Jump to content

Which will be the First "G-7" to Disown Hopkin's Letter?


 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh for sure. They have already changed the most fundamental underpinnings of their proposal, ie the very rules for the qualification ( and elimination ) into the G7 itself. So what we can reasonably conclude from this is that its all a series of moveable parts that they can shift arbitrarily and willy nilly... even among themselves. If they can so quickly jettison their own proposal's most basic fundamentals that they cooked up in secret behind closed doors then the message just has to be....... " be dam careful around some in this group ". ( even if you are a G7 Corps that has signed on to previous agreements and understandings made within this 7 ).

A work in process is just that...not the final version the group would want to present. Happens all the time when groups of people get together to create something...there are bits and pieces from everybody that eventually get massaged and whittled down to something the group as a whole wants to support.

Brainstorming sessions, for example, are supposed to be open to any and all to make whatever suggestions the want on the topic being discussed, and then the group discusses, reviews, changes, deletes...etc...until the consensus POV is determined. The ppt file looks like a conglomeration of suggestions that had not yet gone through the vetting process by the overall group, so IMO it is unfair...and actually IMO just plain wrong... to use that as a final opinion of the group.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A work in process is just that...not the final version the group would want to present. Happens all the time when groups of people get together to create something...there are bits and pieces from everybody that eventually get massaged and whittled down to something the group as a whole wants to support.

Brainstorming sessions, for example, are supposed to be open to any and all to make whatever suggestions the want on the topic being discussed, and then the group discusses, reviews, changes, deletes...etc...until the consensus POV is determined. The ppt file looks like a conglomeration of suggestions that had not yet gone through the vetting process by the overall group, so IMO it is unfair...and actually IMO just plain wrong... to use that as a final opinion of the group.

First of all, does that make it OK if they only "brainstormed" to remove all service from open-class?

Secondly, the G7 PowerPoint presented in May of 2010 was the result of four months of collaboration by the G7, where they had plenty of opportunities to take those brainstorms and refine, vet, and reach consensus. How do we know this? Because those seven corps told us so in their septuple press release:

Meetings have been conducted in-person, and through numerous teleconferences over the last four months. In an effort to ensure that the broader DCI community was aware of these discussions, the membership of Drum Corps International was informed of the meetings via phone calls made in March of 2010. DCI’s CEO and the Chairman of DCI’s Board of Directors were also informed of these meetings in writing.

The group of seven has worked as an independent caucus, coming together in an effort to create a proposal that it hopes will be approved by the DCI Board and the membership of DCI.

Much as you'd like to believe otherwise, the G7 proposal was vetted for four months before being presented to DCI.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ALSO stated in the proposal that ( word for word ) " these Corps provide no real service ".

When a small group of Corps proposes a set of rules that takes away current voting rights, proposes a cut off of fundamental services provided currently by DCI, and other draconian proposals, it clear to most people that the group wants these Corps to cease to exist. If I cut off your supplemental breathing tubes at your bed, you can assume that I want you to die, even if I could attempt to say later that you died of your own inability to breath in your own personal and essential oxygen. The G7 proposal called for the cessation of needed oxygen to these Corps... with the end result that they knowingly would " fold "... die. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the other non G7 Corps word for it. They understood clearly what the PP said, and what it would mean to them, ergo the unprecedented emergency meeting for a recall vote and subsequent replacement of the G7 members on the BOD at the time.

NO! "They can add into a show and attend champs but no real service is provided"

It is not saying the corps provide no service... It says that no separate competitive arena/circuit will be provided. They tag along with existing shows. And others were talking about appearance fees... How can you infer that? That particular slide is too vague. Really vague... No wonder the confusion.

It's so wrong that this is what is spread but about G7 when in reality, the context clues show otherwise! WoW thanks corpsband for looking it up.

Edited by charlie1223
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, does that make it OK if they only "brainstormed" to remove all service from open-class?

Yes, it does. Do you know what a brainstorming session is all about?

Secondly, the G7 PowerPoint presented in May of 2010 was the result of four months of collaboration by the G7, where they had plenty of opportunities to take those brainstorms and refine, vet, and reach consensus. How do we know this? Because those seven corps told us so in their septuple press release:

Much as you'd like to believe otherwise, the G7 proposal was vetted for four months before being presented to DCI.

We know it was not a final product, so it is not valid to consider it the last word on what they were presenting. Just because you think they had "plenty of opportunities" in no way reflects what they may or may not have had the opportunity to do. Do you know how many meetings they held to discuss and refine their presentation prior to the leak of the ppt? I have no idea, but unless you have some firm information, your contention is speculation at best.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it does. Do you know what a brainstorming session is all about?

I do....it's about discussing ideas individuals think are good. And if anyone thinks withdrawing all real service from open-class is a good idea....do I really need to finish this sentence? Is that really up for sincere debate?

We know it was not a final product, so it is not valid to consider it the last word on what they were presenting. Just because you think they had "plenty of opportunities" in no way reflects what they may or may not have had the opportunity to do. Do you know how many meetings they held to discuss and refine their presentation prior to the leak of the ppt?

It was only leaked after it was presented. They had as many meetings as they thought were needed to develop the proposal to the point of presenting it to the DCI board.

I have no idea, but unless you have some firm information, your contention is speculation at best.

Well, then, if the G7 proposal is what results from four months of in-person meetings and numerous teleconferences among these seven directors, I can safely "speculate" that I wouldn't want to hand majority control of the DCI board to them.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then, if the G7 proposal is what results from four months of in-person meetings and numerous teleconferences among these seven directors, I can safely "speculate" that I wouldn't want to hand majority control of the DCI board to them.

This. If the PPT we have was not the final presentation (one hopes not) then it still represents some distillation of the thinking among those seven corps, and a hint of the direction they plan to go. Their proposal was voted down in 2010, but now they are asking for complete control of DCI. So when weighing whether they should get such control, we ought to look at the evidence we have of their general plans. Even if the details are different, the broad shape of the 2010 plan is the same as Hop's 1997 proposal (discussed on DCP in 2006).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO! "Tey can add into a show and attend champs but no real service is provided"

It is not saying the corps provide no service... It's days that no separate competitive arena/circuit will be provided. They tag along with existing shows. And others were talking about appearance fees... How can you infer that? That particular slide is too vague. Really vague... No wonder the confusion.

It's so wrong that this is what is spread but about G7 when in reality, the context clues show otherwise! WoW thanks corpsband for looking it up.

I had a chance to go back and find the exact words from the G7 Powerpoint Presentation from May 2010, and can now acknowledge that the " no service provided " statement refers specifically to their proposal that Open Classs Corps receive no further funding from DCI... not as I originally stated above that these Corps " provide no real service " to DCI or to the activity.

That said, my statement above was to a comment made by Corpsband poster that in his opinion " no G7 wants a Corps to fold ". If the G7 proposal was adopted as submitted, the Open Class Corps would lose DCI support. This would lead to their demise... their " folding ", in my opinion. From the G7 proposal I reread this morning, the Open Class " A " Corps would have no voting rights, would be " add ons to shows ", but receive no suppport from DCI. The wording from the G7 : " Class A Corps would not be able to participate in any share of fund distribution". Absent fees and support from DCI, it seems clear to me that these Corps would quickly cease to exist and fold almost a immediately, and " yes ", I do believe that the architects of the G7 proposal knew that this would probably cause their folding.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do....it's about discussing ideas individuals think are good.

No, it is not that at all....

From this link

The rules vary from place to place. But Alex Osborn's original four still work: 1) Don't allow criticism; 2) Encourage wild ideas; 3) Go for quantity; 4) Combine and/or improve on others' ideas. To steal from IDEO, I'd add "One conversation at a time" and "Stay focused on the topic," as both help save groups from dissolving into disorder.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, your definition of brainstorming and mine are not mutually exclusive.

Second, I still don't see why we should expect (or condone) "no real support" for open-class as the result of brainstorming. Can you explain that?

From my reading, and it was a while ago, they think Open class corps should have their own regional circuits, like back in the day. DCI champs would not have any class distinctions at all, and as they stated the corps currently in DCI open class would be welcome to participate in The DCI World Championships, in addition to their own regional circuits.

Whether or not that is a viable model is open to discussion, but it is how I recall the ppt describing their POV.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...