Some thoughts on #RWA as it’s future is considered. YMMV, obvs:
1. RWA needs to decide if it is an advocacy group for authors. If so, it needs to reorient *for* authors. The complaint against Courtney, in addition to its other failings, was not. /1
1. RWA needs to decide if it is an advocacy group for authors. If so, it needs to reorient *for* authors. The complaint against Courtney, in addition to its other failings, was not. /1
2. RWA ethics should be mandatory for the industry, and aspirational for authors. It should be impossible for industry members to weaponize the code against authors. /2
3. Similarly, the Code should not be weaponized between authors. RWA’s focus (see 1) ought be Authors vs. Industry. Not Authors vs. Authors. /3
4. Dump the Forums. RWA has demonstrated it cannot and will not appropriately moderate. In addition to being (one would presume) a liability risk, they are sanctuaries for racism, among other nonsense. /4
5. If RWA wants to encourage inter-member communication, it can provide opportunities for official and moderated On Topic discussions via meetings, videoconference, etc. /5
6. If pro-forum members really think there’s no other way to get frank information re publishing than forums, RWA has failed in its (see 1) mission. RWA exists to provide that information—not merely a social media channel. /6
7. If it is an author org, RWA’s No 1 priority ought be protecting authors against, in particular, industry malfeasance. That requires calling out non-paying publishers, even if they’re run by your friends. 😑 /7
8. Finally, for now, TALK TO COUNSEL BEFORE ISSUING PUNISHMENT AGAINST YOUR OWN AUTHOR-MEMBERS. Or better yet, just don’t punish, because tone-policing of AOC is not RWA’s job or purpose.
One general note: I am a white, cis author with privilege, and the stuff in this thread is very ‘big picture.’ I honestly don’t know if it would affect systematic discrimination. But I don’t think the org can pivot without first deciding its purpose and committing to it.
