This was a very complicated and time-consuming decision to reach, and some of the lack of transparency comes from the fact that there was 50% Board turnover while this conversation was ongoing.
Ultimately, when the new Board convened for this term, we looked at the conversation that had been happening within and outside the Organization for the previous six months (according to the Board minutes the question of meta was first officially discussed by the Board on July 7th) and came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of both our users and our staff that a basic decision be made as soon as possible. We had many users who had been waiting all that time to find out if their meta could stay on the Archive, and several committees, particularly Abuse and Support, who needed an answer in order to perform their duties properly.
So, we narrowed the question of meta down as far as we could and looked at the one part of it that is ultimately a decision that the Board has to make: Does hosting meta fall under the purview of the OTW as described in our Mission Statement. And the answer we came to was yes.
Determining how meta should be supported is a matter for committees and users. How multimedia hosting ultimately works on the Archive is also a question for our committees and our users. But determining whether supporting meta on the Archive is consonant with OTW’s mission falls squarely within the Board’s purview.
We’re aware that our decision seems very abrupt, and we agree that more transparency would have been preferable. Your criticism on that point is entirely justified. The Board’s overall workload and the emotional burnout many of us were feeling regarding this topic were obstacles that prevented us from communicating effectively. We regret our shortcomings in this area and will strive to do better in the future.
That's the answer I really wanted to hear from the board, and I wish it had been included in the announcement. I'll still be worried about the ability to require media categories, but that's another issue entirely, and one that we'll hopefully get to eventually. But the fact that this was decided by the board and that y'all own up to making that decision was the point of contention for me. I agree that this is in your purview and I feel that it might have been better to just say that rather than mask it as a shared decision where the only stakeholders heard were those complaining loud enough one way or another. You eight (we're at eight now, right?) decided, and you were indeed elected (or appointed) and to me that's OK. We can't have every decision made by committee or by stakeholder referendum. Just please say that and acknowledge and own it. I really appreciate your candor!
FWIW, I disagree ideologically with the decision, and am just realizing why as i'm trying to wade my way through this discussion and the fact that anything I might repost to AO3 would miss the vital conversations in comments that for me are the center of why any of my posts might be important. But that's my personal preference, and I totally understand and respect why others feel strongly about maximum inclusion.
Anyway, ideological disagreements are for a conversation better held in journal space. Thank you for commenting and explaining the rationale for how and why this decision was reached and publicized now.
Comment on OTW Board Approves Meta Hosting on the AO3
Cat M M (FairestCat) Mon 18 Feb 2013 05:24AM UTC
Comment Actions
Podcath Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:07PM UTC
Comment Actions