...also known as, "Take it out - he doesn't work here any more."





Well, the stacked quotes thing isn't working properly, but I hope we all know who else chimed in here.Anyway, I too have lived through this, and I too found dismay in it (and a few times a new job soon after, sometimes at my own instigation, sometimes not). But, to be a devils advocate (and again mind I'm not in these meetings, so my insights are going to be worse than Herb's or Ben's, perhaps) there's a difrence between a buisness where the goal is clearly defined (usually just making money) and something involving artistic direction. If I go in to manage a bank, I'm not going to make changes unless I have a good faith belief they'll boost my numbers. When I've had people come in over me, I can usualy just point to my performance (generally top of the table) to say that I'm already using best practices.But, in an essentally artistic endevour, what are best practices? How do you get your numbers up on the quality of writing, or the direction of a story?So if your goal is to impart a sense of creative authorship on a project that must now bare your name (at least after a fashon, since I don't know how actual authorial credit would be assigned) then is that irrational changing something that was good anyway? Or is that rational?Like I say, I'm not in the meeting, I'm not in a related field, and I don't know the people in question. But, I do think that the decision to make a chance isn't nessissarialy irrational, even if the changed product may well have seemed like a quality product. Of course, it isn't nessissarialy rational, either.All I know is, as we've all said, however we may judge this decision, we will judge the finished product. If this is to set the tone for a new era, and we're to wait for it, it had better prove to be a damn good tone.