Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, garfield said:

I don't read it that way.

The paragraphs address a process for individuals to present proposals into a system of "entities", not individuals.  A sponsoring "entity" must sign the proposal form.

No sponsoring entity signed the woodwind proposal.

Quote

This mechanism is designed to prevent individuals not connected to the activity from commandeering Janual time on proposals not presented by a member corps.

No presenting member corps is mentioned on the woodwind proposal.

Quote

The paragraphs do not address a drum corps entity submitting proposals through their reps (director or otherwise). 

Yes, they do.  Anybody can write a rule change proposal, but only certain people can be the submitting "author".  Proposals from corps people must have a sponsoring corps director, and proposals from the judging community must have a judging admin or the Artistic Director as sponsor.

Quote

Again, if DCI, the entity via it's committee work (which is made up of member corps reps), wants to submit a formal rule change, who else would be the submitting "person" to sign the proposal?

Any member of the committee who was director or staff with a 2019 corps would suffice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, garfield said:

Your curiosity presumes that DCI actually cares about, and is responsive to, social media.  In matters of voting at the Januals, well, has there ever been a biennial that was prefaced by a period open to fan comment?

Surely you agree that DCI cares about keeping as many patrons as possible. One way to do that is to soften them up on the possibility of a controversial change.

As for your question: if it was done subtly, how would we know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Surely you agree that DCI cares about keeping as many patrons as possible. One way to do that is to soften them up on the possibility of a controversial change.

As for your question: if it was done subtly, how would we know?

I’ve been told that DCI doesn’t care if they lose the legacy fans. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Sorry, but the rule change process does not allow that.  It is spelled out on page 2 of the document:

1.1  Any instructional member or corps director of an active drum corps (must have competed in a DCI sanctioned show) the previous summer, or an active judge of DCI may submit a rules proposal on his/her own behalf or on behalf of another.

1.2  The sponsoring corps Director or the appropriate Judge Liaison, Judge Administrator, or the Artistic Director will sign the completed (and required) Rules Proposal Form.

Kathy Black is not qualified under any of those stipulations, and there is no sponsor mentioned either.  Without a valid author and sponsor, this is not a valid rule change proposal.

It would be wild if this rule proposal was tossed on a (important) technicality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, garfield said:

No, they are simultaneously clarifying what will be an accepted minimum number of participants for the different classes of marching corps.  Getting new members is still just as hard as it always was; it's not more difficult because of 55/110.  Starting up with 35 members and promising a trip to Indy to "warm up next to the big guys" is no longer accepted, but that doesn't make getting the 55 min any harder.

"Clarifying"?  Is that a euphemism?

Bumping it up from 30/30 to 55/110 is not "clarifying" - it is a change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

I’ve been told that DCI doesn’t care if they lose the legacy fans. 

I'm inclined to think the person who told you that is lying. Maybe even to him- or herself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N.E. Brigand said:I'm inclined to think the person who told you that is lying. Maybe even to him- or herself.

I hope you’re right because I would think they’d want to keep everyone onboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

No sponsoring entity signed the woodwind proposal.

No presenting member corps is mentioned on the woodwind proposal.

Yes, they do.  Anybody can write a rule change proposal, but only certain people can be the submitting "author".  Proposals from corps people must have a sponsoring corps director, and proposals from the judging community must have a judging admin or the Artistic Director as sponsor.

Any member of the committee who was director or staff with a 2019 corps would suffice.

The BoD of DCI signed the proposal.  You're mistaken if you think ONLY a corps can submit a proposal.  Judges can, too, through their judging "entity".

Member corps are not required to sign every proposal; only those that are initiated by individuals.  Individuals must submit proposals via a corps entity, and the representative to DCI of that corps must sign the proposal showing it has a sponsoring entity.  DCI's governance (BoD) is not required to seek a corps to submit proposals, but the membership will vote on it just the same as any other proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, garfield said:

The BoD of DCI signed the proposal. 

Look again.  There are no signatures on the "Any Instrument Policy" proposal.

Quote

You're mistaken if you think ONLY a corps can submit a proposal.  Judges can, too, through their judging "entity".

That is what I said.  But the "Any Instrument Policy" proposal does not indicate it was submitted by a judge.

Quote

Member corps are not required to sign every proposal; only those that are initiated by individuals.  Individuals must submit proposals via a corps entity, and the representative to DCI of that corps must sign the proposal showing it has a sponsoring entity.  

So we agree on that, then.  Now, did you notice that there is no such signature on the "Any Instrument Policy" proposal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, garfield said:

The BoD of DCI signed the proposal.  You're mistaken if you think ONLY a corps can submit a proposal.  Judges can, too, through their judging "entity".

Member corps are not required to sign every proposal; only those that are initiated by individuals.  Individuals must submit proposals via a corps entity, and the representative to DCI of that corps must sign the proposal showing it has a sponsoring entity.  DCI's governance (BoD) is not required to seek a corps to submit proposals, but the membership will vote on it just the same as any other proposal.

I disagree. The rules as stated by DCI do not offer a carve-out for unaffiliated Directors (which is Ms Black's fundamental role on the DCI Board) to offer competitive rules changes. She is not a judge, not an individual whose proposal was sponsored by a qualified member as defined by the rules, not a staff member or instructor - she fits none of the classifications outlined as persons qualified to propose changes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the proposal shelved early on in part because of its failure to meet the standards.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.