Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Of course I would. But supervising producer is a functional equivalent to executive producer and not to producer.

Not that it actually matters.  The Rules make zero allowances for functional equivalents. 

Is the there, because you do not like it that the rules make zero allowance, or because I would support supervising producer as a functional equivalent if the rules would allow functional equivalents?

IMO supervising producer is between the producer and executive producer. It's something like the supervisor of the executive producers. This makes him a functional equivalent to executive producer like the  supervising art director is a functional equivalent to art director for our purposes. But I do agree that as of today the rules do not make any allowance.

Please tell us where you gleaned this little bit of information (what I bolded above)?

Based on everything that I know, a Supervising Producer supervises PRODUCERS, not executive producers.

As I've stated numerous times, I do not believe in allowing "functional equivalents", period.  If we want a rolename to be allowed in DVDP, we need to convince Ken to add it to the crew table.

I might be wrong here. For this purpose we do have the notes column in the rules and the forum to clear such things up. But in the end whoever is supervised by the supervising producer is a functional equivalent for our purposes. If functional equivalents would be allowed, we could add supervising producer. The educated users can inform us, the not so informed ones, whether a job is actually an equivalent or not. Of course we would have some arguments. But in the end we would have less arguments than we have now.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Of course I would. But supervising producer is a functional equivalent to executive producer and not to producer.

Not that it actually matters.  The Rules make zero allowances for functional equivalents. 

Is the there, because you do not like it that the rules make zero allowance, or because I would support supervising producer as a functional equivalent if the rules would allow functional equivalents?

IMO supervising producer is between the producer and executive producer. It's something like the supervisor of the executive producers. This makes him a functional equivalent to executive producer like the  supervising art director is a functional equivalent to art director for our purposes. But I do agree that as of today the rules do not make any allowance.

Please tell us where you gleaned this little bit of information (what I bolded above)?

Based on everything that I know, a Supervising Producer supervises PRODUCERS, not executive producers.

As I've stated numerous times, I do not believe in allowing "functional equivalents", period.  If we want a rolename to be allowed in DVDP, we need to convince Ken to add it to the crew table.

I might be wrong here. For this purpose we do have the notes column in the rules and the forum to clear such things up. But in the end whoever is supervised by the supervising producer is a functional equivalent for our purposes. If functional equivalents would be allowed, we could add supervising producer. The educated users can inform us, the not so informed ones, whether a job is actually an equivalent or not. Of course we would have some arguments. But in the end we would have less arguments than we have now.

As far as I'm concerned there should be no arguments now.  The allowable role names are explicitly listed in the crew table today as spelled out in the current Rules.

Anything else is vorboten!

Correction:  Anything else is verboten! (my German is a little rusty)