We understand that the announcement that meta will be a welcomed part of the AO3 has disappointed some, particularly in terms of how the decision was made. However, there were various issues that the organization had to consider aside from simply how many users were interested in the matter, and whether these opinions favored inclusion or not.
While there was no general post made announcing this internal process, the OTW was receiving feedback from users through various means. This included the cases of meta reported to our Abuse Committee, questions about it through our Support and Communications Committees, the occasional public comment, and the increasing visibility of non-fiction material appearing on the archive.
It was clear that a decision had to be made, both in terms of whether or not the content fit our mission, as well as what the internal impact would be of either hosting or not hosting it. These were issues that could only be decided by an internal body, since it would require input from people with knowledge of the archive's resources, the current and likely future technical demands, and experience with how increased activity might impact relevant groups of volunteers.
Going forward though, we can expect user input to direct us in determining how meta should be defined, what concerns users have with its continued existence on the AO3, and how we can serve groups that support its availability as well as those who don't want it to impact their use of the archive for other types of content. For example, any changes to our content policy has to undergo a public
review period where feedback will be gathered for further modifications.
We recognize that users may see this decision as one which will impact their use of the AO3, possibly increasing or decreasing it, and the same will likely occur as we become able to better support non-text formats. However, we see this development as part of the AO3's natural growth in its userbase, and its relevance to many as a source of fanwork preservation and access.
We welcome user feedback, even when it disagrees with our decisions, as this is a sign of a committed userbase who cares about this project. We hope that going forward we can continue to serve people with differing needs and expectations of the AO3 just as other fandom sites have also done.
I find your answer genuinely disingenuous considering that a decision was reached similarly without input AGAINST meta and that decision was then tabled due to lack of transparency and community input.
It is perfectly fine if the board decides that this is solely a board decision, but then I am curious why the decision that would disallow nonfiction writing entirely was not upheld, since it was majority vote of the board.
To answer this I need to get into some of the nitty-gritty of how the Board operates. You're right, the initial vote last term was a majority decision to disallow nonfiction writing, however that vote was then discarded by that same Board because of some procedural issues related to how it was called.
With the Board strongly divided, several alternative proposals to the Board making the sole decision were discussed and ultimately tabled, as no clear decision that everyone was happy with had been reached before term-end.
One of the current Board's primary areas of focus has been clarify exactly what is within our purview as a Board and what isn't. When the Board reconvened in 2013, the plan had been to finish carrying out the established plan but we quickly realized that — partly as a result of the Board’s dramatically changed composition and partly because of our new focus on clarifying purview — we no longer felt it to be the best course of action.
The changing composition of the board meant revisiting the topic with different viewpoints represented amongst us, and some Board members who had previously voted against meta changed their positions with greater time to consider the issue. Since the previous vote had been vacated by the same Board that made it, it was necessary to vote once again on the issue. We held a fresh vote and the result was overwhelmingly in favor of meta.
We are aware that the Board reclamation of the decision seemed very abrupt, and we acknowledge that more transparency would have been preferable. The Board’s overall workload and, the emotional burnout many of us have experienced as a result of the length and intensity of the meta discussion, were obstacles that prevented us from communicating effectively. We regret our shortcomings in this area and will strive to do better in the future.
Comment on OTW Board Approves Meta Hosting on the AO3
admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:23AM UTC
Comment Actions
anon (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:40AM UTC
Comment Actions
FairestCat Mon 18 Feb 2013 07:13PM UTC
Comment Actions