maia_bob: OTW Logo with text "OTW Board 2013 (wtfpolarbear)" (OTW Board WTF)
[personal profile] maia_bob
393 emails this week of which 276 are labeled OTW - !General and 52 are labeled OTW – Board. My calendar says ~16 hour week (I have a spreadsheet and a chart - I aspire to things levelling out at some point)

The Meta thing now looks more like this:
  1. Decide we're going to do it AKA talk for ages then come to a decision (we did this)
  2. Discuss it a lot internally (we have been doing this)
  3. Publish the proposed revised Terms of Service (ToS) for people to comment on (draft public post being worked on so happening in the not too distant future)
  4. Discuss people's comments and feedback and revise again (after 3.)
  5. Depending on people's comments, like, if people all say 'hey, it should be more like this' and everyone seems to agree and we think it looks good too then we might be able to go straight to 6. or we might need to do 2-4 again.
  6. Publish the Terms of Service (ToS), make changes to the Abuse and Support policies so they match the Terms of Service.
  7. Make a Design for Meta on the AO3 and plan when to make code changes. This will probably take a while, we need to have 1-6 first PLUS we have limited coder resources AND we prioritise improving and fixing performance over new features - even very important ones. *loves on AD&T*

That thing I can't talk about that I didn't talk about last week or the week before that got approved and communicated internally is now being set up which is exciting (for me). Maybe one day I can talk about it ;)

I also chaired the Open Board meeting which was committee updates (next DevMem drive, what the next org-wide meeting topic should be, timetable for feedback on annual report draft, and me asking if ppl would be interested in a committee chair discussion group for general support and self-improvement. Point the last was later gently brought to my attention as a thing that VolCom plans to do so I have apologised for toe-stepping and offered my energy to support their plans *apologises again*

The Closed Board meeting was amazing, we talked about important things like “what would Axl Rose do” (Me, I live by What Would Modesty Blaise Do) and talked about Meta *points at checklist above* and what step seven might look like. I learned more about what the Category Change Workgroup is doing (yay Cat Change!) Then we had a long talk about feelings, mine in particular, how Boarding is working out for me and how I perceive the things that we’ve done. I appreciate how willing the Board is to talk to me about these kind of things, and to share experiences and perceptions. I am always aiming to create a safe enough space that people will talk to me, and trust me enough to share what’s going on for them* and I’m so glad the Boardroom is turning into one of those spaces.

FYI: the Board chatroom tag is “Group hug Time!”

*If I'm not and you can find a way to tell me I will always listen, and I will try to fix it.

Date: 2013-03-11 09:08 am (UTC)
copracat: Modesty Blaise from the comic La Machine (princess)
From: [personal profile] copracat
Me, I live by What Would Modesty Blaise Do

:D

Date: 2013-03-11 02:56 pm (UTC)
samjohnsson: It's just another mask (Default)
From: [personal profile] samjohnsson
if ppl would be interested in a committee chair discussion group for general support and self-improvement.

If matty didn't say "hell yes" to this, allow me to. (I honestly avoid the Open Board and All-Org chats because their "flow of information" and my ability to signal process do not get along at all, and I get frustrated-rage-y.)

Also, I'm so ready for this round of the meta discussion to get posted so we can move on it.

Date: 2013-03-11 03:46 pm (UTC)
cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Default)
From: [personal profile] cesy
It's been proposed over and over again for the past few years, and it's always either been blocked by a few chairs and board members who didn't want it, or something's been set up and then not used very much (like the all-chairs mailing list or chairs chatroom). So, I'm glad something is happening about it again, but I'm still a little cynical over whether it will actually work and help.

Date: 2013-03-11 11:13 pm (UTC)
samjohnsson: It's just another mask (Default)
From: [personal profile] samjohnsson
If it hasn't become obvious by the round of meetings we had, we're vaguely allergic to some of the lack of communication that plagued the org in the past. (And now I wonder what VolCom is planning.)

Date: 2013-03-12 01:55 am (UTC)
transcendancing: Darren Hayes quote "Life is for leading, for not people pleasing" (Default)
From: [personal profile] transcendancing
Go you and yay for the Board, all the Chairs for the very dedicated work - appreciating that everything's quite full on at the moment so please pass on some *random love* from me.

this has very little to do with your post ...

Date: 2013-03-16 01:35 am (UTC)
ghost_lingering: CJ Cregg wants your vote. (rock the vote)
From: [personal profile] ghost_lingering
But I have a question about where to ask a question!

Basically, I have questions about the respective policies of Fanlore and Fanhackers re: obtaining permission to reference a fan's work.

(For your reference, in case you don't know what I'm talking about: here's a post about Fanhackers policy from an outside pov with discussion in comments with a Fanhackers mod http://elf.dreamwidth.org/673250.html. Basically: they require permission to link. Here's an official post from Fanlore referencing their image policies, though not all of the details of the debate: http://fanlore.dreamwidth.org/66106.html Basically: they cite fair use as a reason they don't have to ask permission.)

While the two situations are different, and while there are different issues at play in each (uploading vs linking/quoting, [mostly] text vs images, different fannish norms for different fannish communities, fair use statutes, academic norms, etc), there is a similar core issue of whether asking permission to reference a fan's work is necessary or not. It seems, to me, like there is a disconnect between the two different policies and that, as such, there should maybe should be an org-wide conversation instead of happening in different pockets of the org that don't (from an outsider POV) seem to be aware that other people within the org are having similar conversations.

So I guess I'm wondering who I would ask about the apparent disconnect between different OTW project policies and who I would ask to request that this become a cross-project/cross-org discussion. I'm not really asking/expecting that the discussion happen in public, but from a user pov it seems ... odd? ... to me that the two policies are so different. At the very least I'd like to request some kind of official answer why fair use supersedes fannish norms in one case but not the other, and ask what if any official OTW org-wide policy there is.

Would this be a question for legal? The Board? Some other group or groups?
From: (Anonymous)
you might want to check out fanhacker's updated policy discussions here: http://fanhackers.transformativeworks.org/2013/03/admin-input-wanted-proposed-changes-to-fanhackers-policy-on-quoting-fannish-meta/ Fair use is tricky and has to be judged on a case by case basis. But the new policy is trying for a compromise between a core OTW principle (fair use) and the fannish etiquette of a few groups.
ghost_lingering: CJ Cregg wants your vote. (rock the vote)
From: [personal profile] ghost_lingering
Thank you for this! I did see, after posting my initial comment, that Fanhackers was revising their policy, but I still would have been curious about if there was an org-wide discussion or policy regarding permission.

Part of why I was asking was because, as non-fiction and other types of fanworks are introduced to and become more prevailent on AO3 I think that you'll need to develop a policy for AO3, beyond what already exists for bookmarking links off-site, linking to related or remixed works within the site, and importing at-risk archives via Open Doors. I can think of oh so many hypotheticals that don't seem to fall under current AO3 policies.

I was also asking because, professionally, I've had to deal with both arguing that certain things were covered under fair use as well as obtaining necessary permissions for images, etc that weren't fair use (or that were borderline fair use) and so I have incredibly mixed feelings on the current Fanlore policy. Not mixed feelings as in "omg hate it!" like some people; rather I have feelings that actively contradict my other feelings. So I've been following the discussion, albeit haphazardly.

While I wasn't exactly expecting there to be a blanket OTW policy, I think it might be useful if there was an official one, even if that official policy boiled down to something like this: "The OTW empowers its different projects/committees to create their own policies, in collaboration with Legal and The Board, regarding fan permission. This is because each project is tackling the OTW mission -- to promote, protect, and preserve fan cultures -- in unique ways. A one-size-fits-all policy could not accommodate the different needs and goals of the projects. Each policy is crafted after carefully considering fan community norms, fair use law, the OTW mission." And then have a list of all of the different project policies.

Thanks much for taking the time to answer!

Profile

maia_bob: Me posing on a pink canon (Default)
maia_bob

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 101112 13 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 09:54 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios