G7 Update

[Just A Plain Old Fan]

There sure is a lot of cynicism and paranoia associated with this thread. I feel that the proposal from the 7 is reasonable, level headed, and makes sense for the future of this activity. Why don't the most consistently successful corps have a vote in DCI? That is flat out bad business, DCI is not taking advantage of input from the most successful. No one will convince me that the talk of this being a "power grab" is anything but anti-Hop rhetoric, plain and simple. We have a really bad economic environment in this country, keeping a drum corps alive is a challenging endeavor. If DCI doesn't listen to input from the successful in this activity, they will not survive. I say kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box and trying to ensure the future of this great but fragile activity.

This is enough to make me stop lurking.

dans, I appreciate your point, and agree that you shouldn't necessarily be downvoted solely because you provided a contrary opinion, HOWEVER, there is some insinuation here that I believe needs to be corrected.

1) "If DCI doesn't listen to the successful in the activity" indicates that the members of DCI aren't interested in input from the (competitively) successful groups, which is a fallacy. If I understand history correctly, none of their directors has run for a seat on the DCI BoD since 2010. It's not that they are being kept out or that folks aren't interested in listening, they are intentionally not participating in any leadership. Which of course hanicaps the entity as whole if any larger constituency isn't engaged in forward thinking discussions. That's very important to note.

2) "Kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box" implies that there is a plan of some sort, when George explicity states that they have no plan. If you take it in another context that they are thinking "outside" of the governace box and proposing a new governance model, that's true, but a) it's not a new model, it's a reversion and b) Hop was the one that advocated for the governance model currently in place a few years ago, IIRC.

3) Lastly, I understand the value we all place on "on-the-field" success in this wonderful activity. Consider for a moment that there may be some intelligent directors who may have been "successful" on other areas, (say, business development?) beyond 12th place.

[craiga]

This is enough to make me stop lurking.

dans, I appreciate your point, and agree that you shouldn't necessarily be downvoted solely because you provided a contrary opinion, HOWEVER, there is some insinuation here that I believe needs to be corrected.

1) "If DCI doesn't listen to the successful in the activity" indicates that the members of DCI aren't interested in input from the (competitively) successful groups, which is a fallacy. If I understand history correctly, none of their directors has run for a seat on the DCI BoD since 2010. It's not that they are being kept out or that folks aren't interested in listening, they are intentionally not participating in any leadership. Which of course hanicaps the entity as whole if any larger constituency isn't engaged in forward thinking discussions. That's very important to note.

2) "Kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box" implies that there is a plan of some sort, when George explicity states that they have no plan. If you take it in another context that they are thinking "outside" of the governace box and proposing a new governance model, that's true, but a) it's not a new model, it's a reversion and b) Hop was the one that advocated for the governance model currently in place a few years ago, IIRC.

3) Lastly, I understand the value we all place on "on-the-field" success in this wonderful activity. Consider for a moment that there may be some intelligent directors who may have been "successful" on other areas, (say, business development?) beyond 12th place.

This. And, I STILL wonder how the 7 judge neither Madison nor Boston to be "successful".....

[garfield]

This is enough to make me stop lurking.

dans, I appreciate your point, and agree that you shouldn't necessarily be downvoted solely because you provided a contrary opinion, HOWEVER, there is some insinuation here that I believe needs to be corrected.

1) "If DCI doesn't listen to the successful in the activity" indicates that the members of DCI aren't interested in input from the (competitively) successful groups, which is a fallacy. If I understand history correctly, none of their directors has run for a seat on the DCI BoD since 2010. It's not that they are being kept out or that folks aren't interested in listening, they are intentionally not participating in any leadership. Which of course hanicaps the entity as whole if any larger constituency isn't engaged in forward thinking discussions. That's very important to note.

2) "Kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box" implies that there is a plan of some sort, when George explicity states that they have no plan. If you take it in another context that they are thinking "outside" of the governace box and proposing a new governance model, that's true, but a) it's not a new model, it's a reversion and b) Hop was the one that advocated for the governance model currently in place a few years ago, IIRC.

3) Lastly, I understand the value we all place on "on-the-field" success in this wonderful activity. Consider for a moment that there may be some intelligent directors who may have been "successful" on other areas, (say, business development?) beyond 12th place.

This is a powerful post, and draws a couple other thoughts as well...

If my memory of the cycle is accurate, aren't there four voting positions being voted on at the meeting? Has any of the seven - even the appropriate four leaders chosen by then seven - thrown their names into that ring? All we've heard is that they want the Top-12 as voting members, which assures their majority, but have they demostrated a willingness to be a part of the forward thinking by having, maybe, four votes instead of seven? There's not assurance, of course, that the 7 would gain any of those voting positions but it would seem appropriate tactics by DCI to lean heavily in favor of voting them in, I'd guess.

The other side of the coin is the notion that the 7 are, intentionally, not providing any of their expertise to the group effort of defining drum corps' future. I wonder if the DCI's BOD is, in fact, responsible for voting according to the well being of *all* members of the activity, even those who refuse to take an active roll in that parlimentary part of the process? Doesn't real symbiosis suggest bi-directional participation?

They admit to having no plan (we can presume it will be a development of their TOC model this year and last), but they are willing to try! This sounds a lot like all the pasta-against-the-wall ideas that have so far been implemented that were, individually, supposed to right the ship. And didn't.

Very interesting post, indeed. Thanks Old Fan.

[BRASSO]

No one will convince me that the talk of this being a "power grab" is anything but anti-Hop rhetoric, plain and simple. We have a really bad economic environment in this country, keeping a drum corps alive is a challenging endeavor. If DCI doesn't listen to input from the successful in this activity, they will not survive.

Well ironically if DCI followed GH's " input from the successful, ( him ) they ( Corps ) will not survive ", would've been undeniably true.

Thats because he personally proposed killing off 20 of them.

Edited January 14, 2013 by BRASSO

[Gold_Bond]

Oh, I am sooo looking forward to the next letter soliciting contributions from at least one of the "Magnificent 7" on whose list I currently reside...

[Dan Balash]

Fake Dan Acheson ‏@DCI_CEO

@yeaguy What everyone really wants to know is who did the spelling and grammar check on the letter. That's the real mystery.

[MikeD]

...If you don't have a vote on the EBOD, just the regular BOD, is it wise to #### off the EBOD guys?

OK Catherine!

[glory]

What follows are two questions reflecting my curiousity. They are not meant to be judgmental nor to advance any particular point of view. So please answer if you wish, but don't misinterpret my motives. (I felt the need to say this in this highly charged discussion.)

1. If for some reason the current board accepts the proposal, in essence reincorporating the G7 into the board with all that implies, how will you react/respond?

2. Suppose it were the G5 rather than the G7. In other words, suppose the proposal promised only minority representation for the "G" group along with everything else, how would you be reacting/responding?

HH

[cixelsyd]

3. Suppose some G7 directors actually ran for open BOD spots.

[Tyler C.]

Okay, I'm missing something here. Would someone please enlighten me?

Sorry for the late response; CV had a camp this weekend. That was a list of High Drum winners (copied and pasted, so admittedly not thoroughly researched). Smokin' lines, if you will.