corps-mudgeon Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Not to speak out of turn....but anyone other than the proposal author(s) would be "outside input" in that context. Pretty much, yeah. Once the cat was out of the bag, the directors were certainly hearing from others. Who knows, maybe even an influential sponsor may have weighed in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 wha-la (sp?), voilà! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 So you say that kettle is black?Actually, if you read those 58 pages yourself, you will find some thoughtful discussion and very little bashing (prior to your arrival). Read a sarcastic comment Tank made about me a few pages back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Whatever that nifty little "flame off" symbol you techies use, turn that on. I haven't read much in this thread, but from what I just read on dci.org... http://www.dci.org/news/view.cfm?news_id=b...e6-b5450904e47b ...and if I read it correctly, this sounds extremely good. Tell me if I've got it right. I'm not going off of what any of you have read, just what was reported by dci. On first reading, it sounds like the "Gang of 6" just ceded complete power over DCI. Nine individuals--6 member directors plus 3 at-large directors--sounded an awful lot like, "No longer will you be on the Executive Committee just because your corps places in finals." Is that ANYTHING close to accurate??? And if so--if I read that correctly--that is ENORMOUS!! It sounds NOTHING like the first page or so where the overriding concern was, "If the 9 proposal passes, does electronics pass?" Actually, it sounds quite the opposite. Close? WAY off?? Curious to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Hey - anything's possible.But - let's play the odds here. Considering that DCI has been working on governance issues for several years now (there was a proposal brought forth last year and voted down, for example), one thread on DCP less than a week before the final vote at this year's meetings - no matter how long the thread, spectacular the insight or passionate the arguments - is going to have negligible influence. And, considering that the result of those several years of development was the severely-flawed proposal that we saw earlier this week, and how much of a difference the amendments made in the last few days made in addressing those flaws (flaws pointed out here in this thread)....hey, anything's possible. As for last year's proposal, don't even GO there. I just learned about it this week as well, but I have refrained from commenting on it in the interest of maintaining the civility of the discussion. Suffice it to say that it was not the shining example of long-term team research and due diligence that you equate it to. Let's just agree that the end result was a wise one, and someone please let us know who we should thank for the amendments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Whatever that nifty little "flame off" symbol you techies use, turn that on. I haven't read much in this thread, but from what I just read on dci.org...http://www.dci.org/news/view.cfm?news_id=b...e6-b5450904e47b ...and if I read it correctly, this sounds extremely good. Tell me if I've got it right. I'm not going off of what any of you have read, just what was reported by dci. On first reading, it sounds like the "Gang of 6" just ceded complete power over DCI. Nine individuals--6 member directors plus 3 at-large directors--sounded an awful lot like, "No longer will you be on the Executive Committee just because your corps places in finals." Is that ANYTHING close to accurate??? And if so--if I read that correctly--that is ENORMOUS!! It sounds NOTHING like the first page or so where the overriding concern was, "If the 9 proposal passes, does electronics pass?" Actually, it sounds quite the opposite. Close? WAY off?? Curious to know. I quoted myself so my previous comments preceded the following. To follow up my comments/questions from above, it sounds like, "6 member directors and 3 at-large directors," would mean 6 directors from the top 25--the members--and 3 "others." Others means Open Class, I would assume. So, if the possibility exists that 6 member corps plus 3 OC corps have spots on the Executive Committee, is there anybody who thinks this would be a bad thing? This kills electronics, IMO, if I am reading things correctly. Imagine the following committee... Blue Devils (gotta have one top corps!) Crown/Blue Stars (can't give 'them' two votes, so only one or the other) Boston Crusaders Blue Knights Crossmen Cascades Memphis East Coast Jazz Spartans That has just about every region covered--California, Pacific NW, Mountains, Midwest, Texas, South, Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida. Every strata of DCI historical placements--"Big 3," second tier, top 12, semis, quarters, and Open Class. That sounds pretty danged good, actually! BD alone isn't going to dominate things. Substitute Cadets for BD and the same goes, that way you Hop-haters can still argue. The DVD influence is there with either Crown or Stars and, quite frankly, I'd put Academy in there b/c they obviously know what they're doing on the business side--DCI needs this influence--but Blue Knights got the nod b/c they've been doing well for a lot longer. And we get some OC corps in there in the "at-large" seats. This does two things: It removes the "driving authority" figureheads, whether that is a valid charge or not, from absolute control, and it gives OC that which it desires the most...influence!! A vote. Actually, three! Further analysis--I read this as the absolute top corps (plural) recognizing that the whole is not progressing--meaning that they see DCI's overall attendance, fan discontent, etc over the last several years, and say, "We need some more input." Also, it is a concession that just maybe the way to go is not to keep thinking bigger, bigger, bigger, but smaller needs a voice b/c just maybe corps like Academy, ECJ, Spartans and others who trace from OC roots are the model for the future of DCI. Can't start a corps and them be BD/Cadets/Cavaliers this year--won't happen. Even Star of Indiana proved that it takes a few years. And Crown/Blue Stars are proving it again--it takes time. I like this!! I really, really, really, really, really <<do you get the idea that I>> really like this!!!???!!! If I'm anywhere near right on this. Someone tell me if I'm even close. Boo? You'd be a really big help right now. I'm not going off of anyone else's comments. Just read the thing on the DCI web site. Reading comprehension , you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1STEN2311 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) sorry, i'm lazy... just read back and answered my question. Edited January 28, 2008 by L1STEN2311 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburstall Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Someone needs to do a little "what if" on the rules that failed/passed. If DCI was to go to the 9 member board, how would the rules that did pass and fail have faired if one used the current top 9 corps instead of the full board. I would like to see the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.