Minneapolis Corps Directors Meeting

[DAvery]

That is why they are attempting to do something about it in an effort to save the activity by slicing off and creating a hybrid version for the upper third of the top performers BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE IT.

But why do they have to slice off "the upper third of the top performers" to do this? Why create an permanent, inherently unfair situation? Kind of reminds me of a monarchy. You know, "we are the best and brightest and we deserve special rules and privileges" sort of thing. Why not just change the rules for EVERYONE?

[KeyboardGuy]

In the 45 pages of this thread, this might have already been mentioned, but if folks are hell-bent to form an "all-star" group, it seems to me like it would be more fair and agreeable to more of the DCI membership if they formed a "G-whatever" group each season from the top finishers from the previous season. Sure, many of the same corps would be there year-to-year, but it would provide some variety and still provide more incentive for all corps to excel.

This does not mean I approve of the idea, only that there might be a more equitable means of achieving the same goal.

[Jeff Ream]

the problem is, by doing what they want, they're actually doing a lot more to damage it then help it. shame is, you don't see that

I think they realize it now. Better late than never. That is why they are attempting to do something about it in an effort to save the activity by slicing off and creating a hybrid version for the upper third of the top performers BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE IT. This is an attempt to keep the genre healthy and alive while growing an audience and not having to worry about carrying the weight of the entire activity on their backs while doing it. It is simple survival.

[BRASSO]

But why do they have to slice off "the upper third of the top performers" to do this? Why create an permanent, inherently unfair situation? Kind of reminds me of a monarchy. You know, "we are the best and brightest and we deserve special rules and privileges" sort of thing. Why not just change the rules for EVERYONE?

If the G-7 so strongly believe that it is about their " survival", then by all means they need to do whatever they believe is neccessary in order " to survive ". There are Corps that don't want to feel that they are a " burden " to the G-7, or that the G-7 have to " carry all these Corps on their backs anymore " ( if that's in fact what they believe). If the G-7 feel constrained in some way, then by all means they need to just leave. That way, if they become the " Next Big Thing ", the credit all goes to them, and if their grand scheme blows up in their face in short order, then they can't say that the reason it failed was because of some " burden " put on them by others who told them very clearly not to pursue such a divisive proposal as this in the first place.

[treadstone]

I can't really get past their non-attendance of this meeting. It represents a lack of moral and ethical courage. So they want to "lead", but they refuse to "lead by example." Interesting.

Jason

[mobrien]

The sky is falling!

It's cool. The dome will be closed.

[BRASSO]

I can't really get past their non-attendance of this meeting. It represents a lack of moral and ethical courage. So they want to "lead", but they refuse to "lead by example." Interesting.

Jason

Maybe Jason. But there could be a myriad of reasons for their non attendance at the Minneapolis meeting where it was understood that they would be present and were to present more detail to their G-7 proposal to the others. I'd cut them for slack a bit on this singular point, as perhaps they were not prepared to discuss anything at that time. We can assume their closed door meetings took place. Few outside that room know what too place. Nor what their next step is.

[ShortAndFast]

Maybe Jason. But there could be a myriad of reasons for their non attendance at the Minneapolis meeting where it was understood that they would be present and were to present more detail to their G-7 proposal to the others. I'd cut them for slack a bit on this singular point, as perhaps they were not prepared to discuss anything at that time. We can assume their closed door meetings took place. Few outside that room know what too place. Nor what their next step is.

And the G7 probably learned something about information security from the May board meeting. I do not think they want any more poorly-vetted powerpoints leaking!

I will note that these G7 threads have a fair number of people who are plainly well-connected to DCI and/or the non-G7 corps posting insider information. And thus far, their posts have been pretty accurate. We have nobody posting insider G7 info, suggesting that they are keeping their cards very close to their chests. I think we and the DCI BoD will learn their next actions only when they are good and ready to tell us.

[MikeD]

the problem is, by doing what they want, they're actually doing a lot more to damage it then help it. shame is, you don't see that

Why is it a 'shame'? He happens to disagree with your position, that's all. Possibly Mr. Zing does not believe the proposals are doing damage.

[GMichael1230]

gee-6, I mean 5 1/2 is dead. Nothing to see here.

G