?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
meta rec - otw - our fully furnished fannish city by iamsab
epic
seperis
iamsab has posted a fabulous piece on the Organization for Transformative Works, titled OTW - Our Fully Furnished Fannish City. She covers a lot of the points that I think many people, supporters, neutrals, and non-supporters, have asked, thought, argued, or considered. I do recommend it to anyone with a passing interest. It's an excellent, excellent read.


  • 1
Thanks for the link. I've been in wait-and-see mode since the beginning and I've been enjoying the discussions here.

Thanks for the link! I'm reading with interest so many comments about OTW from various viewpoints. It still seems like even the folks who don't care one way or the other, or who wouldn't join a group if they had a gun pointed at their head, are writing very intellectual, academic-type posts. Is it possible that there's a large number of fans on LJ who are BOTH brilliant & educated AND "simple folk" who love to knit, love their dogs and cats and horses and boyfriends and girlfriends and cooking...? In other words, OTW may well be a case of "different strokes for different folks": a little comment on LJ about the snow or a recent vacation trip is and probably should be couched in different language than someone's Masters Thesis!

Anyway, thanks for the rec of this very to-the-point posting regarding OTW. Much of what is written on LJ interests me, possibly because of how it's written rather than the topics! I've been surprised to find myself enjoying photos of horses because of the charming comments which accompany the pics, for example!

This LJ space is awesome and unless I'm kicked out, I can't imagine not wanting to stay here and enjoy this diverse, funloving and talented community. I came for the fics but I'm staying for the company.

Love, mxm

Okay, but wait: I followed the link bethbethbeth left in the comments to the list of members of the board and committees and it looks to me that Heidi is *not* "one of the five members of the board" as was touted on Scalzi's blog but one of the five members of the legal team. And, most importantly, *not* the chair. This sounds more reasonable to me.

*nods* did someone else say otherwise? The comments I saw named her specifically as part of the legal team--though I'd be utterly unsurprised if it was touted she was a member of the board. *sighs*

I'm not about to go back through all the comments to find it, but the understanding I came away with was that she was one of the top five people putting this together, in charge of legal. I'm relieved to see this isn't the case, and that she has oversight over her work.

Really, unless we're about to kick her out of fandom and insist she can't participate in anything because of past behaviour, this seems like a fair solution. And possibly a chance for her to redeem herself.

*sighs* So completely unsurprised to hear that, too. Also: I must stop sighing.

Really, unless we're about to kick her out of fandom and insist she can't participate in anything because of past behaviour, this seems like a fair solution. And possibly a chance for her to redeem herself.

Pretty much yeah. The fact is, and I lose this thread totally sometimes, that we msut match our own self-policing with the opportunity for people to move beyond their mistakes.


(Deleted comment)
Oh, yay, an official-type person. While you're bopping around, any chance of popping in here to respond to a comment about OTW's "profoundly sexist agenda"? Because I don't really know enough about OTW to start defending it, but it's really bothering me.

(Deleted comment)
Okay, thanks. I'm certainly looking forward to responses to questions I've seen around. The "sexist" comment just really pushed my buttons, because it seems so much to be the anathema of their position.

Just went to read that link myself.

...so I'm guessing they actually haven't read *anything* in regards to the archive? Because it's not like for most of them, the lj user name isn't right there.

*blank* Wow. I've never heard the originators accused of not being in fandom. That's--new. And bizarre.

She claims to have been "watching that since it started, at first with hope, now with disillusionment" so I can only assume that she misunderstood the mission statement?

There was enough confusion in response to iamsab's post that she had to clarify what she meant by "female-space" and how that's not intended to be non-inclusive. I have real problems with *Ces* being accused of *sexism*. ::boggles::

The not-in-fandom accusation is possibly more surreal, though.

Yeah, I find myself doubting about the 'watching all along'. The names aren't exactly a state secret or inaccessible.

Seriously. Not part of fandom? No words there.

Other--you know, one of the few things that actually makes me blow off my concerns is the weird level of pettiness that people achieve over wording. It's surreal.

The names aren't exactly a state secret or inaccessible.

Remember that the Board Members are going by real names, though; even I don't recognize *every* name, just the two that matter to me. *g*

yeah, but it started in astolat's lj from the beginning--I mean, from waht I remember, there's a *link* to it for the volunteers. So--*shrug* I guess it's possible. Just deeply unlikely.

  • 1