otw july 2 board meeting: what the hell was that
so the otw (@transformativeworks) board had their Q2 meeting yesterday, which was highly anticipated given everything that's gone down in the past months:
the @end-otw-racism campaign demanding action from otw on their own commitments made three years ago to better address racist harassment in otw and on ao3 (btw, support end otw racism's current campaign #Vote To End OTW Racism!)
recent revelations about how otw has mistreated its volunteers, regarding azarias and how the org reacted after the CSEM attacks on volunteers last year, as well as how the policy & abuse committee (PAC) is overworked and treated by the legal commitee overall (documented here)...
...and ongoing mistreatment of chinese, chinese diaspora, and chinese-speaking volunteers, particularly regarding an incident last year that put volunteers in mainland china at risk, and the board's recent unilateral decision to close the otw weibo account without input from the weibo account leads or any chinese-speaking volunteers
the AI shit
and probably more that i've missed, honestly. so! this is my summary of the meeting, focusing mostly on the issues related to racism; i have screenshots of the whole meeting but will at this point only share those i find most relevant/interesting! alt text will be included for every screenshot in the image, not below it.
and hold on, because this is going to be LONG!
pre-meeting ableism in #help channel
so shit actually started going down the previous day in the otw board discord's help channel where there was a pretty ableist resposne to a person who asked if the board could consider adding the pluralkit bot to the server. i wasn't there, but hojarasca on dreamwidth posted about it, and i believe some other folks who were there will post screenshots soon too.
all of that conversation was deleted from the help channel by today, which is not unusual but did mean that a majority of people at today's meeting might not know what went down.
board meeting starts; immediate chaos
the board meeting started at 8pm UTC, and it was clear almost immediately that the board was unprepared. what you have to understand about otw board meetings is that they are not really meetings where the board members discuss anything with each other. basically otw board members show up, share an agenda , give written updates on the items on the agenda, take votes on board decisions (but without any discussion publicly), and take questions. none of the materials like the agenda or relevant documents were shared ahead of time, and the board did not offer a way to submit questions ahead of time specific to the board meeting. (otw does have a contact us form to email their board or committee chairs, but i've never gotten a response lol.)
another weird thing that happened before the meeting started was that board member alex tischer was active answering questions in the help channel up to five minutes before the meeting, but didn't stay for the meeting. i don't think a reason was shared for this. this is relevant because alex has been criticized for racist responses to chinese volunteers, particularly those that ran & interacted with otw's weibo account, both in the past & last month when they closed their weibo account without any notice to the volunteers. this will also come up again later in the q&a section...
anyway. the meeting starts. all of the discussion directly about the meeting is supposed to happen in one discord channel called #public-board-meetings; the #help channel is supposed to be for tech issues etc. there is no separate channel for asking questions to the board - those are supposed to be posted in the main board meeting channel. and as far as we can tell, there are no mods of either of these channels apart from board members.
at the start of the meeting there are at least 209 attendees. for context, the last board meeting in march had 31. i've heard from people who have attended board meetings for the past couple years that there are usually 10-40 attendees per meeting. but again, given what's been going down, it's not surprising that so many people showed up!
and because there are a lot of people who haven't attended these meetings before, attendees immediately start asking questions, both process questions about the meeting and actual questions they want to ask the board. which again is understandable because there haven't been many answers given in the #help channel, and the board immediately muddies things further by giving confusing instructions about when to ask questions. they first say this - that they are going to proceed through their agenda, so people should hold questions that are NOT about any agenda items until the end. they imply that questions that are about agenda items are okay as they go through the agenda, but there will be conflicting instructions about this later...
agenda is posted & actual meeting content begins...kind of
here's the meeting agenda that was shared. not...terribly descriptive lol
- Decisions taken since the previous meeting
- Strategic Plan vote
- Update on OTW's Diversity Work
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Time for questions
people immediately start asking questions about various agenda items & also procedure questions. very few of these are answered. the first agenda item is posted - decisions taken since the previous meeting.
the board gives us "a couple minutes to read the above". everything's getting a little muddled already because people keep asking questions (reasonably!) about agenda items. there are several questions about the specific agenda item of "decisions taken since the previous meeting". some of the questions are getting answered by otw volunteers but none by board members at this point.
the board moves on to the next agenda item without answering questions about the "decisions" item. people are asking for a separate channel for questions but none is created. board members tell us they will try to get to all the answers at the end, but that we should send any additional answers to the board through the otw contact us form. many people point out that they've rarely gotten responses that way.
board gives a brief update (that was NOT on the agenda) from the finance committee chair, who was not at the meeting, to say that the 2023 budget was posted earlier this year, and that people can send questions via the contact us form. i'll note here that i sent a message to the finance committee with a question about the 2023 budget two months ago and have not gotten a response.
strategic plan update + question procedure still unclear
the board then starts to give an update on the strategic plan, which board members are to vote on today. attendees ask if the full strategic plan draft was shared publicly before this meeting and we are told it was only shared with volunteers, not with members or the public.
they do share an infographic summarizing the strategic plan. hilariously, the first version they upload is so blurry that it's unreadable. they then share a gdoc with alt text. if you are new-ish to otw stuff, this infographic and the jargon in it are probably pretty confusing.
the board keeps giving us "a few minutes to check things out". people ask them to not do that and proceed because we can read while they are typing. questions to the board keep going unanswered and various other people say that we're supposed to hold questions until the end. we again get told conflicting things about how to ask questions. a board member asks us to hold ALL questions until the end, but an otw volunteer points to an earlier statement from a different board member & says that questions on the current agenda item are allowed.
at 45 minutes into the meeting, when most questions are going unanswered (and a lot of only being answered by otw volunteers, not board members), the board disables messages in the main channel so that they can proceed with the agenda. this is not usual board meeting procedure and was unannounced until they did it. people start getting really creative with emoji reactions because they can't ask questions. the board admits that they were unprepared for the number of attendees at this meeting.
attendees then start asking questions in the help channel, which has been put on "slow mode", which means each user can only post every thirty minutes. multiple otw volunteers share in the help channel that they warned the board about preparing for the meeting, and the only change the board made in response was to make it 30 minutes longer than usual.
in the main channel, the board does not have any public discussion on the strategic plan (which has not been shared, only the infographic has), and votes unanimously to approve it.
diversity work update, aka a glorified otw news post
the board moves on to the "diversity work update", which is now a standard section of every board meeting. they share two updates - firstly, that caste has been added as a protected class in the code of conduct, and secondly that they've heard the concerns coming from @end-otw-racism supporters and others. both of which were already shared a month ago in this OTW news post from a month ago, which they link to.
seriously, nothing new is shared in this part of the meeting that wasn't in that post. some update!
q&a part one
the board asks for emoji reactions again to see how many people are in attendance. unclear why they do this unless they were hoping people might have left? but alas for them, there are still 182 people that emoji react saying they are in the meeting!
the board FINALLY starts answering questions, but they do not yet re-enable messages so that users can ask more questions. they start by addressing the pluralkit issue from yesterday, but they don't give any response about the ableism that was allowed to go unchecked in the channel.
then, BAFFLINGLY, they start with answering questions from someone who wasn't able to make the meeting. how did this person submit those questions beforehand? NO ONE KNOWS. fortunately this person had (imo) good questions, but again, why were their questions given preference? unclear.
okay there were a LOT of questions and responses, so i'm going to stick to sharing the ones that were most important to me, which were about addressing racism within the otw and on ao3. hopefully someone else will summarize other issues!
we finally get our FIRST REAL NEW RESPONSE on a diversity/racism issue! the board says they plan to hire a diversity consultant by the end of the year.
we also hear that changes to otw's terms of service are being proposed to give the policy & abuse committee more tools to address harassment, including "racially-motivated" harassment.
board says the best way for people other than otw volunteers to get involved with anti-racism issues is...to stay up to date on what otw is doing, attend public meetings, and send questions through the comment form. what.
the board does not answer how they have reached out to fans of color in their work to address racism, which i assume means they haven't; they instead say that fans of color are free to provide input/feedback via the contact us form. emoji reactions explode
the board says that the strategic plan has initiatives to combat racism including improving diversity in recruitment (of...who? volunteers, board members? potential future paid staff?), hiring a diversity consultant, & forming "volunteer coalitions"
slight digression from my focus on racism issues because of how many times the board has told us to submit questions via their contact us form: very little clarity on how long it will take for answers to be questions, or how long people spend on responses
the goals for the future diversity consultant are to do an audit of the organization and offer recommendations on how to proceed. couldn't be vaguer lol
otw does not currently have plans to have an internal committee for diversity, equity, and inclusion work, since they're relying on the external consultant, but if the consultant recommends it they'll consider
by the time they've gotten through these responses, there are only five minutes left in the meeting! remember, messaging by attendees has been disabled for the past 40 minutes, so everything the board has answered so far is from people who got their questions in during the first 45 minutes (or, apparently, one person who managed to get in questions before the meeting).
q&a part two
at this point, the board FINALLY re-enables messaging for new questions, but clarifies that they will only take them until 9:30pm UTC. which means anyone who did actually wait to ask their questions now only has five minutes to ask them! questions start rolling in immediately. again, going to focus on the ones about racism.
i'm listing questions in chronological order that they are asked, but please note that the corresponding answers from the board are coming WAY later than the questions. the board took until 10:20pm UTC (almost an hour after the meeting was supposed to end) to answer all the questions. mostly i'm telling you this because the emoji reactions on the answers by the board get more limited as people understandably have to leave the meeting lol
the first question of round two is about how chinese & chinese diaspora volunteers have been treated re: the weibo account closure, & board member alex tischer's role in this.
board response is horrifyingly empty, only promising the creation of a new "anonymous form" to receive feedback from chinese and chinese diaspora volunteers on the situation.
an attendee asks for better prioritization of racism & equity issues in the meetings, and better preparation from the board. (note that the addition of "diversity work update" to the agenda is not new, i believe it was instituted late last year)
in response, board admits they were unprepared despite volunteers warning them, says they will take advice from this meeting forward. emoji reactions are out in full force
an attendee asks more details about how the diversity consultant research officer (who is NOT a hired diversity consultant, but an otw volunteer in charge of the hiring process for a consultant) engages with the board & what goals they have for the future consultant
response from board is that they meet weekly, and that the research officer is herself in charge of identifying goals for the future consultant
an attendee points out that "curate your space" tools are not enough to protect users from targeted abuse, including racist abuse, and that asking fans of color to reach out to the board instead of the other way around is bullshit (my words haha)
the board's response to this is to offload that onto the future diversity consultant. SERIOUSLY.
an otw member asks if the diversity consultant will also look at accessibility for disabled users across the otw
board essentially says "yeah, sure" lol
an otw member asks how otw will remove barriers to becoming a voting member and diversifying membership & committee leadership
board's response is that they don't know the demographics of their members or volunteers, which...somehow means they can't remove barriers that would help fans of color or non-western fans from becoming members and volunteers? lmaoooooooo
an attendee asks for accountability in ensuring that the incoming board keeps the current board's promises re: DEI, pointing to improvements made by the 2015 board that were later reversed by a new board make-up
board does not seem to understand this question so answers an entirely different one! (seriously, i double-checked which question they were responding to.)
an otw volunteer asks what the plans are to deal with the "ongoing exclusion and alienation of chinese-speaking volunteers"?
the board repeats that they have opened a feedback form for chinese-speaking volunteers. that's it.
so those are all the questions i saw on racism; as i mentioned, there were TONS more good questions on board transparency and communications, protection of volunteers, moderating board meetings better, lack of feedback collection on the strategic plan, etc.
at PRECISELY 9:30pm UTC, messages are disabled again so that no more questions can be asked. all of the otw board responses that i shared above are from after messages were disabled again.
takeaways
this meeting was a complete mess. the process was extremely unclear and made things inaccessible; while the board did (from what i can tell) answer all the questions posted, people were not able to ask all the questions that they'd planned because of the unannounced disabling of messaging.
and then, of course, there's the fact that the majority of the answers are bullshit, which is probably the least surprising thing about this meeting.
it's just ridiculous that they weren't prepared for this. given everything that's gone down in the past months, why on earth wouldn't they assume that people would show up with hard questions? the mismanagement and incompetence is frankly astounding. which i guess is the story of the last few months re: OTW anyway!
so...see you at the next one in a few months, i guess? 🤷🏾♀️
250 notes
·
View notes
If you were to rewrite Jackson, would you still implement the love triangle? If so, would you make it more of an unrequited love or would you truly explore Jayley? If not, what type of role would you have him play?
TGW outtake suggestion:
In chapter 30 (I think) it mentioned Elijah never called Hayley for her birthday, and knowing Elijah, he’d probably feel guilty about this. So I’m thinking this could start from the dinner Hayley, Elijah, and astra we’re having together and at the end of the dinner, Elijah pulls astra aside and tells her that he wants to plan this whole day out as a surprise to celebrate her birthday. Then the next day could be them doing all sorts of activities and Elijah giving her some sort of expensive gift or something.
That explanation sucked, basically just Elijah plans a day to celebrate Hayley’s birthday because he feels guilty that he missed it.
If I was the writer from the beginning, I would have gotten rid of any love triangles. I've said it before, I don't like them. They are unnecessarily messy. Especially in a show like TO where the plot is so heavy. It worked better in TVD because the show centered more around the relationships. Most of the enemies were part of the romantic drama. But TO was focused on family and the enemies were typically after power or revenge. There wasn't time for messy relationship drama. I would have preferred for the show to have established relationships that could have been partners/supported each other throughout the show.
I've loved Nathan Parsons since before TO even existed so I was so excited to see him in TO. Fun fact, he was one of my first male crushes. I was then super disappointed to see his character be so underutilized and underdeveloped. I would have introduced him as alpha of the pack without the arranged marriage. I know many cultures have arranged marriages and that is great as long as everyone wants it. Hayley was not comfortable with it and said it multiple times. I hated that the show just kept going down that path and introduced the arranged marriage again in season 2 just under a different name, the "unification." If I was in charge, the women would have much more autonomy in the show.
I would have kept the warring family idea and even had Jackson be warry of Hayley's sudden appearance. This girl who is supposedly the long-lost "princess" of the pack shows up, pregnant by their enemies, and living with the Mikaelsons. Hayley would have had to earn his respect as well as the packs, but once she did, he would teach her the pack's history. I would also make him a better alpha. I don't think I would make him more politically minded because I would have played more into the fact that he has spent his entire adult life as a wolf because of the curse. He would have leaned on Hayley who naturally seemed to know how to make allies with the other factions. Instead of a marriage to fix the rift in the pack, Jackson and Hayley would have created a bond based on mutual respect and love for the pack. They would have introduced the idea of co-alphas without needing it to be romantic or sexual.
I hate when shows can't allow opposite gender individuals to just work together without it being romantic or sexual. I love a good friendship. That is one of my biggest complaints about TVDU. It created such great friendships but instead of developing them, it focused on the romantic drama. The friendships/found families in New Orleans were what was going to save it from war. You have Marcel and Davina, Vincent and Cami, Cami and Marcel, Vincent and Freya, etc. These bonds that transcended the factions was what saved them over and over. But the wolves are left out of that since, after Jackson died Hayley basically forgot about the pack. They could have done it with Eve, but she died to early. It would have been nice to see Jackson forming those bonds with the other factions, starting with Hayley.
I wouldn't do an unrequited love storyline. These always just make me sad. I know it happens in real life but that's why I love fiction, I don't need to add any unnecessary pain that way (I know that's ironic coming from me). If I did explore Jayley, I would have actually shown them developing feelings for each other. Show Hayley being torn between her feelings. And then shown that even if you love someone and try to make it work, for various reasons, it may not. This doesn't mean it was bad or one of the partners was "evil." In real life, relationships don't work out, it doesn't make the relationship any less important or impactful.
I truly do think Jackson deserved better from the writers. This is why *spoilers for my story, The Great War* I had jayley end the way they did. It was on Jackson's terms. I know some people thought it was out of character, and maybe it was for the show, but that's the point. Jackson is supposed to be a strong leader, yet he couldn't stand up for himself in the show. He gave Hayley ultimatums instead of setting boundaries and then just left when it got hard. They needed to have a real conversation. So in my story, when they did have this real conversation, they realized they were never going to get what they wanted out of the relationship. Jackson deserved to be able to set his boundaries and get away from the Mikaelsons. He deserved to have a love that isn't forced or manipulated. It's why I didn't kill him. I hated that so many characters were sacrificed just to push certain ships or push the Mikaelson story forward (RIP Gia).
I have already written an outtake for chapter 30 but I do love this idea. And y'all know I love writing haylijah. I'm not sure when I'll get it done but I will definitely write this!
Thanks for the ask and the suggestion!
11 notes
·
View notes
two more otw board directors, natalia gruber and antonius melisse, have resigned from the otw board.
while not mentioned in otw's post, the context for this appears to be that because both natalia and antonius were on hiatus at the moment, the board would not be able take action on the demands surfaced by otw volunteer dhobikikutti, and supported by other otw volunteers, calling for the suspension of otw board director alex tischer for a history of racist behavior.
(it's worth nothing that kutti, who is a person of color and a volunteer with the otw tag wrangling committee, was officially reprimanded for speaking out about racism in the org, which was not only limited to critique of alex, and included kutti being told kutti was making other volunteers uncomfortable by asking for action on racism in the org. yup. super fucked up!!!!)
according to fail_fandomanon, vounteers asked natalia and antonius to either return from hiatus so the board could potentially convene on this topic, or resign, and they appear to have chosen the latter option.
a few takeaways from this:
there are now three remaining board directors: president kari dayton, secretary alex tischer (the board member with a history of racism), and michelle schroeder. kari and michelle would both have to vote for alex's removal, unless alex resigns
it's unclear to me if people expect kari and michelle to take up the matter of alex's suspension or not; alex is also leaving the board after elections, but a suspension would still matter in the time left in alex's term and because alex would otherwise likely continue as an otw volunteer
the otw board elections are now uncontested because there are five candidates and five seats. the seats are for different term lengths, so the election will still happen to determine which directors get which seats
the broader context for all of this too is that a lot of the conversations that got us to this point were catalyzed by the @end-otw-racism campaign launching in may. @end-otw-racism is currently running a #VoteToEndOTWRacism action to advocate for incoming board members to uphold the otw's 2020 commitments.
we'll see what else happens before the elections, which will take place in just a few weeks, from august 11 to 14!!!
118 notes
·
View notes