AO3 elections: I'm listening.

I let my AO3 membership lapse, so I don't have a vote. But I started following the election once it turned into a furor.

I mean, okay, I read astolat's detailed answers to questions a while back, and got the sense that apparently a rubber stamp election wasn't anymore.

I still haven't gone through Ainsley's giant compilation of election posts.

But here are the posts I've read so far (besides astolat's):

A shattered Lim's resignation.

Bookshop's position and analysis of the politics of the election revolt against AO3's status quo, or 'Listen to the rest of the community! There's more to AO3 than the archive.'

Board president on why she's resigning, or 'Listen to the exit interviews: When volunteer after volunteer quits for the same reason, you've got a problem.'

What I found most illuminating was skud's post on the technical aspect of AO3's project management and how it caused Lim's disaster, or 'You know, if you'd listen to the developers, you'd have a lot more help.'

You notice a pattern? Me, too.

AO3 elections: the picture starts to come together.

The kitty boys are playful today. Junior's up on the rocking chair, alternately attacking and licking his tail (grooming can be fun), while Rothy's galloping around and playing the goofball, pouncing on toys and throwing them in the air. They're looking at each other's play, like they want to join in, but I've reminded them that they usually end up fighting.

The AO3 Election

Reading the posts from general_jinjur and renay, it's clear that volunteers at AO3 are unhappy.

A picture has emerged from unhappy ex-volunteers: AO3 has a culture of silencing complaint, ignoring suggestions, and shutting people out. Everyone seems to agree that a few people do the majority of the work; some say that therefore the ones who do the work should make all the decisions, while others say the little guys should have some voice. Either way, a picture of internal unilateralism has emerged.

The organization doesn't exist without the volunteers, so dealing with volunteer frustration is the fundamental issue to me.

Julia Beck - Understands the issue, is aware of volunteers complaining through backchannels, is aware of the cause of this (a siege mentality/wank paranoia). Doesn't quite have a plan beyond creating internal avenues for complaint, which would increase the lack of transparency, I think.

Naomi Novick - Not a clue. It's like, wow, everything's honky-dory, volunteer burnout is to be expected. Now that I've read her original response (rather than the detailed version in her journal) I'm so turned off by her position statement on this issue, she's not even on the map as a candidate as far as I'm concerned. Her missing the chat is another problem, but she's not the only one who missed important chat meetings. Wrong, nevermind, she's the only who missed any of the chats.

Betsy Rosenblatt - I like this candidate. Volunteers are not the central issue for her, but her approach is to decentralize and give more authority to the committees. Her strategy is very corporate, if concrete, by giving people avenues to complain other than their own committees. I smell HR experience.

Nikisha Sanders - This candidate is facing a huge learning curve in the other aspects of OTW. Sounds like she's doing a fabulous job where she is, but I wouldn't throw her into the board just yet. A future potential.

Jenny Scott-Thompson - This is my candidate. Hoo-rah, her primary issue is volunteer burnout. Transparency! She's also about transparency! Yay! She has great ideas, from letting us know who's running what to facilitating cross-committee communication. Unfortunately she missed gave sketchier responses in the second chat, which is a problem. But she's concerned about the issues I'm concerned about, plus I like her attitude and philosophy (she's not as corporate as the other candidates). She's my choice.

Jenny Scott-Thompson for OTW board!