MikeN Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 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. I like Fake Dan there. Found a fake Hopkins too. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) 4. Suppose canned hams were being sold at G7 Souvie Booths, Buy One Get One Free. Edited January 14, 2013 by mingusmonk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 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. This is a pretty big assumption, no? You're saying that because the '7' directors haven't run for a seat on the BoD that they have been sitting back quietly for the last couple of years not making suggestions? Without at least pouring through the BoD meeting minutes I don't think I can jump on board with that assumption. If nothing else, I thought that at least a few of the '7' directors have been fairly instrumental in helping to implement the new sheets (I'm also fairly certain that some of the original ideas for the new sheets that some of the '7' wanted were discarded for one reason or another). What I'm thinking of might precede 2010, but anyone who even kind of sort of knows Hopkins and some of the other DCI directors knows that they're not exactly the 'sit back, say nothing, and go along without interjecting into the conversations' types. You kind of imply (at least the way I read your point I quoted above) that the directors have intentionally not been engaging the DCI BoD for some reason, and I'm asking for some sort of definitive proof of this being the case. Do you know for a fact that this is the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 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 For me, personally: If the majority of DCI Directors and the BoD vote for a specific course of action seating some or all of the "7" on the BoD, I can only presume it is because they believe that is the best course of action for DCI. I'm 100% for DCI BoD, and its member corps Directors, running the activity the way they see fit and if that is electing to put Hopkins, Gibbs, Fiedler, et al on the BoD so be it. They all (DCI Directors & DCI BoD) know better than us what's best and I'm fine with their actions. Besides, being bitter isn't going to change it, right? It's either accept what's decided, roll with it, and enjoy drum corps OR reject what's decided and find something better to do with my time/money. I still rather enjoy drum corps, so I'll stick it out until I no longer enjoy it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 You kind of imply (at least the way I read your point I quoted above) that the directors have intentionally not been engaging the DCI BoD for some reason, and I'm asking for some sort of definitive proof of this being the case. Was post 1 of this thread not sufficient proof of that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 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. Ah...okay. Thank you...I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Was post 1 of this thread not sufficient proof of that? Hmmm I see quotes in the first post like We are committed to our participation in Drum Corps International. and If possible, the “7” would like to remain as active members of Drum Corps International through the years to come. We would like to, if possible, keep our entire effort within the walls of this very organization we have helped to create. and But I think we can agree that we all have a better chance of success together as opposed to apart. Didn't see anything there address what I wrote. Please go ahead and copy/paste what I must be missing in the 1st post of this thread proof that the directors have intentionally not been engaging the DCI BoD for some reason. Thanks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Didn't see anything there address what I wrote. Please go ahead and copy/paste what I must be missing in the 1st post of this thread proof that the directors have intentionally not been engaging the DCI BoD for some reason. Actions speak louder than words. Music in Motion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 It strikes me that one member of the management of a G7 corps (Don Warren, Cavaliers) was present with the same organization when DCI broke away from the VFW, AL, et al. It would be interesting to get a comparison from him of the issues that drove the corps away from the Veteran's organizations to the issues the G7 see with the current structure of the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I just wish we had specific proposals how to make DCI more marketable to performers and audience. Honestly, the G-7 leaders might well have CORRECT ideas how to kick-start DCI in a challenging economic environment. Like them, or not, these are intelligent and capable people. Too bad, all we can do is assume they are right or wrong. Based on what, exactly? 4 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.