![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
synonymousDisclaimer: This post mostly is to note the issues the OTW has had historically. It does not necessarily reflect on the OTW's current board, and is largely here for documentation.
(source)
In a Dec. 8, 2013 thread that is also discussed on this page, an ex-OTW nonny who’d “walked away from the OTW” a number of times before finally quitting wrote two long comments, worth reading in their entirety. They said OTW board members “fuck up things because they have little technical knowledge and refuse to admit that is so, to the point of throwing outright temper tantrums if they’re called out on it.” They refuse to let technological incompetents go “[b]ecause of some mix of ‘cult of nice’ [and] the idea that if you say no to someone who is getting things done, they might get mad and quit.
“This is the way of the OTW. Much of the coding structure to the AO3 is ancient spaghetti code left from the days when the committee chairs were afraid to say no in case people would quit. […] The OTW spends thousands of dollars on new servers,” but because they won’t change the obsolete code, that money is spent inefficiently. The Board also pays for things they could have gotten for free had they not “drive[n] off competent people,” and they often go to committee chairs and offer to throw money at them. Because “[OTW] income outpaces outgoing money,” this has not yet caught up with them in full.
Additionally, people slap Band-Aids on the crises caused by poor planning are “hailed as heroes,” but “[t]hese same heroes are the ones refusing to do the prevention and planning - making plans and writing code to automate things is boring. Getting lauded for fixing disasters is an ego boost. […] And that’s why the OTW is going to limp along with major problems every few months for lord only knows how long.”
Another nonny turned up to write the following comment:
OTW wank is my very favorite wank. From talking with friends who are involved, I know that all the little glimpses and glimmers of dysfunction that make it out from behind the OTW Curtain are only the barest hints of how completely fucked they are on the inside. I am amazed that they haven’t imploded in a fit of blazing spooj and tumbled slowly over, slipping gently into the waves of “you could have seen this coming a mile away and fixed it like a million times over if you didn’t think ‘best practices for NGO operations’ were something that happened to other people”.
It's like Christmas, really it is. I have never in my entire life seen a group of people more willfully determined to screw things up and screw themselves over. They are a perfect example of Cult of Nice meets Why Can't We All Just Get Along meets What Do You Mean Good Intentions Don't Get Shit Done. I feel horribly sorry for the people who genuinely believe in their mission, but oh my God, the entire organization is designed from the ground up to hit endless deadlocks and roadblocks, and while it probably would be possible to work around the inherent structural flaws, the cult-of-nice culture and the organizational emphasis placed on everyone feeling good about themselves rather than actually accomplishing anything pretty much torpedoes any chance.
The whole Big Bang Press [situation] actually makes me think of the OTW a lot, actually. They’ve got the same starry-eyed idealism combined with the same complete ignorance of the real world. The OTW is more “ignorant about the realities of how people actually work in groups” and BBP is more “ignorant about the realities of how publishing works”, but in both cases, the ignorance is epic.
In the same thread, a third (?) nonny writes, “The organization was doomed from day one because Naomi [Novik] and Francesca [Coppa] founded it as an ego-boost.” Nonny points out that “fandom is chock-damn full of people with extensive experience in advocacy … You ever think it was funny how none of these people wound up involved when the initial Board was set up?” Those people did volunteer, nonny continued, but Novik and Coppa ran them out. “And oh yeah, one more thing: they told these people who’d been fighting real world severe injustice for years that fanfic writers were an oppressed minority.”
Nonnies in that thread continued to discuss the OTW work environment. When one stated that “the problem is not just Board [but] runs deeper than that,” another offered this assessment:
I know personally of cases where people had evidence of Board members being openly hostile, bullying, harassing, etc. them and their committees. When they took this evidence to other Board members, the individuals responsible were dismissive, saying that people were just being “oversensitive” and refusing to engage in mediation or to even apologize. And some on the Board seemed to think that was perfectly okay. That is evidence of a toxic environment and, yes, the Board is largely to blame in term of how those situations — very damaging to staff morale in every case — were handled. And even though this has come up time and time again, the Board has shown no evidence of trying to address it or do better. They just wait for the wronged parties to give up or get so frustrated they quit and then they sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened. The hypocrisy the Board has shown by trying to require things of staff and committees that they refuse to do themselves in other areas has only further damaged the relationships between many staff and the Board and will only continue to do so as long as this is the status quo.
Nonny stated up front that while it's not only the Board making the work environment toxic, as leaders, they “should be role modeling responsible behavior.” Until that happens, however, “it will be difficult to improve the environment across the organization.”
The wiki editor who eventually created this page started a new thread to ask for some help in doing so from people with OTW experience. After the page went up, another nonny chimed in:
Wow, wow, wow. I just read the wiki page and it rang a lot of bells.
This may out me: A year ago, I was working on one of the major well known problem areas. I was working alone because nobody else wanted to touch it. I was open about what I was doing.
Then there was a minor disaster and things stopped working. One of those I-fixed-it-I’m-the-Hero types swooped in to fix the problem, except the fix was a horrible hack that undid my weeks of work, which was not the cause of things stopping. (Imagine you install Word on your laptop, and then the battery dies. Word did not cause your battery to die.)
I had protested the hack before it was put in place. I was ignored because this person is never wrong. I protested after the fact, and was belittled and called ignorant. When the hack failed because of all of my work being undone, I was told that I must be the cause of the new problem. When I went to the board liaison for the committee, I was told that I was merely having a personality problem with the hack person and that I should learn to see things from their point of view.
A week later, when things were completely falling apart, the person who made the hack told me, If you think you’re the expert, you redo it. Of course they meant, Go clean up my mess.
I quit. The person who put in that hack is still lauded as one of the best people at the OTW because they get tons of things done. The problem still exists, although it is limping along at the moment.
Lots more discussion of the OTW’s internal culture has turned up in autumn 2015 discussions of the organization’s elections and fundraising efforts. An ex-volunteer opined that when they were active in the OTW, “the culture itself was screwed up, and that dysfunction on the Board/committee level was a side-effect of that, not a cause.” The dysfunction, they said, comprised “some combination of conflict-averseness, insularity, and perfectionism of the if-it-can’t-be-perfect-it’s-not-worth-doing nature, which resulted in significant martyr complexes, defensiveness, and passive aggression at all levels.” And it has persisted because “the only people who last long enough to become staff/board are the people with the highest tolerance for those issues.”
Another nonny who joined in 2007 and helped found a new committee said,
the atmosphere was already in full swing. I was so confused about why I had better not talk to person A or tread softly when mentioning issue B or, better yet, not speak at all. I remember how Francesca stuck her foot in her mouth any time she opened it in public no actually every damn time — but God forbid we answer comments pertaining to our own purview! Which is why I don't give the founding member[s] a pass — they set up a broken system, and once it was running, no-one has ever succeeded in changing it from the ground up.
I have met people who have endured in the OTW for years and they’re either assholes, narcissists or just blithe optimists. The latter comment on meme in the form of grating puppyish earnestness, bless their hearts.
Various nonnies pointed out that the OTW seems to value not results but “squee” — i.e., deprecating expertise because “enthusiasm is all that’s required to do any job,” treating the hectic pace of Yuletide as appropriate to everyday operations, and praising those who put in the most hours regardless of what they accomplish. This leads to “a martyr complex that runs deep in the org. When you don’t work 40 hours on OTW stuff, people do criticize you.” Another nonny complained about being harassed for not responding to non-urgent emails immediately. A third said, “And there's the lovely implying of how much better they'd be at your job.//”// In summary, “my understanding of the OTW is that someone having healthy boundaries is considered not being committed enough to sparkle motion.” That last statement was validated by a former Board member.
Echoing a comment in the above-mentioned 2013 discussion, a nonny added that people with actual expertise in leadership, business, and nonprofits have been driven out of the OTW. “Astolat & co didn’t like what they had to say and one by one they found ways to make them leave. The worst I heard of was the woman who got dressed down for missing a meeting — because her daughter was in ICU.” Another nonny said they'd heard that experienced coders had been similarly targeted.
Although it took longer than at least one nonny had anticipated, the inevitable OTW stan showed up to claim that since “AO3 isn’t barging into people's houses and forcing them to donate,” they don’t owe anyone fiscal transparency. When someone else asked why “OTW volunteers, former volunteers, and so on react with such offense when asked basic questions,” there was this illuminating response:
You have to understand that the OTW didn’t grow out of a sensible mentality.
The OTW basically is a cult, in a lot of ways. It takes people who are pretty normal (fandom) and it tells them they’re special, they have this extraordinary and unique culture and viewpoint, and most importantly, that they are under siege. They are being persecuted and attacked for their activities. They’re so misunderstood that the world is trying to turn against them, but it’s okay! The OTW is here to protect them! If they keep the OTW going, they can back in the knowledge that they are special and persecuted for that specialness, but that they will be defended!
And yeah. That’s cult mentality right there. And trust me: nothing, absolutely nothing, will piss off the people who have bought into it more than the suggestion that actually, fanfic and fandom as a culture isn’t really that special, it’s not a minority status, and it doesn’t really need you to have some ultra-special defense force made of your other oh-so-special citizens.
Another nonny added, “There's another thing that cults do — they keep raising the bar. The activity you've given is never enough, the money you provide is never enough, the money they have is never enough (but don't ask what they do with it!). There must be more, more, more to show your devotion.”
One nonny theorized that all these dysfunctions spring from the norms of the fandom subculture that the OTW founders came out of: “Fandom is a social space for entertainment and relatively little is at stake there, and because of the lack of serious consequences, annoying and immature behavior is tolerated. The social norms are inherently unprofessional.” Another simply blamed “attempting to run a non-profit like a fandom challenge.”
“At this point their reluctance to manage money professionally is confusing because I *don't* think they have criminal intentions. But the Greek place down the street that's a front for the mob operates with more legitimacy than the OTW has demonstrated.
— Nonny, Oct. 9, 2015
Problems with how the OTW has been managing its money are outlined at the top of the page discussing their fall 2015 elections and fundraiser. Note that the details below were discussed on FFA before the OTW put up this post promising its donors that it would rectify at least some of the oversights mentioned on this page (initial meme discussion).
A nonny linked to the OTW’s M2014 annual report, wherein is the proud announcement that the organization “made important strides towards meeting standards for organizational best practices such as compiling an annual budget for the first time in the OTW’s history” (emphasis added). Another nonny remarked, “That’s terrifying.”
However, this nonny dug up a post on the OTW Tumblr referring to the existence of a budget of U.S. $221,863.44 for the OTW in 2014. That post and this one both claim that 70% of the budget goes to AO3, 30% toward “other projects, services, meetings and general administrative costs.” Nonnies subsequently discuss how much money colocation and servers actually need. (See also this comment from a previous post: “The Systems team who maintain AO3’s hardware have very clear plans for how to spend the OTW’s money on the purchase and upkeep of servers for an ever-expanding web site serving 15 million page views a day. The trick is getting the OTW to give it to them.”)
A nonny found the OTW’s public 990 form for 2013. In that year, they claimed total revenue of $167,000 but total expenses of only $54,599, leaving a surplus of $112,765. Between the AO3 and two issues of the academic journal Transformative Works and Cultures, they spent less than $30,000. Another nonny wondered why, then, they still felt the need to raise $175,000 twice yearly.
In response to the question “Does the Board give each committee a certain amount of money each year?”, a nonny who is with the OTW replied, “No. Until a couple weeks ago, when they panicked and realized people were starting to make noises for a budget for 2016, the Board had never contacted committees asking for how much money they planned to request for the following year. They have to approve each expense as it arises, in some cases, even expenses that happen regularly. It's a really silly system, to put it mildly.”
The OTW does not have an accountant to handle their books. A nonny who is an ex-banker believes that they should hire one without ties to the OTW at a salary of at least $10,000 per year, “possibly quite a bit more at the beginning to sort out the previous mess.”
A nonny asked, “Does the OTW even have any kind of internal audit or risk controls?” The reply: “No, we do not.” A volunteer answering questions on AO3 stated that they “plan to have an independent accountant audit or review its finances - paying for that service is one of our projected future expenses.” Meme discussion.
This nonny, going through old OTW meeting minutes, compiled a table of the amounts that the OTW has been keeping in a checking account, which earns no interest and may cost the OTW money in case of a bank crash; and in two PayPal accounts, which not only earn no interest but are vulnerable to theft and freezing. They also have more than $10,000 in a CD (certificate of deposit) account. Click image for larger version:
This nonny found slightly more recent numbers (Aug. 22, 2015): “PayPal Primary: 123,110.14; PayPal Secondary: 1328.95; Checking: 164,154.76; CD: 10142.79, with standard monthly expenses clearing.”
Additionally, their having two separate PayPal accounts for the same business violates PayPal's terms of service. Customers may have one personal and one business account, but PayPal forbids more than one business account “primarily to prevent money laundering and other illegal activity.” If one of the OTW PayPal account is a personal account that pre-dates their incorporation as a nonprofit, “it would need to be linked to an individual's bank account, which is obviously terrible from an ethical standpoint.”
A nonny observed, “What I take from this is that pretty much anyone could functionally shut down the OTW at any time by reporting them to either Paypal or the IRS.” Perhaps unsurprising, a nonny did actually email PayPal about this matter. All hell broke loose in that subthread, with people calling it a troll attempt to get FFA blamed for a hypothetical AO3 shutdown and asking that nonny, “Do you report all your friends who illegally download movies? Which is actually illegal and not someone violating the terms of service with a company? […] Who hired you to be a TOS officer for all companies ever?”
Other nonnies, however, defended the action. “AO3 isn't my friend. And honestly, after all this mess, I'd love if they stopped existing, so I'm gonna send an email to paypal too.” Similarly: “Zero sympathy for the OTW. I give no fucks whether the nonnie emailing PayPal was a Lawful Good OEA who was deeply, sincerely concerned or a grudgewanker looking to stir some shit. This is not some individual scrolling past the ToS text wall on their phone's new software update or posting rpf smut to ff.net or watching TV episodes on youtube. This is a huge-ass nonprofit organization handling more money than I make in several years.”
Less wankily, other nonnies pointed out that the AO3 was unlikely to go down due to this, there are laws requiring people who work in financial services to report this sort of thing, the real danger is more likely to be OTW getting reported to the IRS, and:
In this case, “breaking the rules” means 1) engaging in fraudulent financial behavior by way of almost certainly having one of those accounts linked to someone’s personal bank account, and 2) engaging in serious, IRL irresponsibility by keeping enormous sums of money, up to 1/3 of their overall assets, in an uninsured account. That's not just “breaking the rules” and reporting it isn't “trolling the wank”, it’s taking one of the very few actions available to anyone who, at this point, is profoundly concerned that the OTW is mismanaging people’s funds on a massive scale.
A fan by the handle of Madecunningly asked on AO3 whose name the second PayPal account was in and got a typically maddeningly chirpy and content-void response from the tag wrangler assigned to answer such questions. Comments from other fans went unanswered. (Meme discussion.)
Before immersing themself in the subject, this editor asked meme for a brief outline of the sticking points in question. Another nonny listed six, noting that the list was not exhaustive:
a) The lack of a budget for 2016, and possibly for prior years, and the Board’s role in this
b) That OTW is asking for $175,000 without a budget, and refuses to explain how they arrived at that figure
c) That the fundraising drive happened after the deadline to join and vote in the upcoming election (October 6)
d) The OTW does not break down their expenses by program. When asked about it, OTW staff gave links which many felt did no such thing.
e) Allegations of lack of financial safeguards against fraud
f) OTW doesn’t allow donators to earmark their donations
Specific problems with how the OTW has managed its money are described on the page OTW Fiscal Mismanagement.
Another noted that the OTW began to announce fundraising goals for the first time on AO3 in late 2014, despite having been in existence since 2008; in both fall 2014 and spring 2015 they met or exceeded their goals. “I think having visible goals made the lack of a budget and the poor planning much more glaring. The questions aren’t new; they’ve just been getting increasingly louder and more widespread for the past year.”
As the first nonny linked above mentioned, controversy over the OTW’s finances was sparked by two things: comments in the manifestos of new candidates for the Board of Directors about poor fiscal management at the OTW, and the firing of treasurer Nikisha Sanders, which also forced her withdrawal as a candidate for Board re-election.
The subject first came up on FFA on Sep. 15. A few ex-volunteers had good things to say about a couple of the candidates, but one expressed “serious, serious issues” with OTW fiscal management in the last several years; “the Financial Committee seems to have been allowed to collapse and as far as I can tell they have had just the one person (Nikisha Sanders) with oversight of the money.”
The next day, a nonny linked to a post by SVMadelyn, who had “looked through all the candidate statements and noted disturbing comments about the finance department.” Two had criticized Sanders without naming her; e.g., Matty Bowers had lamented that committees had been unable to get all their bills paid on time. Subsequent nonnies blamed a combination of Sanders’ dilatory approach to responding to emails and no one else being authorized to make payments. The bill-paying problem was verified by a current staffer on meme; the rumor that Sanders thus almost caused the OTW to lose the Fanlore.org domain name was also mentioned.
Then there was “this announcement that Sanders has resigned from her position as Treasurer - but still wants to serve again on the Board.” Another nonny translated the statement as, “We fired their ass, but we’re technically giving them a modicum of dignity.” An internal-only version of the announcement was shared on meme, and it was noted that Sanders was not thanked for her service therein.
In a post on her Dreamwidth, as broken down by this nonny and this one, Sanders wrote that the Board asked for her resignation, got it, consulted an outside attorney, created an entirely new position for her, and “suddenly changed the rules regarding the status of staff to attach her other roles in the organization to the Treasurer position after the fact.” Note this rule: “As of 2014, in order to be eligible to run for Board, a candidate must … be a current staffer on a standing committee in the OTW.”
This nonny further explains that in July 2014, when the Board dissolved the Financial Committee, they decided Sanders would remain a Board member ex officio — a decision recorded only on a page accessible only to OTW volunteers (but see more here per this nonny). “But it’s complete bullshit: she was working in Development & Membership, and had been doing so all year. She was part of the committee. She met the eligibility criteria. This is a shitty fabricated loophole that they created by firing her. Yeah, no wonder people are afraid.”
In the above-mentioned DW post, and in answers to questions on AO3 about her re-election campaign, Sanders blamed the Board for giving her insufficient support. In a later DW post, Sanders said she didn't expect to win, but if she did, she expected the Board to invoke its new abilities to oust fellow members in order to get rid of her. Nonnies wondered why anyone would vote for someone so “grudgy” and “resentful” toward the Board. Nor did Sanders’ claim that she had wanted to replace the Finance Committee with an internal audit committee, which the Board opposed, impress nonnies much at this late date.
Meme consensus on this matter is that Sanders was terrible at her job and an asshole (self-described, even) to boot: “she flips out at people, takes everything personally, and is incapable of maintaining any kind of standard of professional behavior.” Nonetheless, the Board is considered equally incompetent and abusive, especially Andrea Horbinski, and their course of action occurred after Sanders had announced her candidacy rather than during the three years of her tenure as treasurer. “The timing of this makes it seem like the Board was more concerned about impacting the election than actually caring about the welfare of the organization.” Also: “Most people would be fine with getting rid of sanders. The board didn't need to do it in the shadiest way possible. Now, everyone looks even worse.”
Horbinski, believed by some nonnies to be the Board member who engineered Sanders’ expulsion from the OTW, is if anything held in even lower regard. In her manifesto she claims that being asked for her goals “gives people an inaccurate idea of how the OTW Board (or any board) works!” Nonnies regarded this statement with dismay. Moreover, Horbinski
is also openly hostile and rude to volunteers. To the point that the rest of the board had to officially apologize for her in the past. She also celebrated a past board member Anna Genovese] rage quitting on twitter, and send the most passive aggressive internal emails I ever saw. I have no idea why she is doing on board either (or in the otw for that matter since no one can remember she doing any actual work in any committee). But she does for sure want to come back, to our collective despair.
Another nonny described themself as “the target of what I can describe as nothing more than harassment and bullying by [Horbinski] as a staff member and getting no support from the Board when I raised a concern about it … She also lacks the self-awareness to recognize her behavior when she's called on it and the tact to even offer the simplest apology when the impact of her words and actions are presented to her.”
The new rule banning non-staffers from running for the board appears not to affect Horbinski, even though she’s in the same boat. “Clearly rules don't apply to Andrea, considering that they apparently let her be involved in the process of disqualifying one of the people running against her.”
Nonnies linked to basic OTW service records for each candidate, outlined how each plans to balance their current role with Board responsibilities, and (in subcomments) summarized the platform of each.
Beyond that, nonnies have been skeptical that candidates can keep up their current managerial responsibilities while on the Board; wary of conflicts of interest; impressed with Atiya Hakeem, Matty Bowers, and Aline Carrão; and not so impressed with Eylul Dogrul.
In addition to now being able to vote out their own colleagues at will without cause, the Board has also shrunk itself. According to this Fanlore page, there should be nine seats, but per the OTW website there are currently six sitting members. The election is supposedly for two seats, which will result in a five-person Board. See also this comment from Kiri van Santen, as well as these comments by nonnies.
Additionally, “the Elections Commitee is not allowed to discuss the topic on this site without the approval of the Board and the Legal Committee. ” Nonny: “Yeah, totally aboveboard and definitely not a gag order in any way, shape or form. Elections isn't allowed to talk about elections?”
In a Sep. 26 DW post, Sanders produced a “paper trail” of correspondence between herself and the Board. In the meantime, the nuking of her candidacy did not go unnoticed by the other candidates.
Furthermore, as discussed in this AO3 thread, while donors are supposed to be able to vote for Board members, the deadline for voting eligibility this year was Oct. 6 — the same day the new fundraiser began. Therefore, anyone who donates to the OTW during this fundraiser gets no vote. Commenter Ro believes the Board absolutely intended to fool anyone who was not keenly attuned to OTW goings-on.
Furthermore, no amount of volunteer time put in at the OTW will earn a volunteer a vote without an accompanying donation of $10.00 U.S. “That theoretically means that someone can be doing free work for the org for like eight hours a week for an entire year and still have no say in the direction the org should go in if their financial situation is crap.” This could be rectified if the OTW wished to track volunteer hours, but they do not.
In the comments to one of the fundraising posts, an ex-volunteer using the handle “Ex-Volunteer” went on the offensive:
So, why exactly don’t you let your precious translation volunteers become members (and vote) by refusing to track their hours? Someone can make 40+ hours/week contribution and you still require them to pay you to become a member. I didn’t exactly feel empowered working for you.
The “answer,” as it were, is that the by-laws say that nobody can get a vote without ponying up ten bucks — and “An organization must follow its own by-laws, and our by-laws say we can’t do it.” Changing the OTW’s by-laws is apparently not possible. Ex-Volunteer again:
All you’ve said is that law requires you to follow your bylaws. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t your deliberate choice to exclude this option which isn't illegal ON ITS OWN RIGHT. It’s outright deception to claim you can’t do it because law forbids it. Actually, I see why you don’t want all your volunteers to be able to vote.
Ex-V showed up on meme to say, “Well, I am an ex-volunteer and when I found out that they were lying to me, I was quite pissed off.”
The results of the election came out on November 22nd. Atiya Hakeem (LadyOscar) and Matty Bowers had won the two contested seats, which everyone was generally happy with. However, the board had also decided to reelect Andrea Horbinski to a third vacant seat without giving anyone any notice or opportunity to contest this; they'd never even mentioned that there was a third seat available. According to statistics later released by the Election Committee, Horbinski received roughly one-third as many votes as the fifth-place candidate.
When this was revealed, AO3 users everywhere flipped the fuck out. The Elections Committee posted about this, stating that "Precedent, common sense, and ethics dictate that the membership's choices in an election be considered and respected. The Elections Committee supports the appointment of Alex Tischer to the Board to fill Anna's seat." (Tischer was the third-place candidate.) Meme produced two large threads in the same post on the subject. The first, "OTW elections: presented without comment", went to 164 comments. It was posted during the open meeting where Horbinski was “elected”, presumably by an OTW volunteer nonnie, and is largely about that meeting. In that thread, a link to a transcript of the meeting was posted. (That link goes to a nonny's side blog, not the original posting of the transcript, which is apparently only available to logged-in Tumblr users now.) EDIT BYsynonymous: I have uncovered a transcript of the meeting, which can be found here. (Source: Fanlore) They show that the volunteers present were, to a person, appalled and angry that the Board had done such a thing. AO3 volunteers and members on Tumblr started talking about votes of no confidence and ousting the Board completely. A particular point of contention was that Horbinski had been allowed to vote for herself.
The second meme thread, posted hours later and reaching 261 comments, was titled "Did the entire OTW board just resign?!" They had. Apparently, unable to deal with the backlash from reelecting Horbinski, the entire Board except for the two newly-elected members had resigned. Reactions ranged from "break out the celebratory booze" to "So do you think that the two remaining board members will get all the info on the embezzlement that has clearly been taking place, or will it just come as a surprise when they go to do the taxes in January?" (no actual embezzlement has been mentioned by any OTW source as of late January, but that thread goes into some detail on why nonnies suspect it may have occurred) to Tumblr's “AO3 is going to delete everything in hours!” Both threads also contain some speculation on WTF the Board thought they were doing and general suggestions for the new Board members on what to do next.
The two new Board members made a news post on the 25th. They stated that “The OTW and its projects… are operating normally,” explained some of the facts of the situation, and reassured everyone about what they were intending to do next. In general, the comments seemed positive and excited for this fresh start.
(source)
OTW culture
In a Dec. 8, 2013 thread that is also discussed on this page, an ex-OTW nonny who’d “walked away from the OTW” a number of times before finally quitting wrote two long comments, worth reading in their entirety. They said OTW board members “fuck up things because they have little technical knowledge and refuse to admit that is so, to the point of throwing outright temper tantrums if they’re called out on it.” They refuse to let technological incompetents go “[b]ecause of some mix of ‘cult of nice’ [and] the idea that if you say no to someone who is getting things done, they might get mad and quit.
“This is the way of the OTW. Much of the coding structure to the AO3 is ancient spaghetti code left from the days when the committee chairs were afraid to say no in case people would quit. […] The OTW spends thousands of dollars on new servers,” but because they won’t change the obsolete code, that money is spent inefficiently. The Board also pays for things they could have gotten for free had they not “drive[n] off competent people,” and they often go to committee chairs and offer to throw money at them. Because “[OTW] income outpaces outgoing money,” this has not yet caught up with them in full.
Additionally, people slap Band-Aids on the crises caused by poor planning are “hailed as heroes,” but “[t]hese same heroes are the ones refusing to do the prevention and planning - making plans and writing code to automate things is boring. Getting lauded for fixing disasters is an ego boost. […] And that’s why the OTW is going to limp along with major problems every few months for lord only knows how long.”
Another nonny turned up to write the following comment:
OTW wank is my very favorite wank. From talking with friends who are involved, I know that all the little glimpses and glimmers of dysfunction that make it out from behind the OTW Curtain are only the barest hints of how completely fucked they are on the inside. I am amazed that they haven’t imploded in a fit of blazing spooj and tumbled slowly over, slipping gently into the waves of “you could have seen this coming a mile away and fixed it like a million times over if you didn’t think ‘best practices for NGO operations’ were something that happened to other people”.
It's like Christmas, really it is. I have never in my entire life seen a group of people more willfully determined to screw things up and screw themselves over. They are a perfect example of Cult of Nice meets Why Can't We All Just Get Along meets What Do You Mean Good Intentions Don't Get Shit Done. I feel horribly sorry for the people who genuinely believe in their mission, but oh my God, the entire organization is designed from the ground up to hit endless deadlocks and roadblocks, and while it probably would be possible to work around the inherent structural flaws, the cult-of-nice culture and the organizational emphasis placed on everyone feeling good about themselves rather than actually accomplishing anything pretty much torpedoes any chance.
The whole Big Bang Press [situation] actually makes me think of the OTW a lot, actually. They’ve got the same starry-eyed idealism combined with the same complete ignorance of the real world. The OTW is more “ignorant about the realities of how people actually work in groups” and BBP is more “ignorant about the realities of how publishing works”, but in both cases, the ignorance is epic.
In the same thread, a third (?) nonny writes, “The organization was doomed from day one because Naomi [Novik] and Francesca [Coppa] founded it as an ego-boost.” Nonny points out that “fandom is chock-damn full of people with extensive experience in advocacy … You ever think it was funny how none of these people wound up involved when the initial Board was set up?” Those people did volunteer, nonny continued, but Novik and Coppa ran them out. “And oh yeah, one more thing: they told these people who’d been fighting real world severe injustice for years that fanfic writers were an oppressed minority.”
Nonnies in that thread continued to discuss the OTW work environment. When one stated that “the problem is not just Board [but] runs deeper than that,” another offered this assessment:
I know personally of cases where people had evidence of Board members being openly hostile, bullying, harassing, etc. them and their committees. When they took this evidence to other Board members, the individuals responsible were dismissive, saying that people were just being “oversensitive” and refusing to engage in mediation or to even apologize. And some on the Board seemed to think that was perfectly okay. That is evidence of a toxic environment and, yes, the Board is largely to blame in term of how those situations — very damaging to staff morale in every case — were handled. And even though this has come up time and time again, the Board has shown no evidence of trying to address it or do better. They just wait for the wronged parties to give up or get so frustrated they quit and then they sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened. The hypocrisy the Board has shown by trying to require things of staff and committees that they refuse to do themselves in other areas has only further damaged the relationships between many staff and the Board and will only continue to do so as long as this is the status quo.
Nonny stated up front that while it's not only the Board making the work environment toxic, as leaders, they “should be role modeling responsible behavior.” Until that happens, however, “it will be difficult to improve the environment across the organization.”
The wiki editor who eventually created this page started a new thread to ask for some help in doing so from people with OTW experience. After the page went up, another nonny chimed in:
Wow, wow, wow. I just read the wiki page and it rang a lot of bells.
This may out me: A year ago, I was working on one of the major well known problem areas. I was working alone because nobody else wanted to touch it. I was open about what I was doing.
Then there was a minor disaster and things stopped working. One of those I-fixed-it-I’m-the-Hero types swooped in to fix the problem, except the fix was a horrible hack that undid my weeks of work, which was not the cause of things stopping. (Imagine you install Word on your laptop, and then the battery dies. Word did not cause your battery to die.)
I had protested the hack before it was put in place. I was ignored because this person is never wrong. I protested after the fact, and was belittled and called ignorant. When the hack failed because of all of my work being undone, I was told that I must be the cause of the new problem. When I went to the board liaison for the committee, I was told that I was merely having a personality problem with the hack person and that I should learn to see things from their point of view.
A week later, when things were completely falling apart, the person who made the hack told me, If you think you’re the expert, you redo it. Of course they meant, Go clean up my mess.
I quit. The person who put in that hack is still lauded as one of the best people at the OTW because they get tons of things done. The problem still exists, although it is limping along at the moment.
Lots more discussion of the OTW’s internal culture has turned up in autumn 2015 discussions of the organization’s elections and fundraising efforts. An ex-volunteer opined that when they were active in the OTW, “the culture itself was screwed up, and that dysfunction on the Board/committee level was a side-effect of that, not a cause.” The dysfunction, they said, comprised “some combination of conflict-averseness, insularity, and perfectionism of the if-it-can’t-be-perfect-it’s-not-worth-doing nature, which resulted in significant martyr complexes, defensiveness, and passive aggression at all levels.” And it has persisted because “the only people who last long enough to become staff/board are the people with the highest tolerance for those issues.”
Another nonny who joined in 2007 and helped found a new committee said,
the atmosphere was already in full swing. I was so confused about why I had better not talk to person A or tread softly when mentioning issue B or, better yet, not speak at all. I remember how Francesca stuck her foot in her mouth any time she opened it in public no actually every damn time — but God forbid we answer comments pertaining to our own purview! Which is why I don't give the founding member[s] a pass — they set up a broken system, and once it was running, no-one has ever succeeded in changing it from the ground up.
I have met people who have endured in the OTW for years and they’re either assholes, narcissists or just blithe optimists. The latter comment on meme in the form of grating puppyish earnestness, bless their hearts.
Various nonnies pointed out that the OTW seems to value not results but “squee” — i.e., deprecating expertise because “enthusiasm is all that’s required to do any job,” treating the hectic pace of Yuletide as appropriate to everyday operations, and praising those who put in the most hours regardless of what they accomplish. This leads to “a martyr complex that runs deep in the org. When you don’t work 40 hours on OTW stuff, people do criticize you.” Another nonny complained about being harassed for not responding to non-urgent emails immediately. A third said, “And there's the lovely implying of how much better they'd be at your job.//”// In summary, “my understanding of the OTW is that someone having healthy boundaries is considered not being committed enough to sparkle motion.” That last statement was validated by a former Board member.
Echoing a comment in the above-mentioned 2013 discussion, a nonny added that people with actual expertise in leadership, business, and nonprofits have been driven out of the OTW. “Astolat & co didn’t like what they had to say and one by one they found ways to make them leave. The worst I heard of was the woman who got dressed down for missing a meeting — because her daughter was in ICU.” Another nonny said they'd heard that experienced coders had been similarly targeted.
Although it took longer than at least one nonny had anticipated, the inevitable OTW stan showed up to claim that since “AO3 isn’t barging into people's houses and forcing them to donate,” they don’t owe anyone fiscal transparency. When someone else asked why “OTW volunteers, former volunteers, and so on react with such offense when asked basic questions,” there was this illuminating response:
You have to understand that the OTW didn’t grow out of a sensible mentality.
The OTW basically is a cult, in a lot of ways. It takes people who are pretty normal (fandom) and it tells them they’re special, they have this extraordinary and unique culture and viewpoint, and most importantly, that they are under siege. They are being persecuted and attacked for their activities. They’re so misunderstood that the world is trying to turn against them, but it’s okay! The OTW is here to protect them! If they keep the OTW going, they can back in the knowledge that they are special and persecuted for that specialness, but that they will be defended!
And yeah. That’s cult mentality right there. And trust me: nothing, absolutely nothing, will piss off the people who have bought into it more than the suggestion that actually, fanfic and fandom as a culture isn’t really that special, it’s not a minority status, and it doesn’t really need you to have some ultra-special defense force made of your other oh-so-special citizens.
Another nonny added, “There's another thing that cults do — they keep raising the bar. The activity you've given is never enough, the money you provide is never enough, the money they have is never enough (but don't ask what they do with it!). There must be more, more, more to show your devotion.”
One nonny theorized that all these dysfunctions spring from the norms of the fandom subculture that the OTW founders came out of: “Fandom is a social space for entertainment and relatively little is at stake there, and because of the lack of serious consequences, annoying and immature behavior is tolerated. The social norms are inherently unprofessional.” Another simply blamed “attempting to run a non-profit like a fandom challenge.”
OTW Fiscal Mismanagement [this section in particular is from 2015, and does not highlight the current OTW's fiscal issues]
“At this point their reluctance to manage money professionally is confusing because I *don't* think they have criminal intentions. But the Greek place down the street that's a front for the mob operates with more legitimacy than the OTW has demonstrated.
— Nonny, Oct. 9, 2015
Problems with how the OTW has been managing its money are outlined at the top of the page discussing their fall 2015 elections and fundraiser. Note that the details below were discussed on FFA before the OTW put up this post promising its donors that it would rectify at least some of the oversights mentioned on this page (initial meme discussion).
No budget
A nonny linked to the OTW’s M2014 annual report, wherein is the proud announcement that the organization “made important strides towards meeting standards for organizational best practices such as compiling an annual budget for the first time in the OTW’s history” (emphasis added). Another nonny remarked, “That’s terrifying.”
However, this nonny dug up a post on the OTW Tumblr referring to the existence of a budget of U.S. $221,863.44 for the OTW in 2014. That post and this one both claim that 70% of the budget goes to AO3, 30% toward “other projects, services, meetings and general administrative costs.” Nonnies subsequently discuss how much money colocation and servers actually need. (See also this comment from a previous post: “The Systems team who maintain AO3’s hardware have very clear plans for how to spend the OTW’s money on the purchase and upkeep of servers for an ever-expanding web site serving 15 million page views a day. The trick is getting the OTW to give it to them.”)
A nonny found the OTW’s public 990 form for 2013. In that year, they claimed total revenue of $167,000 but total expenses of only $54,599, leaving a surplus of $112,765. Between the AO3 and two issues of the academic journal Transformative Works and Cultures, they spent less than $30,000. Another nonny wondered why, then, they still felt the need to raise $175,000 twice yearly.
In response to the question “Does the Board give each committee a certain amount of money each year?”, a nonny who is with the OTW replied, “No. Until a couple weeks ago, when they panicked and realized people were starting to make noises for a budget for 2016, the Board had never contacted committees asking for how much money they planned to request for the following year. They have to approve each expense as it arises, in some cases, even expenses that happen regularly. It's a really silly system, to put it mildly.”
No accountant
The OTW does not have an accountant to handle their books. A nonny who is an ex-banker believes that they should hire one without ties to the OTW at a salary of at least $10,000 per year, “possibly quite a bit more at the beginning to sort out the previous mess.”
No audits
A nonny asked, “Does the OTW even have any kind of internal audit or risk controls?” The reply: “No, we do not.” A volunteer answering questions on AO3 stated that they “plan to have an independent accountant audit or review its finances - paying for that service is one of our projected future expenses.” Meme discussion.
Too much money kept in checking and PayPal accounts
This nonny, going through old OTW meeting minutes, compiled a table of the amounts that the OTW has been keeping in a checking account, which earns no interest and may cost the OTW money in case of a bank crash; and in two PayPal accounts, which not only earn no interest but are vulnerable to theft and freezing. They also have more than $10,000 in a CD (certificate of deposit) account. Click image for larger version:
This nonny found slightly more recent numbers (Aug. 22, 2015): “PayPal Primary: 123,110.14; PayPal Secondary: 1328.95; Checking: 164,154.76; CD: 10142.79, with standard monthly expenses clearing.”
Additionally, their having two separate PayPal accounts for the same business violates PayPal's terms of service. Customers may have one personal and one business account, but PayPal forbids more than one business account “primarily to prevent money laundering and other illegal activity.” If one of the OTW PayPal account is a personal account that pre-dates their incorporation as a nonprofit, “it would need to be linked to an individual's bank account, which is obviously terrible from an ethical standpoint.”
A nonny observed, “What I take from this is that pretty much anyone could functionally shut down the OTW at any time by reporting them to either Paypal or the IRS.” Perhaps unsurprising, a nonny did actually email PayPal about this matter. All hell broke loose in that subthread, with people calling it a troll attempt to get FFA blamed for a hypothetical AO3 shutdown and asking that nonny, “Do you report all your friends who illegally download movies? Which is actually illegal and not someone violating the terms of service with a company? […] Who hired you to be a TOS officer for all companies ever?”
Other nonnies, however, defended the action. “AO3 isn't my friend. And honestly, after all this mess, I'd love if they stopped existing, so I'm gonna send an email to paypal too.” Similarly: “Zero sympathy for the OTW. I give no fucks whether the nonnie emailing PayPal was a Lawful Good OEA who was deeply, sincerely concerned or a grudgewanker looking to stir some shit. This is not some individual scrolling past the ToS text wall on their phone's new software update or posting rpf smut to ff.net or watching TV episodes on youtube. This is a huge-ass nonprofit organization handling more money than I make in several years.”
Less wankily, other nonnies pointed out that the AO3 was unlikely to go down due to this, there are laws requiring people who work in financial services to report this sort of thing, the real danger is more likely to be OTW getting reported to the IRS, and:
In this case, “breaking the rules” means 1) engaging in fraudulent financial behavior by way of almost certainly having one of those accounts linked to someone’s personal bank account, and 2) engaging in serious, IRL irresponsibility by keeping enormous sums of money, up to 1/3 of their overall assets, in an uninsured account. That's not just “breaking the rules” and reporting it isn't “trolling the wank”, it’s taking one of the very few actions available to anyone who, at this point, is profoundly concerned that the OTW is mismanaging people’s funds on a massive scale.
A fan by the handle of Madecunningly asked on AO3 whose name the second PayPal account was in and got a typically maddeningly chirpy and content-void response from the tag wrangler assigned to answer such questions. Comments from other fans went unanswered. (Meme discussion.)
OTW 2015 Elections and Fundraiser [Full board resignation]
2015 was the year in which the OTW finally began to encounter some resistance to its fundraising efforts among fans with histories of strong support for it but who were nonetheless concerned about the organization’s approach to its finances, among other things.Before immersing themself in the subject, this editor asked meme for a brief outline of the sticking points in question. Another nonny listed six, noting that the list was not exhaustive:
a) The lack of a budget for 2016, and possibly for prior years, and the Board’s role in this
b) That OTW is asking for $175,000 without a budget, and refuses to explain how they arrived at that figure
c) That the fundraising drive happened after the deadline to join and vote in the upcoming election (October 6)
d) The OTW does not break down their expenses by program. When asked about it, OTW staff gave links which many felt did no such thing.
e) Allegations of lack of financial safeguards against fraud
f) OTW doesn’t allow donators to earmark their donations
Specific problems with how the OTW has managed its money are described on the page OTW Fiscal Mismanagement.
Another noted that the OTW began to announce fundraising goals for the first time on AO3 in late 2014, despite having been in existence since 2008; in both fall 2014 and spring 2015 they met or exceeded their goals. “I think having visible goals made the lack of a budget and the poor planning much more glaring. The questions aren’t new; they’ve just been getting increasingly louder and more widespread for the past year.”
Sanders vs. the Board
As the first nonny linked above mentioned, controversy over the OTW’s finances was sparked by two things: comments in the manifestos of new candidates for the Board of Directors about poor fiscal management at the OTW, and the firing of treasurer Nikisha Sanders, which also forced her withdrawal as a candidate for Board re-election.
The subject first came up on FFA on Sep. 15. A few ex-volunteers had good things to say about a couple of the candidates, but one expressed “serious, serious issues” with OTW fiscal management in the last several years; “the Financial Committee seems to have been allowed to collapse and as far as I can tell they have had just the one person (Nikisha Sanders) with oversight of the money.”
The next day, a nonny linked to a post by SVMadelyn, who had “looked through all the candidate statements and noted disturbing comments about the finance department.” Two had criticized Sanders without naming her; e.g., Matty Bowers had lamented that committees had been unable to get all their bills paid on time. Subsequent nonnies blamed a combination of Sanders’ dilatory approach to responding to emails and no one else being authorized to make payments. The bill-paying problem was verified by a current staffer on meme; the rumor that Sanders thus almost caused the OTW to lose the Fanlore.org domain name was also mentioned.
Then there was “this announcement that Sanders has resigned from her position as Treasurer - but still wants to serve again on the Board.” Another nonny translated the statement as, “We fired their ass, but we’re technically giving them a modicum of dignity.” An internal-only version of the announcement was shared on meme, and it was noted that Sanders was not thanked for her service therein.
In a post on her Dreamwidth, as broken down by this nonny and this one, Sanders wrote that the Board asked for her resignation, got it, consulted an outside attorney, created an entirely new position for her, and “suddenly changed the rules regarding the status of staff to attach her other roles in the organization to the Treasurer position after the fact.” Note this rule: “As of 2014, in order to be eligible to run for Board, a candidate must … be a current staffer on a standing committee in the OTW.”
This nonny further explains that in July 2014, when the Board dissolved the Financial Committee, they decided Sanders would remain a Board member ex officio — a decision recorded only on a page accessible only to OTW volunteers (but see more here per this nonny). “But it’s complete bullshit: she was working in Development & Membership, and had been doing so all year. She was part of the committee. She met the eligibility criteria. This is a shitty fabricated loophole that they created by firing her. Yeah, no wonder people are afraid.”
In the above-mentioned DW post, and in answers to questions on AO3 about her re-election campaign, Sanders blamed the Board for giving her insufficient support. In a later DW post, Sanders said she didn't expect to win, but if she did, she expected the Board to invoke its new abilities to oust fellow members in order to get rid of her. Nonnies wondered why anyone would vote for someone so “grudgy” and “resentful” toward the Board. Nor did Sanders’ claim that she had wanted to replace the Finance Committee with an internal audit committee, which the Board opposed, impress nonnies much at this late date.
Meme consensus on this matter is that Sanders was terrible at her job and an asshole (self-described, even) to boot: “she flips out at people, takes everything personally, and is incapable of maintaining any kind of standard of professional behavior.” Nonetheless, the Board is considered equally incompetent and abusive, especially Andrea Horbinski, and their course of action occurred after Sanders had announced her candidacy rather than during the three years of her tenure as treasurer. “The timing of this makes it seem like the Board was more concerned about impacting the election than actually caring about the welfare of the organization.” Also: “Most people would be fine with getting rid of sanders. The board didn't need to do it in the shadiest way possible. Now, everyone looks even worse.”
Andrea Horbinski
Horbinski, believed by some nonnies to be the Board member who engineered Sanders’ expulsion from the OTW, is if anything held in even lower regard. In her manifesto she claims that being asked for her goals “gives people an inaccurate idea of how the OTW Board (or any board) works!” Nonnies regarded this statement with dismay. Moreover, Horbinski
is also openly hostile and rude to volunteers. To the point that the rest of the board had to officially apologize for her in the past. She also celebrated a past board member Anna Genovese] rage quitting on twitter, and send the most passive aggressive internal emails I ever saw. I have no idea why she is doing on board either (or in the otw for that matter since no one can remember she doing any actual work in any committee). But she does for sure want to come back, to our collective despair.
Another nonny described themself as “the target of what I can describe as nothing more than harassment and bullying by [Horbinski] as a staff member and getting no support from the Board when I raised a concern about it … She also lacks the self-awareness to recognize her behavior when she's called on it and the tact to even offer the simplest apology when the impact of her words and actions are presented to her.”
The new rule banning non-staffers from running for the board appears not to affect Horbinski, even though she’s in the same boat. “Clearly rules don't apply to Andrea, considering that they apparently let her be involved in the process of disqualifying one of the people running against her.”
Other candidates
Nonnies linked to basic OTW service records for each candidate, outlined how each plans to balance their current role with Board responsibilities, and (in subcomments) summarized the platform of each.
Beyond that, nonnies have been skeptical that candidates can keep up their current managerial responsibilities while on the Board; wary of conflicts of interest; impressed with Atiya Hakeem, Matty Bowers, and Aline Carrão; and not so impressed with Eylul Dogrul.
Board shenanigans, continued
In addition to now being able to vote out their own colleagues at will without cause, the Board has also shrunk itself. According to this Fanlore page, there should be nine seats, but per the OTW website there are currently six sitting members. The election is supposedly for two seats, which will result in a five-person Board. See also this comment from Kiri van Santen, as well as these comments by nonnies.
Additionally, “the Elections Commitee is not allowed to discuss the topic on this site without the approval of the Board and the Legal Committee. ” Nonny: “Yeah, totally aboveboard and definitely not a gag order in any way, shape or form. Elections isn't allowed to talk about elections?”
In a Sep. 26 DW post, Sanders produced a “paper trail” of correspondence between herself and the Board. In the meantime, the nuking of her candidacy did not go unnoticed by the other candidates.
Furthermore, as discussed in this AO3 thread, while donors are supposed to be able to vote for Board members, the deadline for voting eligibility this year was Oct. 6 — the same day the new fundraiser began. Therefore, anyone who donates to the OTW during this fundraiser gets no vote. Commenter Ro believes the Board absolutely intended to fool anyone who was not keenly attuned to OTW goings-on.
Volunteers can’t vote without donating
Furthermore, no amount of volunteer time put in at the OTW will earn a volunteer a vote without an accompanying donation of $10.00 U.S. “That theoretically means that someone can be doing free work for the org for like eight hours a week for an entire year and still have no say in the direction the org should go in if their financial situation is crap.” This could be rectified if the OTW wished to track volunteer hours, but they do not.
In the comments to one of the fundraising posts, an ex-volunteer using the handle “Ex-Volunteer” went on the offensive:
So, why exactly don’t you let your precious translation volunteers become members (and vote) by refusing to track their hours? Someone can make 40+ hours/week contribution and you still require them to pay you to become a member. I didn’t exactly feel empowered working for you.
The “answer,” as it were, is that the by-laws say that nobody can get a vote without ponying up ten bucks — and “An organization must follow its own by-laws, and our by-laws say we can’t do it.” Changing the OTW’s by-laws is apparently not possible. Ex-Volunteer again:
All you’ve said is that law requires you to follow your bylaws. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t your deliberate choice to exclude this option which isn't illegal ON ITS OWN RIGHT. It’s outright deception to claim you can’t do it because law forbids it. Actually, I see why you don’t want all your volunteers to be able to vote.
Ex-V showed up on meme to say, “Well, I am an ex-volunteer and when I found out that they were lying to me, I was quite pissed off.”
The Election and Immediate Aftermath
The results of the election came out on November 22nd. Atiya Hakeem (LadyOscar) and Matty Bowers had won the two contested seats, which everyone was generally happy with. However, the board had also decided to reelect Andrea Horbinski to a third vacant seat without giving anyone any notice or opportunity to contest this; they'd never even mentioned that there was a third seat available. According to statistics later released by the Election Committee, Horbinski received roughly one-third as many votes as the fifth-place candidate.
When this was revealed, AO3 users everywhere flipped the fuck out. The Elections Committee posted about this, stating that "Precedent, common sense, and ethics dictate that the membership's choices in an election be considered and respected. The Elections Committee supports the appointment of Alex Tischer to the Board to fill Anna's seat." (Tischer was the third-place candidate.) Meme produced two large threads in the same post on the subject. The first, "OTW elections: presented without comment", went to 164 comments. It was posted during the open meeting where Horbinski was “elected”, presumably by an OTW volunteer nonnie, and is largely about that meeting. In that thread, a link to a transcript of the meeting was posted. (That link goes to a nonny's side blog, not the original posting of the transcript, which is apparently only available to logged-in Tumblr users now.) EDIT BY
synonymous: I have uncovered a transcript of the meeting, which can be found here. (Source: Fanlore) They show that the volunteers present were, to a person, appalled and angry that the Board had done such a thing. AO3 volunteers and members on Tumblr started talking about votes of no confidence and ousting the Board completely. A particular point of contention was that Horbinski had been allowed to vote for herself.The second meme thread, posted hours later and reaching 261 comments, was titled "Did the entire OTW board just resign?!" They had. Apparently, unable to deal with the backlash from reelecting Horbinski, the entire Board except for the two newly-elected members had resigned. Reactions ranged from "break out the celebratory booze" to "So do you think that the two remaining board members will get all the info on the embezzlement that has clearly been taking place, or will it just come as a surprise when they go to do the taxes in January?" (no actual embezzlement has been mentioned by any OTW source as of late January, but that thread goes into some detail on why nonnies suspect it may have occurred) to Tumblr's “AO3 is going to delete everything in hours!” Both threads also contain some speculation on WTF the Board thought they were doing and general suggestions for the new Board members on what to do next.
The two new Board members made a news post on the 25th. They stated that “The OTW and its projects… are operating normally,” explained some of the facts of the situation, and reassured everyone about what they were intending to do next. In general, the comments seemed positive and excited for this fresh start.
