In case you somehow missed it, there is a huge discussion going on around board elections of Transformative works. I am not going to write a lot here since most of what I want to say (and counter opinions I disagree with) have been explained by people with a lot more mastery in written text than I do.
troisroyaumes has the most recent link roundup that I know of
edit: a second link roundup by ainsley is also being actively updated.
Personal opinions below.
a) I am very glad this discussion is happening, regardless of what the outcome is, I think (hope) that the ideas and opinions brought in here will be put into use.
a.1) I am also very glad to see a REAL election happening for a change where people can make a choice in what they want to see the org become.
a.2) super cool that all sides of criticism and counter criticism is out there, that we are discussing this! and the whole thing has so far been very constructive.
b) Few posts I see as well as some comments that bothers me just a little bit. Choosing a board member shouldn't be based on how cool and amazing a person is. Them being chosen or not chosen doesn't change it. It is a decision on how good of a board member they will be, based on their current plans as a board member and attitudes toward the current issues.
c) Differing opinions is not something to be scared off, nor is it a threat to efficiency. I think what many candidates define as a transparency problem in the org is a flat out communication issue the org management structure has with volunteer pool and fandom outside. We have no way to handle, and channel criticism or even opposing arguments (without actively trying to shut them down). This then affects diversity of the org (the point of diversity is not to get a stamp of approval on status quo but to actually change), and brings out things like the "server naming fail". What is the true problem here: we cannot communicate out our ideas to get feedback, or we don't really see the reason for communicating until it is too late?
d) Sustainability is not a joke. If few critical people (3-4) were out of commission at same time, right now, archive development and maintain would be severely hindered. Yes, kudos to these people, but overall this is terrible: and this is just one example on how understaffed org is in some key places. For those who argue: "people with specific skills are rare", well we have volunteers on one side who don't have enough to do and drop out because of that, and people with too much to do on other in danger of burning out. Clearly something is failing in between. I think it is time the for OTW to seriously focus on why, before it implodes.
All of this said, I know I am definitively voting for jennyst, lucyp and julia_beck, I have worked with all three of these people and saw them first hand make the org step (even if baby steps) forward on points c and d. For my 4th vote I am still debating since all 3 candidates have their pluses and minuses, currently inclining toward sanders, due to her two recent articles on her journal. We'll see how that goes after second candidate chat and followups.