. The only people who can write manuals for fan-facilitated events are fans. I think I push back against the idea of it being run by 'professionals' as if this is distinct from fans, because fans can also be talented event organisers. (This is also not a subtweet.)

So yes, if we wanted to get top-shelf event planners and pay them their rate, that would definitely alleviate these issues.

But I also believe that if we want to solve these problems not only with these cons but with these *fandom cultures overall*, there must be a manual.

Folks can't just take notes.

Folks need to *compare* notes, or else seeing one series of problems may have a tendency to become mission priority, and if you make mistakes elsewhere, the concom behind you may learn that they should just take notes *about fixing those mistakes*.

I think a valuable way to start is for individual branches of a con team to take very detailed, journaled notes about their experiences from bid to break-down. I mean, statistics that readers of this tweet may find utterly unnecessary.

How many times did someone need to call Ops? How many times was it for something that was in the programme guide, and how many of those times was it a failure to look in the guide or a failure to find?

When a delay, room change, tech issue occurred, why did it happen? How many of those things were unforseen or due to external action? How long on average did it take to solve them? Which con has the personal best time in that regard, and what is their technique?

How many times did an enforcer have to protect someone from harassment? How many reports were made in total? On a daily basis? What times? After which panels? How many times was it resolved? (How many staffers have heard of scenes that aren't reported at all?)

Put all of that in a binder as big as a cinderblock. Put the .pdf in the inboxes of the next two concoms and the cinderblock in a safe place where we can see all of them together in a nice neat orderly yearly row. (And wherever possible without issue, put them all freely online.)

Here's the tricky part, as @BenCKinney obviously reminds: how do we get folks to pay attention?

This is a sticking point for me, obviously, but a lack of plausible deniability definitely means we know who's immediately at fault when things go wrong. https://twitter.com/BenCKinney/status/1289977767392509953

Being able to ask, "Was it in last year's con bible?" and "Whose decision was it not to read it, pass it on, or expand on it?" definitely at least draws a jagged map to where each individualistic buck stops, and ultimately still leaves us with at least *last year's* notes.

Which is still ultimately the benefit, to me:

if all of us here say we want to make the con space better, then we need to act on some pool of available, verifiable info-resource instead of our goodwill.

Goodwill can just as well make us feel like we're doing well when we aren't even seeing where we're causing injury.

Goodwill can also just as well make prideful people feel like they're doing us a goddamn favour and we should be grateful our names were included at all.

I appreciate honest, sincere, self-critical goodwill.

I am also a damn good fan of well-taken notes.

I think the combination of good posterity process and genuine eagerness to make the space better is ultimately more ideal, because people who want to do good in fandom have the information resources to do so more effectively & are encouraged to refine the resources even further.

I think the combination of good posterity process without eagerness makes at least teams who mournfully accept they're doing a job for five days, and at worst teams who will forget that their refusal to engage with the notes will be its own collection of receipts for us fans.

And for what it's worth, it's precisely because I see you all so upset as we are that I trust that providing this info-resource is a boon. It's because we know the Nebula notes would have been helpful that we need to be better at sharing notes overall.

Ultimately, it can't be enough to be 'the good con', 'better than the last one', or 'hopefully the catalyst for better cons to come'. (Also not a subtweet!)

There has to be a far more deliberate process of documentation for the sake of everyone involved in perpetuity.

That way, when things go well, we know the next con isn't merely 'taking notes' - they're writing in the margins of a policy textbook.

And when things go poorly, folks know to refer to the textbook and get the wrench while the ship's leaking, not apologising after it goes down.

I want fandom to be in a position of being spaceworthy on flight, not duct-taping its capacitors mid-flight.

That means more manuals, not less.

(And to be sure, I think CoNZealand's notes are *absolutely* among the first we need *because of these issues*. And especially because it was virtual, because I do think we will find we can benefit from more online spaces, and can build on the bad notes into something better.)