Log in

No account? Create an account
15 January 2013 @ 03:50 pm
SFWA Young Adult / Middle Grade closed list-serv  
For anyone who is a SFWA member, you may be aware that the SFWA board will be deciding soon whether to allow the Young Adult / Middle Grade closed list-serv to continue past its six months' trial period. I've been pretty vocal about my opinion that it's inappropriate to set up a sub-group within SFWA that is closed to fully qualified SFWA members because they don't meet an additional (and in my opinion arbitrary) qualification. I think it's especially inappropriate because this group is using resources that are paid for by all SFWA members' dues. To date, those resources have been extremely minor, but the group plans to request more, such as exhibitor booth fees for various trade conventions. I don't feel that this is insignificant.

It is my hope that the board will allow the group to continue on the condition that it open to all SFWA members. If they don't want to do that, I think they should disassociate the list from SFWA, and then the group can do whatever it wants.

In any case, I wanted to mention it here in case any SFWA member cares to share his or her opinion with the SFWA board before a decision is made. I e-mailed my comments to the SFWA President earlier today.
David D. Levine: space magicdavidlevine on January 16th, 2013 12:06 am (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I said my piece about this listserv at the meeting at World Fantasy, and just emailed Scalzi with my opinion now.
Amy Sisson: SerenityCatamysisson on January 16th, 2013 03:34 pm (UTC)
Thanks, David. One of the frustrating things is that I haven't been able to find any details on the board's decision to allow it to be closed. Navigating the SFWA forums and minutes is not as easy as it could be. I was pleased to find some comments recorded from the World Fantasy meeting, at least.
sandramcdonald: sunflowersandramcdonald on January 16th, 2013 02:27 am (UTC)
Thank you for carrying on this fight. I think your reasoning is clear and logical, and I hope SFWA stops with the fencing off of knowledge and information.
Amy Sisson: SerenityCatamysisson on January 16th, 2013 03:34 pm (UTC)
Thanks, Sandra!
mabfan (Michael A. Burstein)mabfan on January 16th, 2013 03:04 am (UTC)
Is there a forum on the website where I can state my support of your position?
Amy Sisson: SerenityCatamysisson on January 16th, 2013 03:35 pm (UTC)
Thanks, Michael. I think this is probably the most appropriate place:

Oz Whiston writing as Oz Drummondbirdhousefrog on January 16th, 2013 02:26 pm (UTC)
In other professional organizations, a separate section like this pays section dues. And I've never heard of any section restricting membership the way this group does. The additional fee is enough to deter the merely curious.

I'll send my comments in as well.

Amy Sisson: SerenityCatamysisson on January 16th, 2013 03:36 pm (UTC)
Yes, I agree -- in other organizations I'm familiar with, separate groups pay section dues, and are open to all. I suppose a third option for the board would be to have this group pay section dues but still allow it to remain closed. I wouldn't be pleased by that, but it's better than the current situation.