One rule change that could modify the game

[2muchcoffeeman]

Here is the entire post from @wolfgang to which I responded:

Quote

This has the same obstacle as any other rule idea:  The corps govern themselves. 

I don't see what you claim to see.

In any case, you and I don't disagree on the problem: DCI's governance model has its various pathologies and could be improved. The issue is whether self-governance, itself, is the source of those symptoms.

Edited November 15, 2025 by 2muchcoffeeman

[Jeff Ream]

15 hours ago, Slingerland said:

That is already the model of the DCI BOD (six affiliated, three unaffiliated). It's been the model for a dozen years, at least, and hadn't made a noticeable difference because the real decision making lies with the member corps, not the BOD.

If the corps who are feeling priced out of the game really cared about making changes, they'd have to get together, do some vote counting, and approach the January meetings with a unified voice for change. But no one in a tenuous position is going to push hard against any of the Big Dogs because they need at least someone from the Big Dog group to show up to their produced contest in order to sell tickets. 

and the big dogs have changed to a degree. After all, Boston was one of the non 7, and now reside at the top. Cadets are gone.

[Jeff Ream]

14 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Here is the entire post from @wolfgang to which I responded:

I don't see what you claim to see.

In any case, you and I don't disagree on the problem: DCI's governance model has its various pathologies and could be improved. The issue is whether self-governance, itself, is the source of those symptoms.

it is because of competing agendas. sure they want the greater good to do well, as long as they themselves do the best