Well, this is just the week for good news, isn't it? It looked last year as though changes in the eligibility rules for the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writers meant that a good many of us (including 2005 nominees KJ Bishop, David Moles and me) lost a year of eligibility. (I won't go into all the details, but I outlined them previously here.) I quizzed the 2005 Hugo Award administrators about the issue (though the Campbell isn't a Hugo, it's administered by the same folks), and they indicated that the question would ultimately fall to the 2006 administrators. Since all of us in this boat had been listed as in our "second year of eligibility" on all the awards information, though, it seemed a good bet that this train had sailed.

And then I found the new, albeit unofficial John W. Campbell Award Eligible Authors site, which lists all of us as eligible. I thought this was a mistake or oversight, until I followed the link to the eligibility FAQ.

"The 2006 Hugo Award administrator, John Lorentz, will err on the side of preserving eligibility. You are eligible as long as you qualify under either the old or new rules."

Well, how do you like that? There is a grandfather clause, after all.

So to everone in a position to nominate Hugo Awards this year (which group includes all attendees of last year's WorldCon, and everyone who's already registered for this year's), David Moles, KJ Bishop, and I are all eligible to be nominated again. The nomination forms are here, and are due by March 10th.

Personally, I think that the odds-on favorite for this year's Campbell Award is John Scalzi, who's written a corker of a first novel, has a sequel already about to hit the shelves, and who has a substantial online following. But it's an honor just to be nominated, and I'm not about to refuse the nomination if my name ends up on the list!