I mean I can think of why there wasn't a democratic process within committees for chairs, but term limits and a set way to train successors would be a good way to cycle the positions and lessen burnout, overwork, etc.
From what other commenters have said about the culture of toxic overwork and other ways volunteering is a pain, some structural changes and cultural changes may make it so more people ARE willing to volunteer for chairs and learn the responsibilities of the roles. It sounds like the problem of "no one wants to run for/volunteer for chair" and "chairs have no term limits, are hard to remove, and become entrenched as the only people who know how things work because volunteer burnout and turnover are so high, plus they have enormous workload and feel responsible not to quit" are just, the same problem. It's an exploitative way to run things
Agreed on both counts. I also feel like the average volunteer (and also the average AO3 user) knowing what each grade of position entails in terms of work and responsibilities would go a long way toward ensuring resiliency in the system, as well as drawing all that institutional knowledge out where it can be of use.
Comment on Resignation of OTW Directors
switchwitchbitch Fri 28 Jul 2023 10:35PM UTC
Comment Actions
TexasDreamer01 Sat 29 Jul 2023 07:32AM UTC
Comment Actions