For those who recall the recent Hugo Awards controversy, including the massive votes for 'No Award' in five categories (doubling, in a single year, the number of 'No Award' results in the entire history of the Awards), there's some very . . . strange news.
Back at Sasquan, the BM passed a non-binding resolution to request that Sasquan provide anonymized nomination data from the 2015 Hugo Awards. I stood before the BM and said, as its official representative, that we would comply with such requests. However, new information has come in which has caused us to reverse that decision. Specifically, upon review, the administration team believes it may not be possible to anonymize the nominating data sufficiently to allow for a public release. We are investigating alternatives.
Thank you for your patience in this matter. While we truly wish to comply with the resolution and fundamentally believe in transparent processes, we must hold the privacy of our members paramount and I hope that you understand this set of priorities.
Vice-Chair, Business and Finance
Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention
Vox Day has more commentary at the link (and his readers provide their own thoughts below his, many of which are worth reading).
Folks, back in the 1980's I was a Systems Engineer at IBM. I've had well over a decade in the commercial information technology and computer systems business, in positions ranging from Operator to Project Manager, from Programmer to End-User Computing Analyst to a directorship in a small IT company. Speaking from that background, let me assure you: I can 'anonymize' almost any data set in a couple of hours, no matter how complicated it may be. To allege that 'it may not be possible to anonymize the nominating data sufficiently to allow for a public release' is complete and utter BULL. Period. End of story.
What the hell is going on at Sasquan (the conference that hosted Worldcon and the Hugo Awards this year)? What are they not saying? What are they trying to hide?