kerfuffle

[thisaintbc]

 
Most of you are probably already aware of the recent kerfuffle about AO3's treatment of certain volunteers, the resignation of three board members, and the ongoing election. If you aren't, this journal does a decent job of summarizing things. In reading up on these events and trying to understand what's going on, I've found myself consistently surprised by pieces of information that just sort of come up in discussion.

A few things I have learned about AO3 over the past few days:

• Board members can serve as Committee Chairs simultaneous to their term. I understand why it was done this way when the org was first started, but this seems to so obviously fly in the face of any reasonable system of checks and balances. 
• Many OTW volunteers aren't members, and therefore can't vote in elections. I guess I should have known this, because membership is entirely donation-based and there's no mention of it anywhere on the volunteering page, but I didn't! The fact that someone can volunteer hundreds of hours and not get to vote, but I get to vote because I mailed AO3 a check for less than a meal at a cheap diner would cost me, is jaw-dropping.
• It is incredibly difficult to find information about the OTW's internal structure. 
  • The board currently has seven seats. This number is nowhere on the Board's fanlore page and I also didn't find it on the OTW's Board of Directors "About" page; I figured this out by going back through the past few election cycles and counting the number of people on the board post-election. Presumably (hopefully) this is somewhere in the elections information and I just didn't see it, but having to hunt for something that seems like pretty basic info is frustrating.
  • The OTW currently has 18 committees. The About page has more information about this than the board, but things like how committee chairs are selected are still incredibly opaque. I've been using AO3 for over a decade and before today I probably would've been able to name less than half of the committees.

Some (maybe a lot!) of you are probably already familiar with these things, but I feel like I don't see people talking about the first two except incidentally in regards to other topics? And I guess I was just wondering if anyone else was flabbergasted by this, or had other things you've learned about the structure of the OTW you wanted to share, or...anything.

Comments

[axolotls]

Yeeeah, a lot of the structure of the org doesn't really make sense at its current size. As has been said during the recent candidate chats and Q&As, part of this is that not a lot of people want to step up to positions like Chair or Board member because of how much work it is, and encouraging more people to step up or showing them what that work looks like before they do (+ de-siloing all that institutional knowledge) would probably help make things a lot more democratic. I do wonder if procedures such as the CCAP don't apply to Chairs (if I'm not mistaken) and Chairs can't like, be recalled by their committee membership, because Chairs are in such short supply... Still baffling though!

I am liking what a lot of the candidates are saying though, and their willingness to change things, just hoping they'll be able to get something done before their terms end (an external audit! HR and conflict resolution!).

[thisaintbc]

"I do wonder if procedures such as the CCAP don't apply to Chairs (if I'm not mistaken)" dajd;fjd; I know from the Q&As that CCAP currently doesn't apply to board members, but that it might also not apply to Chairs is incredibly concerning to me tbh! Letting one individual simultaneously hold two of the org's top positions, both of which are either actually or in practice above censure, seems like such a recipe for disaster. I love the OTW, but it def needs to make some structural changes like you said! Accountability, checks and balances - & imo if someone has volunteered within 6 months to a year of an election & is in good standing with the org (eg, wasn't made to leave due to major policy violations), they should get to vote.

I do also really like all five candidates! I've been particularly impressed by Anh and Zixin; all of the candidates seem knowledgeable and dedicated, with great plans to address structural issues (the cultural audit! surveys! more admin people!), but those two in particular seem to have really done their homework. Fingers crossed they can get a lot done in those three years, and that we don't see a lot of them leaving early as has been the case a lot recently.

[ride_4ever]

TYK for posting these succinct observations that have helped me through some of my state of overwhelm.

[under_the_silk_tree]

I'm afraid I do not know a lot about OTW. So this information was news to me so thanks for sharing! I am unsure how I would want things to run as I do not have any practical experience or knowledge on running such an organization. It will be interesting to see how it moves forward from here and if the candidates are able to bring about change.

[thisaintbc]

Honestly, part of the reason these three points in particular stood out to me is because they seem to fundamentally have to do with democracy. I’m not really qualified to comment on, eg, whether the board should do an audit or hire an HR person first, but I do feel like high school civics prepared me to ask questions like: Is it acceptable for one person to hold multiple key positions at the same time, potentially limiting the ability of others to challenge them or hold them accountable? Who gets to vote, and does the way that’s decided feel equitable? How accessible is information about the very basics of the governing system?

Obviously the otw is a nonprofit, not a government! But the org is presented as democratic, so imo it’s reasonable for even those of us who aren’t experts to ask these kinds of questions.

ETA: I think my tone here might come off a little, idk, fervent? when mostly what I'm trying to say is that even if you don't have much relevant practical experience with these kinds of organizations, you still know things about the world & about your community - and we're still stakeholders with relevant opinions!

[thisaintbc]

<3 I’m glad this was helpful for you!! It’s a lot, and people are talking a lot about complex structural issues and detailed solutions—but these comparatively simple questions of accountability, equity, & transparency really stuck out to me as I started to read what people were saying & try to search for information.

[juniperberry]

I've been watching the kerfluffle from afar, and I'm astonished that volunteers that don't pay $10 first aren't allowed to vote! That's nonsense, it seems to me if you're sinking hours of your free time into either AO3 or any of the OTW's other projects you get automatic voting rights!

(Also $10 is a LOT for people, depending on their economic situation and/or their country of origin!)

I didn't vote this year but I've heard really good things about Anh and Zixin, so I hope they'll be able to get some good things rolling.