G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo

[Jeff Ream]

11 hours ago, Stu said:

There has never been seven people in 100% agreement 100% of the time.  In fact, most board rooms have various opinions if not heated debates.  But in the end, they still come together in agreement to move like-minded agendas forward. The directors of those seven were all ‘in unified force’; they all defended and supported the proposal of consolidating all DCI financial and voting power given to just themselves. (And the bru-ha-ha that, “well… six of them just did not know what was in the document when it was leaked”, even if true, does not fly).  Because those six could have maned-up and said, “No, this is not what we want.”, but they didn’t.  And once all seven supported it they all ‘owned’ it and were in fact, wait for it, ‘in unified agreement’ with that ownership.

even simple things were disagreed on...common sense stuff. truth be told, one of them tried to hijack the thing and push his vision on the group, and others fought back.

 

and now they didnt all defend it, because Cavies at the time released statements that were contradictory...basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. The Old Man viewed DCI as his baby, and he wasn't exactly thrilled.

 

you can claim it doesnt fly....thats your perogative. You've blasted your opinions out many times and haven't been right. While a rough framework was agreed upon, one person volunteered to undertake getting it all on paper to present, and then showed up at the meeting with what was shown to all and eventually sent to me that I got posted on here. But since the names were on it from page 1, several others felt trapped and decided to go with it in theory, if not all of the specifics mentioned. 

 

And then all hell broke loose.

[Jeff Ream]

9 hours ago, garfield said:

See, I just don't agree with this.  Do you recall the Happy Days "Jumping the Shark" episode?

My hunch (welcome to garfield's world) is that the G7 ppt doc was GH's Jumping the Shark moment when he lost virtually all of his boardroom cred.

I absolutely believe that some (I won't even say "most"), but some members of the G7 were not aware of what was coming out.  Once out, if they were all on board with the notion of what they thought they were presenting, it would have been very difficult to backtrack and throw GH under the bus.

I know you'll say this is evidence that they all owned what was presented and I couldn't disagree with that.  But I think this action came after years of bellyaching and plotting and planning by one or more director's, and likely many of those years supported by the some of the others that "...something HAS to be done..." to stop paying for corps and programs that never seem to advance but are, instead, satisfied to receive the benefits of being in the gang without having to demonstrate an inclination to advance as the G7 did to become part of "the draw".

Again, I don't agree with their view or their solution, but I certainly can understand their peaked frustration and their choice to take action for their own survival.

 

 

that started it. The follow up manifesto in i think it was 2013 was when the feeling began to steamroll around the room. 

[Jeff Ream]

9 hours ago, Stu said:

 

 

Mine is not a hunch, but based on documentation. Re-read the unified letter they drafted in 2013 again threatening the volatility of a MiM/DCI conflict and their unified mission to have the greatest influence within DCI; there is no doubt whatsoever that they were still unified at that time.  If there was a 'jumping the shark' moment, it happened after 2013, three or more years after the original proposal.

 

and you're sure it was "they", that drafted?

 

or were names used based on the 2010 incident

[Jeff Ream]

9 hours ago, Stu said:

So they were incompetent, blindsided, and then gutless; that sure is the sign of great leadership!!  Also, when has failing to do the right thing because it is difficult become noble?

sometimes Stu, something you thought you agreed upon in life gets changed. So do you back the new result, and hope to tweak it on the back end more to your liking, or do you walk away?

 

Since it's known the other 6 were at least behind some of it, walking away wouldn't have helped, because everyone knew they were part of some of it. And then you had the cavies backing it but not backing it

[Jeff Ream]

9 hours ago, Stu said:

If DCI was a true Major League where, apart from financial stability, competition is really the only factor, I would tend to agree with you here.  But the Mission and Bylaws of DCI, which all corps voluntarily agree to abide by, indicates that all non-G7 deserve just as much 'respect' from DCI as The Seven.  Should BD, SCV, or Cadets be forced to share their 'own individual corps' wealth with any other corps? Nope!!  Should all corps receive the same competitive payouts irrespective of placement? Nope again!!! But should DCI, as a Governing Body, support the DCI activities of the non-G7 the same as it supports the DCI activities of The Seven? Yep, Yep, and oh yeah, Yep!!!  And all corps, even the seven, voluntarily agreed for that equal DCI governing body support when they signed on to honoring the Mission and Bylaws of DCI!!!

and then they wanted to change it. Bylaws do get amended in many things in life.

 

I administrate in a band circuit where the bylaws get amended more than a few times. Some of it is good, some of it is, IMO, arcane legalese.

[Stu]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

You've blasted your opinions out many times and haven't been right.

In your opinion.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

and you're sure it was "they", that drafted?

 

or were names used based on the 2010 incident

'They' never said it was fake, 'they' never said thier names were used without their knowledge or permission, so it is 'they' whom also own that doc.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

sometimes Stu, something you thought you agreed upon in life gets changed. So do you back the new result, and hope to tweak it on the back end more to your liking, or do you walk away?

If I am in consultation with someone to propose organizational changes, and that person drafts a proposal that I am not aware of which is condscending to my fellow members, that proposes forcibly taking revenue from my fellow members to be put in my coffer, that proposes giving me more voting power than my fellow members, that goes against what I voluntarily agreed to when I joined the organization, and I agree with that, I publically support it. But if I find it appalling, I publically state that I want no part of it.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

and then they wanted to change it. Bylaws do get amended in many things in life.

 

I administrate in a band circuit where the bylaws get amended more than a few times. Some of it is good, some of it is, IMO, arcane legalese.

Of course they wanted to change it; they could not get what they wanted with a MiM split, so they proposed a type of hostile takeover change in the Bylaws. But here is the kicker.. the seven had already agreed to honor the DCI Corporate Mission in which the governing body itself was to always be equitable to all members. Of course competitive payouts were to be distributed according to placement, but that is still being equitable as long as the rules are fair and equitable. That is as long as DCI Corporate regulations, adjudication, etc... was treating Pioneer the same way it treated the seven.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

While a rough framework was agreed upon, one person volunteered to undertake getting it all on paper to present, and then showed up at the meeting with what was shown to all and eventually sent to me that I got posted on here.

Doh!!!!! So they all did agree upon it in rough draft, they all did see the collected presentation, and all knew what was in the presentation, 'prior' to the leak!!!!!!! Ya can't take that back now that ya posted it!!!!

Edited September 15, 2017 by Stu