A Request for transparency from FIRST

[DonRotolo]

Several mentors collaborated on this letter, which was sent to FIRST by mail on 23 September.

23 September 2009

Mr. Steve R. Chism,
Vice President, Programs
FIRST
200 Bedford St
Manchester, NH 03101


Dear Mr. Chism,

We are writing to you today as a group of concerned mentors. As professionals and businesspeople, we are used to and have come to expect that any professional organization with which we are associated will generally have a future vision, a structured long-range plan that helps guide their associates towards a common goal.

The idea of a “five year plan” is not new, and nearly any organization of merit has one or something similar. However, we do not find this to be true or apparent with FIRST. Without a clearly communicated general plan for the future some of us have wasted efforts towards goals which – not long after being implemented – were nullified by some action by FIRST. Here are three recent examples:

o Switch from FVC to FTC. Several teams/schools invested in VEX kits, the switch damaged credibility with those whom we are trying to impact as per our homework assignment.
o Switch in FRC controller. The financial implications would have improved had planning been forecast to teams in advance
o District model implementation plans

We’re not complaining about these actions but about the lack of transparency in their planning phases. While it is reasonable to be without a “fully fleshed out” plan yet – particularly for the District model – surely some of the basics are known, and uncertain or speculative points can be identified as such. We certainly all know that plans can change and we can work with that.

Should FIRST desire, we happily and enthusiastically volunteer to assist with any part of the planning efforts of FIRST, both short term and long term. We're here to support you. The organization will get a lot further if we all work towards a known goal than if we pull in different directions.

We, therefore, respectfully request that FIRST publish a publicly available future plan, laying out for the volunteers and supporters FIRST’s vision of the future. Not wanting to restrict or limit your response, we leave it up to you to determine – hopefully in collaboration with skilled and sincere volunteers – what kind of document might fulfill this need.

Respectfully submitted,


Andy Baker, Team 45, 13 years
Arefin Bari, Teams 1345, 108, 9 years
John Boucher, Team 237, 6 years
Wayne Cokeley, Team 25, 12 years
Arthur Dutra, Team 228, 6 years
Kim O’Toole Eckhardt, Team 1511, 14 years
Patrick Fairbank, Team 1503, 9 years
Ryan Foley, Team 1995, 9 years
Chris Fultz, Team 234, 9 years
Collin Fultz, Teams 234, 1747, 8 years
Adam Heard, Team 973, 6 years
Dana P. Henry, Team 839, 8 years
Travis Hoffman, Team 48, 10 years
Kevin Kolodziej, Team 1675, 12 years
Mark Kramarczyk, Teams 1189, 3096, 4 years
Rich Kressly, Team 1712, 9 years
Billfred Leverette, Teams 2815, 1398, 1618, 6 years
Shawn T. Lim, Team 1310, 11 years
Cory McBride, Team 254, 9 years
Mark McLeod, team 358, 8 years
Jon Mittelman, Team 236, 9 years
Justin Montois, Team 340, 5 years
Meredith Novak, Team 16, 8 years
Bharat Nain, Team 25, 7 years
Raul Olivera, Team 111, 14 years
Ken Patton, Team 65, 13 years
Ricky Quinones, Team 269, 8 years
Bryan T. Ragaini, Team 228, 11 years
Donald Rotolo, Team 1676, 5 years
Ed Sparks, Team 34, 14 years
Beth Sweet, Formerly Teams 67, 1504, 7 years
Gary Voshol, Formerly Teams 1188, 1025, 9 years
Richard Wallace, Team 931, 8 years
Steve Warren, Team 188, 7 years
Jane Young, Team 418, 7 years

cc: Paul R. Gudonis, President
Bill Miller, Director FRC
Ken Johnson, Director FTC
Anna Maenhout, Director FLL & JFLL

[Andrew Schreiber]

Don, allow me to be the first to say THANK YOU!

EDIT: For reference, the mentors there make up over 350 years of FIRST experience.

[James Tonthat]

A second thank you. This needed to be done.

[ATannahill]

It's hard for FIRST not to listen when the signatures are longer than the letter. Thank you to all involved.

[Akash Rastogi]

I feel content knowing that these mentors have our best interests at heart. Thank you.

[Jack Jones]

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands. Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated. Last year a major complaint against FiM was the so-called lack of transparency. It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place for everyone to add their two cents.

That said; I wish the gang of thirty-five well in negotiating their five year plan. My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

[Akash Rastogi]

by a group of thirty-five among thousands. .

If these 35 don't represent the opinions and ideals of majority of the FIRST community...then I don't know who does...

[Andrew Schreiber]

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands. Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated.

Do you agree or disagree with what they are asking for? If you agree say so, if not say so and explain why.

[Schnabel]

I feel that this letter cuts to the point, and does the job of requesting, not demanding, well. Make sure to keep us informed!

It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public.

I have been involved in this sort of thing before, so let me share what I have learned.

1) Essentially the few are trying to represent the thousands of people who are involved, wouldn't the few want the thousands to have their backs? Especially when dealing with those who lead the thousands? I felt so, and usually I would be proven wrong about what the majority opinion was, even after starting to take action. This would usually lead to returning the issue at hand back to normal.

2)Those who are being asked to change will retaliate one way or another. When I am the one being asked to change, I would react differently if a majority felt the same way, and not just a few. Statements such as this must be made public in order to get a feel as to what the majority opinion is. Sure you have the few that feel one way, but when a statement is made public, and a general consensus can be determined, something should be done. This may be the difference between this letter being tossed to the side, or being brought up for consideration.

3)When you start to make something like this public, keep the public updated. This again goes with having the backs of the few. If the thousands do not know what's new, how can they support it?

Just remember, public opinion on a forum like this is not the decision making tool. This thread is just as lethal as any design your own game thread.

[Cory]

That said; I wish the gang of thirty-five well in negotiating their five year plan. My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

I don't see what your point is here. The intent of this letter was not for a small group of select people to attempt to influence FIRST policy. It was for a representative group of mentors with a lot of experience in FRC to voice their concern that the ship seems to be sailing without a plotted course, so to speak. Maybe FIRST will respond and publish (to everyone, not just this small subset of people) what their vision is for the next 5-10 years and how they plan to get there.

I really don't see how you can be opposed to this.

[Alan Anderson]

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands.

It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in public.

Only those 35 people affixed their names to the letter. Many more have been involved in the discussions about what we as team members "deserve" to know about FIRST's plans for the future.

Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated.

"Once again"? What previous events are you thinking of?

It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place (as JVN once put it) ‘for everyone to put their stink on it.’

That sounds inconsistent. Was "limit the number of seats" to "thirty-five among thousands" a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

Would you have preferred that this letter remain unpublished? Would you have wanted it to remain unsent? I don't understand what your point is.

[yodameister]

Even though this is only my 5th year in FIRST, I could not agree more that we need open lines of communication. I have been in education for over a decade now and every school has a plan for the future and most times the teachers are involved in that process in some way or another.

I wish I could have been involved in this letter as I definitely would have put my name to it, and agree with its contents. I have always wanted to be able to give my input to FIRST and if asked, would eagerly do so.

[DonRotolo]

My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand what you mean.
Make sure to keep us informed!
Absolutely!
It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in public.Thank you Alan.
I wish I could have been involved in this letter as I definitely would have put my name to it, and agree with its contents. I have always wanted to be able to give my input to FIRST and if asked, would eagerly do so.I truly regret that logistics and timing simply did not allow for the input from the "thousands"; however I feel that additional input would not have changed the message or it's impact significantly.

Anyone who feels strongly about it is encouraged to share their comments with their FIRST Regional contact. (http://www.usfirst.org/regionalcontact.aspx)

[,4lex S.]

Thank you for putting your time into this guys. I think this pretty much sums up most of my concerns with FIRST today, and I am glad such an experienced group came together to point this out to the directorship.

The magic curtain they hide the game behind every year should not extend to the overall goals of the organization. It seems almost like blindfolding everyone and then trying to get them to solve the problems we are trying to solve. This never seemed very efficient.

[Jack Jones]

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.
You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.
It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

OAO

[AdamHeard]

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.
You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.
It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

OAO

The issues are debated here because often our only chance of "understanding" what FIRST is doing is to debate for a while, then assume. In this case, Transparency would be pretty darn nice. People running teams can more effectively line their team up with the plan of FIRST, saving money and preventing potential embarrassment over things like the FTC switch.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Several mentors collaborated on this letter, which was sent to FIRST by mail on 23 September.

Possibly a bit more elaboration as to motive and reasoning for making the letter public on this forum would reduce cynical speculation as to why it was published. I am a fan of open communication but I would think some amount of long range planning need not be shared with the masses of volunteers in an organization as large as FIRST. Reason being when plans change and not everyone gets the word you are in a worse situation because people were acting upon a public plan.

So I come down in the middle on this request and don't necessarily see the benefit for posting the text of the letter on a public forum where some will take the opportunity to bandwagon on the stink parade. Tends to create an air of confrontation when your letter does not purport to be confrontational.

So if you could succinctly add to your post as to why you chose to make the letter public and how that serves your purpose of seeking transparency I think it might help set the tone for any further debate by removing cynicism from the minds of posters.

[Alan Anderson]

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.

It's not so much that anyone misunderstood. It's that we're having trouble understanding it at all. That's what the questions addressed to you were all about, so that we could find out more clearly what you were trying to say. The fact that you didn't answer any of them makes me wonder even more what you are trying to express.


You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.


This doesn't help me figure out what you want us to understand. In this particular case, do you think transparency is unnecessary? Do you think it is impossible? Do you believe that FIRST's goals are served better by not telling people their plans for the near future?


It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

I still don't follow you. Which issues do you wish not to see debated? The letter has been sent. Any discussion here can't affect its content, and no such discussion was suggested. The only issue I see open at the moment is what point of view you're coming from, so that your comments can be interpreted in that context.

[GaryVoshol]

The transparency is that this group of mentors and ex-mentors is telling what has happened. Did this letter get composed without every team having input? Yes. Was the original notice of the plan to create some form of letter disseminated through a medium that not everyone has access to? Yes. Was there any intent to exclude any people from knowing what was done? No - thus the notice posted here.

[gblake]

...

...

...

...

...

Guys - My advice at this particular moment is to be careful to look forward a bit more and backward a bit less. We are in danger of getting off the topic. - Blake

[Jonathan Norris]

to get back on topic, I would like to show my support for this letter. improvements have been made communicating with the community about recent changes, but more communication is needed about the future plans of FIRST.

[Mr. Pockets]

I figure that I'm probably just echoing the crowd here, but you did a phenomenal job of making your points clear without appearing confrontational.

Congrats to all involved!

[dtengineering]

First of all, the letter not only makes some good points, but also makes them in a very GP manner.

I express my support for the letter and appreciation to those who took the time to put it together. Writing a letter by committee is never easy, but this one clearly resonates with the FIRST mentor/coach/teacher community.

I think the idea of "we support you, but let us help you" is an important one. Had the FIRST board listented to the feedback on VEX and FTC, we might have 50+ FVC teams competing in BC instead of 6 FTC teams and 40+ VEX teams.

Jason

[Akash Rastogi]

Whenever it is available, will the response from FIRST be made public as well? I'd love to see the reaction.

[DonRotolo]

So if you could succinctly add to your post as to why you chose to make the letter public and how that serves your purpose of seeking transparency I think it might help set the tone for any further debate by removing cynicism from the minds of posters.
Succinct was never my forte but here's what I came up with:

I accepted the challenge of communicating this issue to FIRST. I felt it would be too difficult and yield essentially the same result if more people were to be involved, so it was kept small. It was exposed for comment and is far better than what was originally developed because of those comments and edits.

I thought long and hard about posting this even though we started the effort with that intent. In the end I did post it (obviously). My purpose for posting it was to make the larger CD community aware that such a request was being made. A secondary reason was to help 'push' the issue with FIRST a little by making it 'public' - a mild form of peer pressure. The last reason for posting it was to demonstrate to students that one can make their views known to others without intimidation, demands and the negativity that goes with all that.

I will most certainly share all responses received, if appropriate. However, please carefully note I did not ask for any response; instead I asked for a specific action. I do not expect that action to be taken any time before the end of next season, simply because FIRST has certain priorities that have more critical deadlines, and what was requested is not something that can be created with little effort.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Thanks for posting Don and your second and third paragraphs are succinct enough for me.:) I appreciate you posting your intent to inform others while also wanting to take the opportunity to model means of requesting follow up or action in a GP manner via your letter.

I get tired of seeing pile on threads of bashing this that or the other and didn't want to see another thread go that direction. Others who post should take into consideration your intentions and follow suit.:)

APS

[Tom Line]

I'm not sure exactly how anyone could disagree with this.

There is no suggested change in FIRST's planned actions: it is the equivalent to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request. I.e.: tell us what you you're doing, and what you are planning.

I'm sure any number of teams could hold up example of where forward-planning information would have been very helpful. Purchasing decisions are usually the most affected by that information: for instance a team who runs out and purchases expensive portable machine tools for use at matches might be very disgruntled to discover that FIRST is considering rules changes that have made those tools illegal to bring to events (which did occur).

You have my full support.

FIRST mandates on two forum posts a week for Beta testing teams to keep them in constant communication with the community. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a similar plan.

[JaneYoung]

FIRST mandates on two forum posts a week for Beta testing teams to keep them in constant communication with the community. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a similar plan.

That is rather the point from my perspective.

I've been involved in establishing non-profit organizations and sitting on boards for several years. Part of that involvement is establishing long term and short term goals and building those into the business plan and the development of the organization. It is also an area that attracts support, sponsorship, and attention because the organization looks forward, outward, and with optimism towards the future while at the same time, having a realistic course of action in place.

If the goals/plans are impacted by economic changes then those can be addressed as needed while keeping the organization on track.

[Team2339]

I think we can safely assume the FIRST staff has our best interests at heart and seeks to promote the FIRST principles and GP. As with any organization, sometimes the immediate tasks tend to draw the most effort, especially with the economic/business climate these days.

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Science is sometimes doing more with less with the emphasis on reasoning and problem solving. The best investment we can make is in our students and their capabilities to reason and solve problems, structure our teams with change and progress in mind, and prepare for what's next.

Thanks for the letter.

See you all in 2010

[Chris is me]

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

Yeah, that's true, and for tech issues I'm sure people would give FIRST lenience in this manner. But stuff like the control system change, FiM implementation, etc. aren't really things that should be changing so rapidly that it's worthless to tell anyone outside of FIRST in advance.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Was I not supposed to make a major investment in Vex parts for FVC? There's no way I could have gotten around that. Yet FIRST discontinues its use not a year after I spent thousands on them.

[Alan Anderson]

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

I think non-tech investments often get wasted when FIRST makes a sudden change in direction without advance warning. The many Vex kits purchased aren't as much of an issue as the many school programs that lost their relevance to FIRST when FVC became FTC. That single event cost FIRST a lot of goodwill among mentors and sponsors. To ask for something like that not to happen again seems reasonable to me.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I think we can safely assume the FIRST staff has our best interests at heart and seeks to promote the FIRST principles and GP. As with any organization, sometimes the immediate tasks tend to draw the most effort, especially with the economic/business climate these days.

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Science is sometimes doing more with less with the emphasis on reasoning and problem solving. The best investment we can make is in our students and their capabilities to reason and solve problems, structure our teams with change and progress in mind, and prepare for what's next.

Thanks for the letter.

See you all in 2010

Expecting change is fine, I don't think that anyone wants FIRST to tell us exactly what it will do in 5 yrs time and for us to hold them to that. That would be a disaster. Things do change and we need to realize that. The aim here, as far as I can tell, is to see where FIRST is planning on going. The example that is mentioned a lot is the FTC/FVC debacle. Knowing ahead of time that FVC was only temporary and would be replaced with an entirely new system within 5 years would have saved teams a lot of money. The fact that FIRST switched gears rapidly and for no obvious (to us) reason (I am not speculating on a reason here) ticked a lot of people off.

No one wants detailed plans and finalized budgets for 5 and 10 years out, we are asking for vision, goals, and budget proposals so we know where they are heading. Meaning, something a little more attainable and measurable than the general goals of FIRST. Can these goals change based on the environment? OF COURSE, it would be foolish not to. Should they be changed because FIRST wants to please a new sponsor? (hypothetical situation, not saying it would ever happen) Heavens no! We just want to know if FiM will continue for the next 5 years, can we plan on it for budgeting next year? Right now we don't really have methods for FIRST to communicate this. Bill's Blog is a wonderful step in the right direction, I do believe FIRST is trying to become more transparent. I also believe this letter should help to communicate that the community (or at least a subset of the community represented by these mentors) believe that FIRST needs to take these steps.

[JaneYoung]

No one wants detailed plans and budgets for 5 years out, we are asking for vision and goals.

Actually, it is wise to work with 3 year and 5 year strategic and budget projections and planning, Andrew. A large part of my job has to do with the 3 year planning and budget projections.

Just a thought.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Actually, it is wise to work with 3 year and 5 year strategic and budget projections and planning, Andrew. A large part of my job has to do with the 3 year planning and budget projections.

Just a thought.

Point taken, I will go back and reword that part to more accurately say what I mean. Thank you.

[JaneYoung]

Point taken, I will go back and reword that part to more accurately say what I mean. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew. This is what can happen when bean counters read ChiefDelphi. :)

[artdutra04]

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.We're building robots for a high school competition, not 45 nanometer multi-core processors for Intel.

The PIC-based IFI control system was used more or less unchanged for five years (2004 through 2008). Based upon the current control system, I wouldn't be surprised if we're still using more or less the same hardware well into the 2010s decade.

It's cheaper for us to stay well away from the bleeding edge, and high school students still get inspired either way.

[Adam Y.]

Expecting change is fine, I don't think that anyone wants FIRST to tell us exactly what it will do in 5 yrs time and for us to hold them to that. That would be a disaster. Things do change and we need to realize that. The aim here, as far as I can tell, is to see where FIRST is planning on going. The example that is mentioned a lot is the FTC/FVC debacle. Knowing ahead of time that FVC was only temporary and would be replaced with an entirely new system within 5 years would have saved teams a lot of money.
I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

[EricH]

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.
MI pilot and Israel Regional pilot come to mind. They worked, and are still going. That's not exactly the same as the FTC pilot seasons.

[Cory]

I think we can safely assume the FIRST staff has our best interests at heart and seeks to promote the FIRST principles and GP. As with any organization, sometimes the immediate tasks tend to draw the most effort, especially with the economic/business climate these days.

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I think it's questionable whether or not they do have our best interests at heart.

If their goal is rapid expansion as fast as possible with no regards to sustainability that is not in the best interests of the current teams.

We don't know what their plan is. Their actions seem to say that maybe there might kinda sorta be a plan that they may or may not be referring to from time to time. But we have no idea what that is. If we knew it would help everyone to better direct their efforts to either support that plan, or get out of Dodge. Especially since FIRST is so volunteer driven.

[dtengineering]

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

VEX and Tetrix parts have a longer "investment timeline" than most FRC parts do, as they are intended to be re-used from year-to-year. That is one of the beautiful things about the system... the cost can be amortized over several years of competition. In fact... they kind of have to be in order to make them a good investment of scarce educational funding.

IFI has demonstrated how having a long term plan to gradually transition from one technology to another can allow teams and schools to plan for, and budget for, changes and improvements. They have been clear about what technologies are under development and made it possible for teams to do incremental upgrades. Not only that... but IFI appears to be going to great pains to make sure that their technology advancements actually work before releasing them for sale and competition. For instance we have known that wi-fi was on its way for well over a year, and have just purchased two Wi-Fi upgrades to transition two of our five VEX kits from crystals to the VEXNET system. Next year, I hope to purchase three more upgrades... but I'll probably hold off purchasing a new kit until the new controller is available.

FIRST's idea of a long term strategy was announcing "Your equipment might be obsolete next year." No transition plan, no gradual upgrade path... not even a description of what the new technology was going to be. That made it pretty difficult to plan or budget for the future. It also made it difficult to encourage new teams to sign up... in fact we held off recuiting rookie FTC teams in BC that year because we really didn't know what the future would hold for them. (Turns out the future was quite rosy... but as VRC teams!)

Generally the FIRST directors do a really good job, and I'm willing to believe that they thought they had been sufficiently transparent -- I might have, too, had I been in their shoes -- but that is why I think it was a good idea to politely ask for them to try just a bit harder at sharing their plans and vision for the future of FRC, FTC and FLL.

Jason

[JesseK]

Thanks for the letter Don. It truly reflects what I believe, that our team (well, entire organization...) is flexible so long as FIRST is honest with us. Yet I do believe the example for the FRC control system is in danger of being taken as irrelevant.

============================================

In FRC, when you think about it, what exactly changed?
Did we have to pay more to compete in last season? No.
Did some teams get the opportunity to play 60 matches before they made it to Atlanta? Yes. Some of the rest of us are quite irked by our own lack of opportunity to do so.
Did we get additional options for control? Yes. Were they always better? Not exactly, but that's just life as an engineer tbh.
Do things change for those of us who try to keep old robots running? Yes.
Would you rather FIRST come up with a transition plan to a new control system for teams over 2 years or get it all done in 1 year? In all honesty, I'm particularly grateful we did it in one.
Additionally, NI may have asked FIRST to keep things under wraps until NI was able to make everything official from their perspective. So why exactly are we complaining about this lack of transparency to FIRST?

To me, the complaints that we changed to a new system are just like a lobbyist session on Capitol Hill. Every lobbyist has a say in what they want yet they forgo their rights to listen to others or the big picture. They want what they want, that's all they care about, and they'll explode even an infinitesimal irrelevant detail into a big deal if they think it will help them get it.

==============

For the FTC-FVC debocle ... well, I don't know if we'll ever get the truth out of that one. There are many rumors, and (to me) one of them makes complete logical sense no matter how I look at it. Yet the only concrete fact from it all is that now FIRSTers now have other options for a small robotics platform, and either platform has its pros and cons.

[ebarker]

getting back to basics, from the FIRST website

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

My comments:

Above are the stated goals of FIRST. However, caveat galore.... The 1st instinct of any institution is self-preservation. And that can create behavior that overrides the stated mission of the institution.

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

The goal is to promote FIRST values and missions, not 'growth' numbers. Promoting programs for the sake of hitting 'sales' targets isn't helpful, at all !!

In our team travels and ventures we make recommendation to folks. It includes FIRST and non-FIRST programs. It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.

If we need to make a recommendation for VEX or MATE or something else then that is the way it has to roll. It is just confusing and painful for FIRST'ers and the public to digest the 'brand identity' problems.

The word 'debacle' seems to becoming FTC's middle name and with some justification.

On the issue of the new control system for FRC - I think it is a good thing. It is making presentations to high level policy makers, mover, and shakers real easy and effective. That along with other features of FRC help make it easy for these policy makers to really focus on the value of programs like FIRST, VEX, and all the rest.

.

[Adam Y.]

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.
It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.
If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.
I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

[Chris is me]

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

[Andrew Schreiber]

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.


How about a compromise between the two, number of students involved. If memory serves correctly TIMS asks for the number of students on the team. Assuming there is some correlation between number of students involved and cultural impact this number would show us impact of teams new and old. It would allow FIRST to see if teams are starting and then slowly dying off or if teams are growing over time.

[Lil' Lavery]

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

It was v.5, as in 0.5.

[EricH]

Guys, the long and the short of it is that for whatever reason, the teams didn't get the memo that the VEX system was temporary, whatever that memo was or if there was one. So they invested lots of money in the VEX system, only to have the change to Tetrix happen. Whoever's fault it was, what's done is done, and many people are annoyed. It would have been better to know in advance, but we didn't.

It is certainly nice to know about things that will affect us substantially ahead of time. SAE Aero Design switched to the 2.4 GHz control channel this year. However, for at least two years before the change, there was a notice in the rules to the effect of: "We are changing to 2.4 GHz, probably around 2010. This is so you can plan your budget to get a 2.4 Ghz system. Be ready. To prepare, 2.4 GHz is allowed at competition." It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

[Foster]

I'd like to see the "number of students" number too. We are growing, our FRC team has gone from 10 to 30 students per year (this is year 6). Our VRC teams have gone from 1 team 5 students in 2005-6 to 9 teams with 50+ students this year. So we are reaching out to more students, the growth is good. This is our first year for a FLL team and that's another 12 students.

One of the things about FLL, FTC and VRC is that when we get more roboteers it's a smaller upfront cost to spin up another team. With FRC that's a harder prospect, the base cost is much higher. I like to see everyone engaged and thats a tough thing to do with a large FRC team. Some teams (and you know who you are) have students that are always focused, for some of us it's a much bigger challenge.

And all roboteers don't all groove on the bigger robots. I have high school students that want to work on the VEX bots, the big bot does not interest them. On the other hand I have 7th graders that would dump the small bots in a heartbeat to work on the big one.

Run the program that works for you and your roboteers. There are 50+ million students NOT in a robot program, so we have room for everyone. And remember there are robotic programs for the air and water, they are also worth doing.

[ebarker]

The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

One of the things that has surprised me is how it is relatively straightforward to measure how well the community 'embraces' teams and their efforts to promote STEM education. The Chairman's submission works to assess that by reviewing indicators like partnerships, communication, and other support factors.

If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.

Sure, if you ignore things like chemical engineering, biological engineering, earth & atmospheric sciences, nuclear physics, environmental eng., electromagnetics, solid state physics, industrial engineering, material science engineering, aerospace engineering, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, information and modulation theory, and so on.

Engineering and science are huge fields, we barely even touch the tip of the iceberg.

[JaneYoung]

In my opinion, introducing students to robotics programs and interesting them in science and technology is a short-term goal. The long-term goal would be looking at and assessing the results of the college graduates and their degree choices and career decisions stemming from the experiences with FIRST programs in elementary, middle, and high school years.
--
There are many areas that can be addressed when requesting more transparency. To continue to strive to expand at a very fast rate without a clear course of sustainability and therefore, direction - is one that I think is very important.

[GaryVoshol]

Regarding the switch in the controller, part of the concern was also with making it reusable, and not including it and other parts in the Veteran KoP.

A good transition was the way FLL handled RCX --> NXT. Both systems were allowed to be used, so teams with legacy RCX's could still use them; it was pointed out that there would be less and less support for the RCX. Compare that to the abrupt switch away from VEX. I don't recall seeing any RCX during the last season; the transition has pretty much been complete.

Obviously we couldn't use two different control systems in FRC because of the field controls, so the analogy isn't exactly parallel. But if it was known at the beginning that teams would not get as many parts in their kit this year, they may have made some different decisions last year. With advance knowledge comes more options and opportunities. That's all that is being asked for.

[DonRotolo]

It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

Getting back on topic: This thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78567) may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Getting back on topic: This thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78567) may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.

Thanks for making the link to recent announcements from FIRST. I didn't want to post the link but was thinking the very same thing in regards to this being honest efforts by FIRST to share information when it is appropriate.

In regards to the championship move, this has probably been in the works for some time and the greater community only needed to know when the deal was finalized.

I still have to believe that the staff at FIRST is working towards the benefit of the program which has to be to the benefit of most teams or the program would die. Not saying they don't make mistakes. The original letter and posts here by some of the signatures, indicate that they have faith in FIRST but would like to be more engaged and made aware of significant changes when it is reasonable to do so.:cool:

[Chris is me]

For the Championship, I don't really know what else FIRST could have told us about it. And they did tell us over a year in advance. There's not much to criticize, in my opinion, on that decision.

[Alan Anderson]

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog. For example, there was the mention that crate requirements might change. But the informal tone of the blog and its occasional misstatements of fact tend to keep me from taking it too seriously, and the interesting but irrelevant tidbits about such things as the GDC's dietary habits makes it hard to sift out the important information.

The day-to-day details don't have to be published in order for teams and mentor groups to be more effective. It's the medium- to long-term plans that are needed in order to give us direction. We have the tools, and we'd like to think we have the skills, but we don't have the blueprints, or even the design sketches.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog.

You are absolutely right, Alan. FIRST is giving us a lot more information than they used to. Unfortunately, that's a pandoras' box because once people find out that there is information out there, they want it all (even before decisions are made).

FIRST made a decision to be more transparent with their mid-range plans a few years ago (It seems to me) and now they are paying for it.

FIRSTs goal is to inspire kids to become engineers / inventors. In order to do that they sometimes need to make decisions that will be unpopular or cause turmoil within the established following. These things need to be done unilaterally, and do not need an open discussion, which would happen with any more transparency.

It's my opinion (I'll only speak for myself) that FIRST does a good job of balancing its goals with the needs of the faithful. Yes there are bumps in the road and yes things could always be done better, but I challange anyone whom is in a position of authority to make hard decisions without upsetting someone. It can't be continuously done.

JM(NS)HO

[DonRotolo]

I received a phone call from Bill Miller Wednesday (I've been procrastinating on writing this).

FIRST understands the point of the letter, has discussed it at the highest levels, and absolutely takes it seriously. They are mindful of changes and their impact, and want to keep teams as well-informed as possible.

They do regularly consult with Hall of Fame teams and WFA winners (and sometimes local teams) when making important decisions, and wish they could involve a wider audience but logistics sometimes prevent that. (To Jack Jones' point, oure letter was developed that way).

He told me that they'll definitely take action on this, and I suggested to Bill that we push the time frame on this issue to the end of the 2010 season, so they could develop a quality communication of their vision, not just dash off something. He seemed grateful for the extra time, and promised they'd absolutely address it to the best of their ability.

I still have to believe that the staff at FIRST is working towards the benefit of the program which has to be to the benefit of most teamsAfter speaking with Bill Miller, I have to agree Andrew. These guys are passionate about it.
It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog.

It's the medium- to long-term plans that are needed in order to give us direction.Alan, did you tap into my phone call? I agree that we are seeing greater transparency already, and now we are pushing the envelope harder (in a good way). I thanked Bill for his blog. In my own opinion, don't be fooled by the informality of the blog, he means what he writes.
FIRST made a decision to be more transparent with their mid-range plans a few years ago (It seems to me) and now they are paying for it.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to know everything, immediately. Just like here at work, "Management" informs us the best they can, but not everything can be said publicly.

[Swan217]

First of all, looks like FIRST has had a busy month, if they've been personally answering all of the "Concerned Citizens" letters that they've been getting lately (and it sounds like they've been getting a lot!). I have to really give them credit for listening to feedback and seeming to be dedicated to addressing the issues involved.

Secondly, it's unfortunate that things have progressed this far that a large public letter was necessary to address FIRST's transparency issues. I've been having this conversation for at least the last 5 years, and this is the first time that it's all really boiled over the top.

Lastly, to the apologists and the naysayers saying that transparency has CAUSED the issues and we should leave the full-disclosure to the "important people":
In the leadership class I'm taking, we had an exercise - 5 people in a group, Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald and Goofy. The first 3 could only communicate with Donald individually, and Goofy could only communicate through Donald. Unbeknownst to everyone, only Goofy had the goals of the exercise, but needed information from all of the other members.
In the teams that succeeded (mine! :D ), Manager Goofy (me! :D ) explicitly told Middle-Management Donald what the goals of the exercise were. The teams where Goofy held all of the cards and all of the plebeians below were left in the dark failed miserably.

Our teams are going to fail, either through frustration or through bad team management, if the Goofys in Manchester/Detroit aren't more open with which direction the organization is going. I don't think these prestigious mentors are asking for a GPS system to tell us EVERYTHING we want to know, but simply asking for a MAP so we can find our own way to the promised land of "inspir[ing] young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that ... foster ... leadership"

[Akash Rastogi]

I'm sure many have noticed that lately FIRST actually has come through and is being more transparent in what they've been doing lately.

Once again, thank you to those who participated in this letter. Looks like things are working out. :)

[DonRotolo]

Thanks 'stogi. I see it too. But I'm still going to hold Bill to his promise some time after Championship.

[Ben Mitchell]

So has there been an official response to this?

[EricH]

So has there been an official response to this?
Yes. Don gave the response a few posts ago.

[kamocat]

I wanted to pull this back into visibility, as the season is nearing its end.
I'm not asking for new posts, but I'd like the greater FIRST community to be aware of this, and to foster clear and respectful communication to ensure everyone's needs are met.

[Chris is me]

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

[RMiller]

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

For what it is worth, Dean mentioned this at the Midwest regional. Boiling it down (others can correct any misstatements), he didn't want to add lots of pressure during the build season. In addition, he really only wanted to see the best of the best in this initial year. The time crunch on teams allowed for the judges to not be overworked with up to 130 essays. I know not all teams submitted two names (or even one in some cases). From the sound of it, it was a post kick-off decision.
That said, I seem to recall there being hints at things to come in the kick-off. I don't know if Dean's List was what was intended.

[Rich Kressly]

For what it is worth, Dean mentioned this at the Midwest regional. Boiling it down (others can correct any misstatements), he didn't want to add lots of pressure during the build season. In addition, he really only wanted to see the best of the best in this initial year. The time crunch on teams allowed for the judges to not be overworked with up to 130 essays. I know not all teams submitted two names (or even one in some cases). From the sound of it, it was a post kick-off decision.
That said, I seem to recall there being hints at things to come in the kick-off. I don't know if Dean's List was what was intended.

Well, if you're looking for the best of the best, waiting till the last minute will NOT get you all of the best. Sorry, but this was a crappy, misguided decision if that really was the thinking.

Many teams I'm sure are like mine and don't have a ton of mentors or students sitting around waiting for something to do. I, personally, had to make a decision to ignore the robot withholding work for 2-3 full days because we made the decision to write the nominations. Thus, our robot was not as competitive on the field as it might have been in our initial event. It's not a decision that I regret, but I'm surely not pleased I was forced to make it. Other teams - some of the best with really awesome kids - decided the opposite, and I fully understand and support their choices as well.

Dean's list is a long overdue honor and I'm thrilled it exists. However, to quote a far more astute person than I on these boards, this was an "abortive process" at best this year.

[JaneYoung]

When something is handled poorly, it is handled poorly.
There are no excuses that are good enough and the results are not an accurate assessment because of the mishandled process.

I'm delighted that teams carved out the time to write and submit essays acknowledging the strength of character, commitment, integrity, and true grit of the students that were selected on their team and, in a way, are representatives of their team's character. I'm thrilled that the Finalists will compete at the Championship level and will have created another beautiful page in the history of FRC. It is wonderful and FRC, as a community, is celebrating this long overdue honor, the Dean's List Award.

But, when something is handled poorly, it is handled poorly and creates unbelievable and unnecessary stress on those who must weigh the consequences of the decision whether to participate or to ignore this wonderful and prestigious moment in the history of FRC.

Next year, we will be able to savor the true depth of the meaning of this award when it is announced in a timely fashion.

Jane

[HashemReza]

Now, I'm a fairly involved person on my team. I've spent up to 35 hours at my school in one sitting this past build season, working with my teammates non-stop. I also wrote our Woodie Flowers submissions this year, both the local regional level and the national refresher. You might say I'm fairly checked in. I frequent CD, possibly a few times a day on average.

I had no idea what they were talking about when they mentioned the "Dean's Finalist Award" in San Diego. Literally, I looked around confused because I had not an inkling that this award existed.

Now, I'm sure that there was more notification that I was unaware of...but it just seems to have been somewhat mis-handled.

The worst part? I missed an opportunity. This is my senior year, and I would have loved to nominate one of my fellow seniors for the award. It's saddening that those students around me, who inspire me just as much as our mentors and teachers, have also missed out on the opportunity to be recognized for their overwhelming dedication and intelligence. Oh well, I suppose just telling them in person will have to do for now ;)

The award is obviously well-meaning, and frankly a very necessary one. It has just tripped slightly in it's first year.

[DonRotolo]

As the original poster, I think FIRST has taken this letter and starting moving with it. We HAVE seen more transparency from FIRST since then, it seems obvious to me that they are trying. They aren't perfect (e.g., Dean's List) but who of us is?

In a conversation with Bill Miller shortly after the letter was sent, he asked to me to keep him honest and check in with him a few weeks after Championships. I will, and will report back here what we discussed.

[Dancin103]

Don and all of those involved, thank you for sending in this letter. From my 15 years in FIRST reading through your letter, I could only think about the criteria they read off when announcing the winner for the KPCB Entrepreneurship award when I was reading your letter. If only FIRST would do what they asked of teams to do in establishing themselves as a company with plans for the future.

Cass

[Mr.G]

I agree with this and think that one person from every team should have a chance to have input using something like the TIMS system.

If the team wants to have input they should have to write a letter (limited by number of letters and/or subjects so it doesn't get to long) on what they want to see changed. That way the people that really care will get time to speak.

Then the letters from the teams all get summarized and a list created. Next the person that wrote the letter gets to vote on a list or put the list in the order of importance to their team.

[ICntIHaveRbtics]

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

If the Dean's List award was honestly thought out and defined at the beginning of the season, I would think that FIRST would have put it out at the very beginning to give people as much time as possible to submit nominations for it.

But following the "never enough time" mantra, alas I believe it was something they wanted to try and squeeze in and give some people the opportunity to receive the honor this year as opposed to waiting until last year. Surely students that deserved the honor are students from teams that make it work regardless of having a short amount of time.

[Chris is me]

If the Dean's List award was honestly thought out and defined at the beginning of the season, I would think that FIRST would have put it out at the very beginning to give people as much time as possible to submit nominations for it.

Yeah, I would too. Which makes me wonder why FIRST would make such an important award an impulse decision

But following the "never enough time" mantra, alas I believe it was something they wanted to try and squeeze in and give some people the opportunity to receive the honor this year as opposed to waiting until last year. Surely students that deserved the honor are students from teams that make it work regardless of having a short amount of time.

I'll go tell the students from 980, 1323, and countless others that had TIMS problems that their team just didn't make it work. :rolleyes:

Teams like mine had to have their students play a significant role in their own essays in order to get them done. We did not have time to discuss candidates, whether or not to submit for the award, etc. in two school days. It was stupid to rush this award and the right people did not get recognized, I guarantee it.

[jonny2112]

I really don't think Deans List was impulse decision on FIRST part, that said I don't think they had everything ready at the time of kickoff. If you look at everything the winners of Deans list get you can see just how complicated everything was.

A written recommendation from FIRST leadership to the college or employer of each student’s choice.
A credit towards the winning student’s team following year registration fee
An invitation to attend an expenses paid Leadership in Engineering Workshop in Manchester, NH.
The opportunity to work with all members of the FIRST Dean's List and network with FIRST leaders to
advance FIRST.


Even if they had the award set up, maybe it took them a little longer than expected to make sure they would be able to pay that all expense trip, or maybe there were some other issues that came up last minute.

While I am a little upset that they could not have released the award earlier, I am happy that they brought together so many awesome incentives that really make this award one of the most meaningful in FIRST.

[efoote868]

I hope they respond to this in writing... I'd be more interested in reading it in my own time rather than listening to Dean about it during a kickoff event (when I have other things to be anxious about).

Well said, well crafted.

[JesseK]

If "Dean's List" was truly a late-coming program, then perhaps there was an intrisic debate as to when to release it. My opinion is that it's better to release it now and open the opportunity to students sooner rather than later. It's still better than keeping the opportunity under wraps for another year just they have more time to plan it. That has nothing to do with 'transparency'.

I think FIRST is slowly turning the ship towards better seas. The program, the game, and the overall presentation of the message have all improved this year, IMO.

[ICntIHaveRbtics]

Teams like mine had to have their students play a significant role in their own essays in order to get them done. We did not have time to discuss candidates, whether or not to submit for the award, etc. in two school days. It was stupid to rush this award and the right people did not get recognized, I guarantee it.

So are you saying that the people that did get recognized for the award don't deserve it? There are always going to be people that missed out on getting a chance to receive the award and might have deserved it "more" because of the crunch, I admit that, and I realized I didn't say anything along those lines in my initial post. But in the same breath we should be happy for the people who did get recognized because they did deserve it -- more, less, or the same as the people who didn't get a chance to submit, at least we know that those people did things for our FIRST community that must be substantial in order to receive the award. Not crush the credibility of the award because of the rushed process. Hypothetically if I received the honor, I wouldn't want to hear someone else saying that "the right people did not get recognized"...

[EricH]

He's not saying that the recipients didn't deserve it.

He's saying that there are a number of deserving students that, due to problems with TIMS, didn't even get to submit for the award, through no fault of their own.

Some teams with students that could have been nominated did not submit, due to the time crunch. Other teams wanted to leave the students out of the loop (due to the same reasons that students do the same thing with the WFFA), but could not due to the process. Teams that had to involve the students could only involve the students who had time to write the essays.

Saying that the right people did not get recognized may be stretching the truth, but it's a natural outgrowth of the above.

[DonRotolo]

Ending the discussion on the Dean's List Gaffe:

Let's just chalk it up to another case of less than perfect (= human) planning. I believe that FIRST is also not happy at how it actually 'went down', but when you're dealing with a mostly-volunteer organization, you really have little recourse and authority ff the person who was supposed to get this done is a few days late.

Now, if this had been announced 7 days earlier, would you have found it to be better? That is, would you be happier about how it happened? TIMS issues would have been resolved, discussions could happen in 4 or 6 days and still plenty of time to write essays, etc.

Well, how may of you have never been late delivering a project?

I can't claim to know ANY of the details, but I see this stuff in other volunteer organizations; Whoever ****ed up knows it, and maybe they won't do it again. You could cut their salary in half, but even 0.5 * 0 = 0. Sure, extending the deadline might have helped, but maybe not (and I'd hate to have less time to judge) - but hindsight is 20/20

The horse is dead; stop beating it please.

[Akash Rastogi]

Ending the discussion on the Dean's List Gaffe:

Let's just chalk it up to another case of less than perfect (= human) planning. I believe that FIRST is also not happy at how it actually 'went down', but when you're dealing with a mostly-volunteer organization, you really have little recourse and authority ff the person who was supposed to get this done is a few days late.
The horse is dead; stop beating it please.

At Boston, Dean spoke with a heartfelt apology for the timing of the Dean's List award. He said they knew it was bad timing, he admitted it and apologized. Simple as that. It was better to announce it that late (when the idea came to the board's mind) than to just wait a year and let an entire year of graduates lose the opportunity.

[ebarker]

Dean repeated the heartfelt apology this past Saturday in Raleigh North Carolina.

Even though they didn't get entries from every team the did get a very nice pool of submissions.

Congratulations to the Dean's list regional winners. The honor is well deserved.

I concur with Don. Case closed !

[Boydean]

Ending the discussion on the Dean's List Gaffe:

Let's just chalk it up to another case of less than perfect (= human) planning. I believe that FIRST is also not happy at how it actually 'went down', but when you're dealing with a mostly-volunteer organization, you really have little recourse and authority ff the person who was supposed to get this done is a few days late.

Now, if this had been announced 7 days earlier, would you have found it to be better? That is, would you be happier about how it happened? TIMS issues would have been resolved, discussions could happen in 4 or 6 days and still plenty of time to write essays, etc.

Well, how may of you have never been late delivering a project?

I can't claim to know ANY of the details, but I see this stuff in other volunteer organizations; Whoever ****ed up knows it, and maybe they won't do it again. You could cut their salary in half, but even 0.5 * 0 = 0. Sure, extending the deadline might have helped, but maybe not (and I'd hate to have less time to judge) - but hindsight is 20/20

The horse is dead; stop beating it please.

Thank you Don.

[MikeE]

From this afternoon's entry on
Bill's Blog "Just 5 Days to Go" (http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2010/04/just-5-days-to-go.html) (my emphasis)

I’ll be hosting FRC Live in the FRC pits on Thursday and Friday. Join me for:
...
• Thursday 3:30PM Upcoming Technologies: What’s on the Horizon? I will discuss the kit of parts, the 5 year plan and ask what you’d like to see included in the future.

[DonRotolo]

5 year plan?

My goodness, I gotta call him and offer to shine his shoes or get his coffee or something. Wow, maybe it DID get through...:)

[Radical Pi]

Does FRC Live get a webcast? I'd be interested in seeing this

[kamocat]

As the original poster, I think FIRST has taken this letter and starting moving with it. We HAVE seen more transparency from FIRST since then, it seems obvious to me that they are trying. They aren't perfect (e.g., Dean's List) but who of us is?

In a conversation with Bill Miller shortly after the letter was sent, he asked to me to keep him honest and check in with him a few weeks after Championships. I will, and will report back here what we discussed.
I haven't heard anything in a while, so I am presenting a friendly reminder. A premature post is simply preemptive communication.

[DonRotolo]

Sorry for the delay folks!

The video is posted at http://www.vimeo.com/11064599
Since I ran out of battery near the end, Mark McLeod (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=4205)kindly posted a few fill-ins at: http://www.team358.org/history/2010/videos/FRC-Technology-Roadmap/


Mark was also kind enough to extract a single frame from one of his early shots showing the FRC 5 year technology plan. But, Bill made it clear that the plan is a secret (watch the video to hear why).

A challenge to FRC students: Decode the magic scroll. (For what it's worth: I see that for 2012 and 2013, the words "Continuously-Variable Transmission" are written. I just didn't have the time to look closer.)

Also, a HUGE thank you to Mark.

[Madison]

I don't think that, "We have a plan. We promise," is a particularly useful sort of transparency.

[Andrew Schreiber]

"Here is my plan for ending world hunger, ensuring world peace, and generating unlimited clean energy. I have a plan, I promise."

See, I can do it too. I could even show you a big document with those words on it. Flash it in front of your faces and claim it is confidential.

Sorry, I am angry about this. If you can't tell us anything don't bring it up. If you are just going to stick your tongue out and say "HA HA I can't tell you anything!" Do us a favor, don't even bring it up. To me all the whole technology road map thing did was to leave a sour taste in my mouth. The rest of the presentation was interesting though.


EDIT: Also Don, your link to 358's site doesn't work.

[rsisk]

Bill's got a tough job of balancing access to information against revealing too much, especially when some of that information is either not fully baked, subject to change, or in the works.

What if he lets out some details too early, teams make plans, and then the details fall through. How many people would chase Bill with pitchforks and torches for being wrong?

The seem to have been pretty opening during this FRCLive discussion. Kudos to them and keep it up.

[Andy Baker]

Kudos to them and keep it up.

I totally agree. No one person or organization is perfect. I applaud FIRST for doing what we have asked them to do: be more transparent. I don't think that we can expect full transparency. The improvement during this past year has been impressive, and very welcome.

As we consider everything that FIRST has to juggle, we need to keep telling FIRST what we like and don't like. On a whole, them being more transparent has been a great thing, although there have been a couple of mistakes (teasing us with the technology roadmap, and choosing some wrong wording on a Blog post).

My reminder to the rest of the crew out there is to not focus on the few mistakes, but look at the whole picture of openness and improved communication from FIRST.

Andy B.

[JaneYoung]

My reminder to the rest of the crew out there is to not focus on the few mistakes, but look at the whole picture of openness and improved communication from FIRST.


Agreed. We also need to keep in mind the recent changes in FIRST management (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85611) and how that is going to impact.

Relax, enjoy the summer. Let some transitioning and change occur without being angry or resentful. There has been a lot of positive opportunity this season. An example is the time that was taken by individuals like Bill Miller, Dr. Flowers, and Dave Lavery to meet with people and talk with them about the bigger picture, at the Championship. It also gave them an opportunity to share their thoughts and views as well. We should spend as much time listening and paying attention as we do criticizing - probably more.

Jane

[Akash Rastogi]

"Here is my plan for ending world hunger, ensuring world peace, and generating unlimited clean energy. I have a plan, I promise."

See, I can do it too. I could even show you a big document with those words on it. Flash it in front of your faces and claim it is confidential.

Sorry, I am angry about this. If you can't tell us anything don't bring it up. If you are just going to stick your tongue out and say "HA HA I can't tell you anything!" Do us a favor, don't even bring it up. To me all the whole technology road map thing did was to leave a sour taste in my mouth. The rest of the presentation was interesting though.


EDIT: Also Don, your link to 358's site doesn't work.

As much as I usually respect your comments, there is no particularly good reason to get nasty about this. FIRST is clearly putting in the effort, and frankly that's good enough for me. More effort than my state government does with state education policies anyway. :rolleyes:

I will give them time to unveil their plan, they showed this to prove that "yes, we are working on something, we didn't throw your comments to the wayside." Would you rather them respond with this, or not at all for over a year?

Go easy. The FRC community will be learning a few new things fairly shortly (I hope).

Thank you very much for the update Don, reassurance of proposed action is all that I really needed.
.

[Andrew Schreiber]

As much as I usually respect your comments, there is no particularly good reason to get nasty about this. FIRST is clearly putting in the effort, and frankly that's good enough for me. More effort than my state government does with state education policies anyway. :rolleyes:

I will give them time to unveil their plan, they showed this to prove that "yes, we are working on something, we didn't throw your comments to the wayside." Would you rather them respond with this, or not at all for over a year?

Go easy. The FRC community will be learning a few new things fairly shortly (I hope).

Thank you very much for the update Don, reassurance of proposed action is all that I really needed.
.

There is getting ready to unveil their plan (which I am not convinced they are making an effort to do) and then there is making a half baked move to appease us. I feel this was the latter. If they wanted to say something about their 5 year plan they could have merely said it does exist, made some comments as to the difficulties they have had in the past (as they did) and moved on. It would have been much nicer than waving some piece of paper in front of us. (Ok, I admit, THAT was what irked me the most.) I understand they can't release it and genuinely do appreciate the gesture they made but I reserve the right to complain about how they did it.

(Though, I admit, I was probably a little too harsh)

[kamocat]

The idea of a “five year plan” is not new, and nearly any organization of merit has one or something similar. However, we do not find this to be true or apparent with FIRST. Without a clearly communicated general plan for the future some of us have wasted efforts towards goals which – not long after being implemented – were nullified by some action by FIRST.
Perhaps more important than knowing what will change is knowing what will remain the same, and for how long. With that information, teams can budget expenses based on how long the technology will be relevant. If we are told the digital sidecar will be obsolete next year due to CAN, then we know not to invest in digital sidecars. If we know that victor 884s will no longer be legal, then we know not to buy any more. If we know the 2 second reaction time of auto-resetting breakers is deemed unsafe, then we know we don't have to stock up on them. This allows us to use our money on things that will be useful now and 5 years into the future, and avoid buying things that will become obsolete.

[DonRotolo]

I applaud FIRST for doing what we have asked them to do: be more transparent. I don't think that we can expect full transparency. The improvement during this past year has been impressive, and very welcome.
Andy, thanks for saying what I've been thinking. My original letter never asked for full disclosure; I (and many others who signed it) just wanted more communication, more "heads up" when major changes were decided.

Witness Bill's Blog, where we get to hear "from the horse's mouth" *. Along with several other smaller things like FRC Live. We are indeed seeing greater transparency from FIRST.

Is it perfect? No, perhaps not, but it is up to US to tell FIRST how they can improve.
Perhaps more important than knowing what will change is knowing what will remain the same, and for how long.
Indeed, that would be quite helpful.

So how about it: Who will take on "decoding" that photograph? All we need is some kids with a mission. If you guys can even identify where they got the moon fish image from, this should be a piece of cake.

[ATannahill]

Have you ever heard of getting an inch and taking a foot? Bill explained why the road map was to be a secret.

If we take everything we get and extort it until we have uncovered too much for our (or FIRST's) own good, will he still be as open with us as we want?

[Radical Pi]

So how about it: Who will take on "decoding" that photograph? All we need is some kids with a mission. If you guys can even identify where they got the moon fish image from, this should be a piece of cake.

I did a quick zoom on that image. It's way too pixelated to get a clear view of anything listed on there. Is there any chance someone else got a better image?

[kamocat]

Is it perfect? No, perhaps not, but it is up to US to tell FIRST how they can improve.
Not to be insulting, but how about a bug tracker / feature request for recording what changes we'd like to see in FIRST?
It seems it might provide a standard method of identifying an issue, and help keep us from repeating ourselves as we do on these forums.
Perhaps, out of respect, it could be called the "FIRST Feature Request" or something similar.

[DonRotolo]

I did a quick zoom on that image. It's way too pixelated to get a clear view of anything listed on there. Is there any chance someone else got a better image?
That image was a single-frame grab from a HD video by Mark McLeod; perhaps someone can get the few frames that show it clearly and superimpose them (like an old Pinnacle image capture box used to do) and clarify it there.

Like I said: I was able to decode "continuously-variable transmission" from the 2012 and 2013 columns, about 2/3 down from the top, in yellow. But I agree, it's not gonna be easy.

And in 2011 it says "two speed gearbox" and in 2010 it says "Toughbox". FWIW

[JaneYoung]

It seems to me (without being a technical person, admittedly) that a lot of advances can be made in 5 years in many areas. When I was thinking about asking for more transparency, I was thinking about short term and long term: 2-3 years -> 5 - 7 years -> beyond. 5 years in the business of innovation and technological advancement and change - is a long time, it seems to me.

We haven't talked recently in this thread about the economic downturn of late and how that has impacted and may continue to impact. Does FIRST know who their suppliers and sponsors will be 5 years from now? Do teams know 5 years from now who the team sponsors and supporters are going to be? Do the teams who have classroom space and school support know that they will have the same, very same, classroom space in 5 years that they have now? Do they know they'll have corporate support and space, if their build site is there? What's the guarantee and where is it? Personally, I don't want to see everything be the same 5 years from now. Not in robotics.

Jane

[Chris is me]

Like I said: I was able to decode "continuously-variable transmission" from the 2012 and 2013 columns, about 2/3 down from the top, in yellow. But I agree, it's not gonna be easy.

I'm just curious to see what kind of a game FIRST could make that would mandate a CVT.

[David Brinza]

I'm just curious to see what kind of a game FIRST could make that would mandate a CVT.Most likely, the CVT would not be mandated by a game design.
Perhaps they envision a simple, reliable and affordable component that levels the playing field for the teams?

[Akash Rastogi]

Most likely, the CVT would not be mandated by a game design.
Perhaps they envision a simple, reliable and affordable component that levels the playing field for the teams?

Orrr they may be in talks with kit sponsors about potential offerings in the future.

.

[Chris is me]

Most likely, the CVT would not be mandated by a game design.
Perhaps they envision a simple, reliable and affordable component that levels the playing field for the teams?

"Simple, reliable" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of a FIRST-scale CVT. :)

[Alan Anderson]

"Simple, reliable" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of a FIRST-scale CVT. :)

Based on the examples of CVTs I have seen produced by FRC teams, simple and reliable don't seem that hard. Making it efficient at the same time, however, is another issue.

[DonRotolo]

Orrr they may be in talks with kit sponsors about potential offerings in the future.
I am pretty sure that's the idea. And that helps expain why it is "secret". I can imagine that some of the potential suppliers don't even know they're on the radar yet. (At least, that's how I would do it).

[kevinhorn]

Obviously it was not helpful to flash the five year plan in front of us and then snatch it away. The lack of respect in that act was unfortunate but understandable. Bill and Kate seem to be under some other pressures and we can only guess what they may be. I believe that it would be fair to say that they believe in the goals of FIRST and want all teams to have a good experience.

So more important than what didn't work last year or what hardware is planned is:
What a more transparent FIRST would act like.
Below are some very raw ideas of what I would see from a more transparent FIRST. These ideas could be polished but I would really like others to fill in areas that I missed.

KOP

Alpha test with select teams in the fall. Revise and release for wide beta test in late spring. Release of new or changed core items by Sept 30th. This allows for all teams to have the opportunity to learn the base technology prior to applying it in competition. This also gives a more accurate picture of the engineering process. Engineering is iterative, no one gets every detail right on the first try. Let teams see what worked and what FIRST plans on improving by posting the results of the alpha tests.

Help teams to budget by giving estimate of product life and projected phase out dates on core items.


Rules

Try to give intent behind rules. The rules ask us to follow intent but often do not let us know what the true intent is.
eg. What is the intent of bumper plywood not touching? Unfair advantage? Safety? Why is a 45 deg bevel OK? I can only guess, and without intent language other peoples explanations are just guesses and are not helpful.

Let teams know if a rule is going to be retained for multiple seasons.

Allow all teams access to the Inspection manual. This is one of the best resources for teams to gauge how well their robot meets the rules. It was really unfortunate that the Inspectors manual was not released for all teams to use this year.

Administration

Let us know that FIRST understands how difficult it is to keep a team running.
EXAMPLE: Get rid of requirements like needing four pair of safety glasses to register. I bring plenty of spares and they are with my team where they should be not in my co-coaches registration bag. As a coach I have a spread sheet of who must have what, where and when, this spread sheet goes from one week before the regional to closing ceremonies on Saturday night. Between coordinating carpools, chaperones, packing lists, shipping paperwork, inspection changes, upgrade strategy, and minute by minute crisis management I could use less "have to's".

FEEDBACK

One of the biggest issues that I see is that there is no method of providing feedback to FIRST so they know what didn't work for us. Thus they can't change it so that it will work next year.
EXAMPLE: The BOM template.
The template was non functional in the condition that it was posted. Even after "fixing" the formatting I was really unclear what the purpose was. This is not a rules question. But having a way to work with FIRST to improve the product would benifit us all.
We need to know that our input has been considered in order to stay invested.
Many professional orginizations have a method of proposals for changes to codes and standards. These proposals require the submitter to give rational for the change and the submitter is provided a response.

I look forward to hearing what transparency would look like to you.

[EricH]

With regards to alpha/beta testing the KOP, 1) they've been doing that with the control system as best they can, and 2) doing that with less than every team gives certain teams an advantage, and doing it with every team means releasing most of the KOP well before the kickoff. If you can come up with a middle ground, send it on to the GDC.

With regards to the rules, indicating that a rule will be retained would be nice, but seeing as the GDC probably doesn't know that it will be, counterproductive. It's easy to guess which rules will be retained, but not with a 100% accuracy. All teams have access to the Inspection Manual. It's better known as Section 8 of the Manual. The Inspection Checklist is also released, and is what the inspectors go by.

I can understand the request for the intent behind the rules, in cases where it is not clear. Much of the time, it is clear. (And they've gotten much better: More blue boxes next year too would be nicer).

With respect to the administration and feedback, there is a channel. You email them at an address that Bill is more than happy to post in his blog, or you go to the "Contact Us" portion of their site and let them know.

I think that it was partially helpful to briefly show the 5-year plan. It tells us that yes, they are working on it, but no, they aren't done with it (and they would rather not have somebody see it and make it really, really hard for them to carry it out.)

Transparency to you seems to be, "Tell us everything except the game."

Transparency to me is, "Tell me what I need to know, when I need to know it (usually as early as possible), or tell me that you can't tell me. If you can't tell me everything, tell what you can tell, and when I can expect to get the rest." (Oh, and tell if there's nothing to tell--like Updates 17 and 19.)

[RoboMom]

FEEDBACK

One of the biggest issues that I see is that there is no method of providing feedback to FIRST so they know what didn't work for us. Thus they can't change it so that it will work next year.
EXAMPLE: The BOM template.
The template was non functional in the condition that it was posted. Even after "fixing" the formatting I was really unclear what the purpose was. This is not a rules question. But having a way to work with FIRST to improve the product would benifit us all.
We need to know that our input has been considered in order to stay invested.
Many professional orginizations have a method of proposals for changes to codes and standards. These proposals require the submitter to give rational for the change and the submitter is provided a response.

I look forward to hearing what transparency would look like to you.

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. I organized one for Maryland. It was a lot of work, but provided feedback that was sent to HQ. There may have been things tweaked because of the Team Forums, but I was never able to really figure that out. Local areas may still conduct their own.

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. One year there was an action plan distributed the last day addressing the concerns submitted. The Regional Directors still serve as the POC for the different regions. I believe they will be meeting in early June. An email to your RD with concrete concerns/suggestions might be one avenue to give feedback.

FRC has a survey this year. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85685&highlight=survey and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

And as mentioned, Bill's Blog offers a way to comment. But I have no idea what the feedback loop is here either.

[kevinhorn]

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. ...

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. ...

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

FRC has a survey this year. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85685&highlight=survey and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

[kevinhorn]

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. ...

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. ...

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

FRC has a survey this year and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

[EricH]

So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.
Actually, you had one. Read my last post in this thread, the last paragraph.

[kamocat]

Dear GDC:

Thank you for stating your intent behind the rules this year. This is a step towards transparency. There is a long ways yet to go.

Sincerely,
Marshal Horn

[DonRotolo]

And I'd like to add a big thanks for Bill Miller for offering to run the FRC Live! workshops at Championships again this year. Last year's sessions brought us FIRST Choice this year.

Now all I need to do is send a quick note to Bill on what I'd like to hear from him this year. Everyone should do this.

[Chris is me]

Am I the only person who thinks that the issues with FTC parts and the mini-bot this year was yet another example of a lack of transparency hurting teams?

If FIRST had come out and said "Hey, this next game will basically require FTC parts - you should account for that in your budget" - teams like mine would not be in the predicament they are now.

I feel like the MiniBot situation was made much worse because FIRST was by no means transparent about it.

[dlavery]

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

[Steve Compton]

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave


.

no dave, you're not - with you all the way on this one.

[EricH]

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.
While that is true, Dave, there may be teams who were planning to do a Minibot, did not realize that the motors and battery were required, and opted not to get the FTC parts kit, then placed their order before Tuesday night. Those teams--what of them? If they can't change their order, they now have to pay for at a minimum the motor and batteries. Strong hints do not definite clarity make.

I think that's part of what Chris is getting at. A simple statement like, "If you want to have a Minibot, you should probably get the Mini Kit from FIRST Choice" would have saved those teams a lot of frustration that they now are feeling.

[Alex Cormier]

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

What was the reasoning behind not including that FTC kit in the KOP to begin with?

How about the motors and battery and such?

Teams that want to build multiple mini bots will HAVE to purchase these parts.

Are you telling me that one battery will last an entire build season and competition season?

How many FRC teams have one battery and one charger?

How many teams use exactly what's in the KOP and only that?

THERE ARE MANY OTHER PIECES THAT YOU BASICALLY NEED TO PURCHASE TO HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL MINI BOT. That is the point.

The FIRST choice kit is not enough. It's great that it is free. It's great that we get 30% off from another site.

Think about all the down time from ordering the parts from yet another site, the shipping costs, etc.

[pfreivald]

Really? I mean, really REALLY really?

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually watched the kickoff Telecast would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be a part of FRC this year. Nobody.

And nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually looked at the FIRST Choice options this year would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be part of FRC this year. Nobody.

This whole thing is silly. Before kickoff, I already knew that the FTC kit would be part of the competition this year. It is the ONLY part available in group 1 of FIRST Choice... And that it is available at all was a GIANT CLUE.

This whole angst-bunny act is hilarious. Hop along, little friends -- I'm busy finalizing the designs of my robot.

----------------

Edit:

Alex, I love you, man, but if OMG WE NEED TO BUY STUFF is killing you, you're in the wrong competition.

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has had a harder financial time than Naples at getting a team up and running and sustained. Without spending thousands of dollars of my own money (and boy am I rich with this teacher's salary, I can tell you) and an anonymous donation from another FRC mentor from a different team (to whom we owe an eternal debt), 1551 wouldn't be around today. It took that much to finally attract the awesome attentions of Bausch & Lomb, and we likely wouldn't exist without their patronage.

FIRST takes money. A lot of it. If you don't have it, you probably can't compete. That's why business plans, fundraising, and relationships with local businesses are paramount to the success of teams.

If $500 will make or break you either way -- not that $500 is needed to deal with the MINIBOT regardless -- then you need to direct your attentions toward something you *can* deal with.

...that said, if you need financial help, please let me know. We can probably do something. :D

[synth3tk]

Really? I mean, really REALLY really?

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually watched the kickoff Telecast would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be a part of FRC this year. Nobody.

And nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually looked at the FIRST Choice options this year would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be part of FRC this year. Nobody.

This whole thing is silly. Before kickoff, I already knew that the FTC kit would be part of the competition this year. It is the ONLY part available in group 1 of FIRST Choice... And that it is available at all was a GIANT CLUE.

This whole angst-bunny act is hilarious. Hop along, little friends -- I'm busy finalizing the designs of my robot.
It's almost as unbelievable as everyone assuming that trebuchets and cannons were the intent of the the minibot race. But I digress...

[Andrew Schreiber]

Am I the only person who thinks that the issues with FTC parts and the mini-bot this year was yet another example of a lack of transparency hurting teams?

If FIRST had come out and said "Hey, this next game will basically require FTC parts - you should account for that in your budget" - teams like mine would not be in the predicament they are now.

I feel like the MiniBot situation was made much worse because FIRST was by no means transparent about it.

Not a transparency issue Chris, just a decision that a lot of people aren't happy with.

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

I love the mini-bot idea. Love it because it gives us an excuse to get our old friends from FLL who moved to FTC this year involved again. What I don't like is that it is creating a perception of FIRST trying to force teams into FTC.

So, allow me, if I may be so bold, to venture a guess at the logic. I understand we had to have limits on the parts and I understand the logical choice was either add two more motors to the KOP -OR- make motors specific to this. Since we already have 13 motors in the KoP and by allowing any motors on the mini-bot would drastically change it (in an interesting way imho) we had to use specific motors. It is only logical to say, "hey who do we know who can donate these parts, oh the guys who we already work with..." Oh hey, added benefit, it promotes awareness of a different segment of the FIRST brand. The only question this leaves for me, why can't I build my mini-bot out of lego bricks?

[pfreivald]

So, allow me, if I may be so bold, to venture a guess at the logic. I understand we had to have limits on the parts and I understand the logical choice was either add two more motors to the KOP -OR- make motors specific to this. Since we already have 13 motors in the KoP and by allowing any motors on the mini-bot would drastically change it (in an interesting way imho) we had to use specific motors. It is only logical to say, "hey who do we know who can donate these parts, oh the guys who we already work with..." Oh hey, added benefit, it promotes awareness of a different segment of the FIRST brand. The only question this leaves for me, why can't I build my mini-bot out of lego bricks?

A few thoughts:

Without being in on their brainstorming sessions, it is impossible for we mere plebians to know the reasoning behind every GDC decision... ....and it is unreasonable to expect them to explain all of them. (Or perhaps even some of them.)

I always assume, when I cannot deduce the reasoning behind a rule, that "it makes it harder" is the correct answer.

I am as cynical as can be. Truly, I always assume the worst when it comes to human motive. That said, geniuses such as Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, and Dave Lavery could make so much more money (and win so much more prestige) by doing almost anything else. They could also stroke their own egos in much easier ways... Thus, the "this is just a ploy to prop up FTC" arguments ring hollow to me.

OF COURSE they want FRC teams to get involved with FTC. I, personally, would rather see FTC as a "middle school" program and shunt FLL strictly to the elementary grades -- which will never happen as long as VEX is cheaper, mind.

But that's neither here nor there.

[JaneYoung]

Regarding recent frustrations, it doesn't make any sense to request transparency when we are wearing blinders. Doesn't work that way.

Jane

[RoboMom]

Each team in FIRST programs runs like their own little company with whatever plan is developed by them and given the cards they are dealt. However I would highly caution Against using the plan where the teachers and mentors inject large sums of their personal funds to prop up a team. The dynamics created by this often leaves a legacy and situation that is just not healthy. My experience with witnessing this scenario a few times over the past 10 years in FIRST leaves me with strong opinions on this.
Best wishes to all you hardworking teams this year!

[DonRotolo]

Hi folks.

OK, so you're unhappy that the GDC did not tell you -prior to kickoff - that you need money to buy parts you'll need to build a competitive robot.

You're kidding me, right?


Surely those complaining are from teams that use only what comes in the KoP and does not spend any other money during the year. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: FRC Costs Money. Spend it on this or that, but eventually, you need to spend it.

By the way: All you MUST buy graciously accept for free are 2 motors and one battery*. And that is only if you decide to build your own minibot.** So quit whining and labeling this a transparency issue, when it isn't.

*(I advise some spares, though).
**(In theory, as few as four per regional will suffice. Can you say "collaboration"?)

[Molten]

Without being in on their brainstorming sessions, it is impossible for we mere plebians to know the reasoning behind every GDC decision... ....and it is unreasonable to expect them to explain all of them. (Or perhaps even some of them.)

I think it'd be eye-opening if the GDC were to video tape some of their sessions and release the videos either post kickoff or even post season if they prefer. Either way, just seeing what kind of set-up they use when figuring everything out would speak volumes of the rules they create and would allow people to understand them more without taking alot more of their time to explain themselves. I agree explaining themselves on everything is unreasonable, but perhaps just letting us watch(post kickoff obviously) would be perfectly acceptable and wouldn't require anyone to do much more work then to set up a camera and upload the video.

[DonRotolo]

Actually Jason, just watching them 'in action' would be interesting. I mean, they could videotape their rules discussions, and pick one or two interesting ones to show us so we can understand the 'flavor'. Surely some discussions are "ugly", but we don't need to see those. Just good real examples would be fascinating. Even if we didn't get to see them until after CMP (if fairness is an issue).

[dlavery]

What was the reasoning behind not including that FTC kit in the KOP to begin with?

How about the motors and battery and such?

Teams that want to build multiple mini bots will HAVE to purchase these parts.

Are you telling me that one battery will last an entire build season and competition season?

How many FRC teams have one battery and one charger?

How many teams use exactly what's in the KOP and only that?

THERE ARE MANY OTHER PIECES THAT YOU BASICALLY NEED TO PURCHASE TO HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL MINI BOT. That is the point.

The FIRST choice kit is not enough. It's great that it is free. It's great that we get 30% off from another site.

Think about all the down time from ordering the parts from yet another site, the shipping costs, etc.

Really? REALLY? REALLY??? You are actually going to go in that direction? Have you actually participated on an FRC Team EVER in your life (yes, that is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it)? You are actually going to sit there and whine about the fact that you don't get EVERYTHING in the Kit Of Parts that you might need to build your robot?

Did you even bother to look at the list of items included in the FIRST Choice Tetrix kit? Obviously, the answer to that is "no." Otherwise, you would know that the motors and battery are included. You get them FOR FREE. But I understand that it is much easier to just jump on the negativity bandwagon and complain about stuff than it is to actually do a little research on your own and finding out if there is any basis in fact for the complaints.

So then you whine that you don't get enough of them to build MULTIPLE mini-bots? Getting enough parts in the Tetrix kit to build a basic minibot is not sufficient? Do you expect that the Kit Of Parts should also contain sufficient parts to make multiple full FRC robots? Exactly how greedy are you?

Then there is the complaint that the teams won't use exactly what's in the KOP and only that, and that somehow the Kit should include everything that you might, possibly, maybe, could some day need for every possible design? Are you serious? Do you actually expect that the Kit should be designed so that you get everything you might possibly need, and that you will never, ever need anything beyond the kit contents to construct your design? You have obviously confused FRC with Lego League.

By the way: All you MUST buy are 2 motors and one battery*. And that is only if you decide to build your own minibot.** So quit whining and labeling this a transparency issue, when it isn't.

No, you don't. All you MUST buy is... - wait for it - NOTHING. Once again, everyone needs to read the information that has been made available to them. EVERY team has the ability to order a Tetrix parts kit from FIRST Choice FOR FREE. It is effectively included in your Kit Of Parts. The Tetrix parts kit available through FIRST Choice includes motors and the battery.

FIRST Choice Tetrix Kit Contents
2 - Motor Mount, W739089
1 - Motor Shaft Hub, W739079
2 - DC Motor, W739083
1 - Gear Hub Spacers, W739090
1 - Tetrix Resource Kit, W731900
1 - Battery Charger, W739059
1 - 12V NiMH Rechargable Battery, W739057
1 - Power Switch, W739129

-dave



.

[buildmaster5000]

Really? REALLY? REALLY??? You are actually going to go in that direction? Have you actually participated on an FRC Team EVER in your life (yes, that is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it)? You are actually going to sit there and whine about the fact that you don't get EVERYTHING in the Kit Of Parts that you might need to build your robot?

Did you even bother to look at the list of items included in the FIRST Choice Tetrix kit? Obviously, the answer to that is "no." Otherwise, you would know that the motors and battery are included. You get them FOR FREE. But I understand that it is much easier to just jump on the negativity bandwagon and complain about stuff than it is to actually do a little research on your own and finding out if there is any basis in fact for the complaints.

So then you whine that you don't get enough of them to build MULTIPLE mini-bots? Getting enough parts in the Tetrix kit to build a basic minibot is not sufficient? Do you expect that the Kit Of Parts should also contain sufficient parts to make multiple full FRC robots? Exactly how greedy are you?

Then there is the complaint that the teams won't use exactly what's in the KOP and only that, and that somehow the Kit should include everything that you might, possibly, maybe, could some day need for every possible design? Are you serious? Do you actually expect that the Kit should be designed so that you get everything you might possibly need, and that you will never, ever need anything beyond the kit contents to construct your design? You have obviously confused FRC with Lego League.



No, you don't. All you MUST buy is... - wait for it - NOTHING. Once again, everyone needs to read the information that has been made available to them. EVERY team has the ability to order a Tetrix parts kit from FIRST Choice FOR FREE. It is effectively included in your Kit Of Parts. The Tetrix parts kit available through FIRST Choice includes motors and the battery.



-dave



.

I totally agree with everything you have said, Dave. If everything was in the KOP we could just create "Erector Set Robotics" which would not be half as fun as FRC. FIRST has created a way for teams to get much of what they need for a reduced price (free) and the fact that teams are not taking advantage of this is by no means FIRST's fault.

[rsegrest]

This may have already been stated however I am not sure this discussion (which has evidently been going on for two years) is in the right place. It seems to me that the majority of the comments posted here are by mentors. This is perhaps a discussion that should take place out of the eyes of the students who are here because they love this program and it's difficulty. That being said...

Regarding the GDC and rules changing etc. This issupposed to be a 'real world' engineering experience. If you ask anyone who has worked in an engineering firm on a large project. They will tell you that until the project is completed everything is in a state of flux and you don't get all the information until the project is submitted to the firm (and even then it can change according to the needs of the customer). Generally speaking the customer doesn't have an engineer sit in on their initial planning meetings. They bring in the engineers after they have a solid idea of what they want. This is the way I see the GDC working.

Oh, and, when has there ever been a game in which there wasn't a need to redesign if you wanted to score the bonus points. If you feel the minibot is that important then refocus your design. Often times the most successful teams are focusing their attention on doing one thing extremely well.

[TubaMorg]

Wow it's very early in the build and people are already getting bent out of shape! Every year the robo-lawyers find something to get upset about, so why not mini-bots? In a couple of weeks we will start hearing about how some rule or another is patently unfair to such and such team. Then as the competitions approach out will come the competition scoring/alliance selection algorithm complaints. It's the same story every year and very predictable. In a very few rare cases, there is an actual flaw or oversight in the rules that are quickly dealt with (of course the corrections are criticised as well).

Our team takes a different approach:

1. We read and analyze the rules.
2. We build the best robot we can in the alloted time to complete the task we have chosen to accomplish within the framework of the game.
3. We show up at the Lonestar regional and compete as hard as we can until they say we can't any more.
4. Next year we do it again.

There are occasional logical flaws in the game that HAVE to be pointed out and in that case we should voice our opinions. MOST of the time, however, there are merely inconvient aspects of the game that upset people that seem to generate the most noise. We don't have time to waste on that stuff because we are cutting aluminum and bolting together our drive train!

[Molten]

Really? REALLY? REALLY??? You are actually going to go in that direction? Have you actually participated on an FRC Team EVER in your life (yes, that is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it)? You are actually going to sit there and whine about the fact that you don't get EVERYTHING in the Kit Of Parts that you might need to build your robot?

Did you even bother to look at the list of items included in the FIRST Choice Tetrix kit? Obviously, the answer to that is "no." Otherwise, you would know that the motors and battery are included. You get them FOR FREE. But I understand that it is much easier to just jump on the negativity bandwagon and complain about stuff than it is to actually do a little research on your own and finding out if there is any basis in fact for the complaints.

So then you whine that you don't get enough of them to build MULTIPLE mini-bots? Getting enough parts in the Tetrix kit to build a basic minibot is not sufficient? Do you expect that the Kit Of Parts should also contain sufficient parts to make multiple full FRC robots? Exactly how greedy are you?

Then there is the complaint that the teams won't use exactly what's in the KOP and only that, and that somehow the Kit should include everything that you might, possibly, maybe, could some day need for every possible design? Are you serious? Do you actually expect that the Kit should be designed so that you get everything you might possibly need, and that you will never, ever need anything beyond the kit contents to construct your design? You have obviously confused FRC with Lego League.



No, you don't. All you MUST buy is... - wait for it - NOTHING. Once again, everyone needs to read the information that has been made available to them. EVERY team has the ability to order a Tetrix parts kit from FIRST Choice FOR FREE. It is effectively included in your Kit Of Parts. The Tetrix parts kit available through FIRST Choice includes motors and the battery.



-dave



.

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

Thanks,
Jason

PS: This is posted in public as a reminder to all that we should keep the forums civil.

[Chris is me]

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

On the contrary, I think whatever slap in the face Dave gave me earlier in this thread is exactly what I needed to hear. I think the message behind either post is somewhat lost with sugar-coating.

[Mark McLeod]

I think it'd be eye-opening if the GDC were to video tape some of their sessions and release the videos either post kickoff or even post season if they prefer.

It's been done (http://team358.org/history/videos/2002Kickoff.MPG).
(2002 kickoff video)

[Lil' Lavery]

I think the real gripe some people have with the minibot as it pertains to transparency is regarding the complete lack of warning. FIRST has been pretty good over the last few years of warning teams ahead of time about new technologies being included/required in order for teams to learn to utilize them before the build season (cRio, PTC, and Labview being the most obvious examples). There was no warning about learning about the Tetrix platform before the kickoff, so many teams (especially those in FTC-devoid markets such as Michigan and Israel) have no experience with the product line and few local resources to turn to. The concepts are simple enough that they seem not to be deal-breakers, but having pre-existing knowledge about any product line usually proves to be pirceless (as any FRC, FTC, FLL, or VRC vet can attest to).

[DonRotolo]

No, you don't. All you MUST buy is... - wait for it - NOTHING. I sit corrected. Free is free, no argument.
I think the real gripe some people have with the minibot as it pertains to transparency is regarding the complete lack of warning.Nothing for nothing, but they DID tell us on December 13 what was available from FIRST Choice (for example (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985332&postcount=45)), so we really can't say there was a complete lack of warning.


...-.-

[synth3tk]

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

Thanks,
Jason

PS: This is posted in public as a reminder to all that we should keep the forums civil.
I disagree. Mentors and students are acting like little kids right now. Stop acting like one, and I'm pretty sure you'll stop being treated like one. That said, I didn't read it as him talking to us like little kids, anyway. He made valid points to prove that everyone is going on about this in a pretty immature manner. Who's setting a better example? The adults whining about some non-issue, or the guy who points it out?

[Koko Ed]

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

Thanks,
Jason

PS: This is posted in public as a reminder to all that we should keep the forums civil.
Considering that the GDC is always under constant attack from the CDenziens from the quality of the game to their own personal integrity based on rule changes why shouldn't Dave (who leads the GDC) look to rip somebody's head off? Getting barked at all the time gets old.

[dlavery]

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

Thanks,
Jason

PS: This is posted in public as a reminder to all that we should keep the forums civil.
Jason -

You make a fair point. If this were the day after Kick-off and this topic had not yet fully been digested and reviewed, I would be in complete agreement with you. Or the day after that, or the day after that. But when it gets to be nearly a week into the season and the topic has been discussed and explained multiple times and yet there are still people making the same complaints over and over just because they have not read the materials which have been provided to them, then a different approach is warranted. There are times when all of us - myself included - need a virtual *poink* to the back of the head and someone to say "wake up and stop behaving like a three-year-old."

It is noted that both the content and the tone of my previous message would not be those that I would use with a younger student. Comments from someone with little history in the program and a developing sense of personal responsibility would garner a more tempered response. But when an reputedly mature member of the community, one with a self-proclaimed near decade of experience spread across multiple teams, makes such outlandish challenges, then a different type of reply is justified. The measure and strength of a message should be tailored for the situation and the recipient.

-dave



.

[kamocat]

Considering that the GDC is always under constant attack from the CDenziens from the quality of the game to their own personal integrity based on rule changes why shouldn't Dave (who leads the GDC) look to rip somebody's head off? Getting barked at all the time gets old.
Gracious Professionalism is difficult, I'm sure, for anyone as it is for me.
I've declined to comment about the direction of this thread because, unfortunately, I don't know how to say it nicely.

[morganh2550]

This is a pointless letter. If you look at all the past years and if you truly understand what the core values of FIRST you would know the point of the secrecy is to provide the teams with most challenging season possible and to force on the teams to work with FTC and FLL teams (in the case of the Mini-bot) and further extend the program by forcing teams to go to new businesses and find new sponsors. To push these teams until they reach greatness, to get the kids on these teams ready for real life. YOU make me sick, because people like you are why the good things that my former team did where crushed out of existence for nothing more than doing good. This letter you have written while from a certain point of view makes sense it has no place here, in this organization and I can only hope that FIRST gives this letter the same amount of respect that I have given it.

Good Day to you Sir

[JaneYoung]

Gracious Professionalism is difficult, I'm sure, for anyone as it is for me.
I've declined to comment about the direction of this thread because, unfortunately, I don't know how to say it nicely.

A key to Gracious Professionalism and to participating in all of the FIRST competitions is listening. Listening, paying attention, becoming knowledgeable, and being respectful.

If a student wants to dispute a grade in high school or college, what is the best way to go about that? From the teacher's or professor's perspective (having done their job), it would be to provide information and knowledge that supports the stance taken. To do so in an insulting or immature manner would not help with the situation that the student would like to address. That is just one example of moving forward through a dispute or a difference of opinion.

If we look over this past year, we will see the outstanding efforts that have been made by the people at HQ who are listening, paying attention, and who treated us (their customers and partners) with great respect. Regarding the current topic (which does not belong in this particular thread), the GDC has done its job by providing us with a 2011 game that is challenging and that is making us think. Having to think in ways that are new to us this year can be uncomfortable but we can still find ways to communicate our discomfort in ways that are not insulting or ignorant.

It's really not that hard.

Edit: Morganh - at the time the letter was written, it wasn't considered pointless; respect was given to it. Those of us who participated, understand the value of it and of the opportunities that stemmed from it this past year.

Jane

[DonRotolo]

This is a pointless letter.
You DO realize the letter is from 2009, right? :confused:

[Siri]

This is a pointless letter. If you look at all the past years and if you truly understand what the core values of FIRST you would know the point of the secrecy is to provide the teams with most challenging season possible and to force on the teams to work with FTC and FLL teams (in the case of the Mini-bot) and further extend the program by forcing teams to go to new businesses and find new sponsors.
I think you're misunderstanding the letter. It was written to respectfully explain concerns over the execution of FIRST's business plan, not the seasons' challenges. You're certainly free to disagree. Respect, however is still one of those cornerstones of FIRST. (Right, guys?)

If you were curious, this letter was written last year by main-stays of organization, some of whom have been involved almost as long as you've been alive. They're Woodie Flowers Finalists and Winners, leaders on Chairman's teams and FIRST-affiliated organizations who've done more great things than most and helped 1,000s of students and 100s of teams succeed. Personally, I'd advise against writing it off so roughly.

[Libby K]

I don't care to get into discussions such as these because it serves no point.

However, I'd like to just repeat something Jane said a page or so ago.

Regarding recent frustrations, it doesn't make any sense to request transparency when we are wearing blinders. Doesn't work that way.

Jane

[Lil' Lavery]

I don't care to get into discussions such as these because it serves no point.

How does the discussion of topics relating to a letter that members of FIRST HQ openly responded to not serve a point?

[kevinhorn]

YOU make me sick, because people like you are why the good things that my former team did where crushed out of existence for nothing more than doing good. This letter you have written while from a certain point of view makes sense it has no place here, in this organization and I can only hope that FIRST gives this letter the same amount of respect that I have given it.

Good Day to you Sir

Morgan,

I have cheered for you and your old team since 2008 when our teams went to the Championships as rookie of the year. You and your mentors achieved great things that changed the face of first in your state. Contrary to what you say I believe that many of these achievements still stand. While you may disagree totally with the letter writers opinion these mentors and their beliefs had nothing to do with what happened to 2550. What happened was not right but not these peoples doing. You mentioned the core values of FIRST, I believe that one of these values is respect and I believe that we can not have useful dialog without it. Please keep your comments civil and live the core values of FIRST.

[Libby K]

How does the discussion of topics relating to a letter that members of FIRST HQ openly responded to not serve a point?

I didn't mean discussion of the letter, I meant discussion of the kit/FTC/all of this. I have no place in it. All I wanted was to reiterate Jane's statement - if we are so glued to our particular opinion about transparency/the kit/whatever it is we're arguing about, we're not getting anywhere by yelling at each other on the internet.

The letter is great, I meant no disrespect. Apologies if it came across that way.

[kevinhorn]

I would like to move away from the 2011 KoP and return to the broader subject of transparency.
I feel that FIRST has made a good faith effort to be more transparent over the last season. There have been improvements in the quality of communication and the lead time given to teams.

Below is a list of progress we have seen in the past two seasons. Perhaps I have over looked something. Perhaps I have overstated something. Please point out my oversight or exaggeration.


Bills Blog has tried to give us a look ahead. An example; The Veteran /Rookie KoP differences .
As Don mentioned Bill asked for suggestions on what we want to hear about at Championships.
The rules actually have intent in some instances! I really hate guessing when I am inspecting someone's robot.
Someone asked FIRST to bring back the FRC store and they did just that by giving us "FIRST Choice"
Bill let us know about FIRST Choice months in advance and let us see the choices ahead of kickoff. (I don't believe this would have happened a few years ago.)
First gave us a workable CAN system and has bent over backwards to let help teams understand what is allowed.
At least in my case I feel that Kate read and heard my survey suggestions. Proper terminations, motor data etc.


Perhaps we can't have transparency, but responding to the needs of teams seems pretty close.

[DonRotolo]

I feel that FIRST has made a good faith effort to be more transparent over the last season. There have been improvements in the quality of communication and the lead time given to teams.

<snip>

Perhaps we can't have transparency, but responding to the needs of teams seems pretty close.
I could not agree more!


Someone asked FIRST to bring back the FRC store and they did just that by giving us "FIRST Choice"Yes, at "FRC Live" (held on three occasions) at Atlanta last year. With Bill standing in front of a "hostile" crowd without a bulletproof vest :rolleyes: (OK, we weren't hostile. But it took guts to get up there not knowing what would happen. Gotta admire the guy. And kate, too.)

[IKE]

THERE ARE MANY OTHER PIECES THAT YOU BASICALLY WANT TO PURCHASE TO HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL MINI BOT. That is the point.
.

There, fixed it for ya. Make sure you seperate your needs and wants. Truly understanding NEEDS vs. WANTS can make for a much happier existence in both FRC and the "Real World" (not to be confused with "The Real World" or Jersey Shore which have needs and wants totally backwards).

Timing of update 1 vs. FIRST Choice ordering was a bit more legitimate of a complaint, but how many actually were effected by this versus the theoretical "people" that may have done that.

[JaneYoung]

Truly understanding NEEDS vs. WANTS can make for a much happier existence in both FRC and the "Real World" (not to be confused with "The Real World" or Jersey Shore which have needs and wants totally backwards).


What makes me truly sad is that I really WANT to see the 33 minibot score while producing little signs that say things like: float like a butterfly, zing like a bee. With wings. Seriously.

[dmitch]

The 35 who signed are representatives for a large majority of FIRST. Everybody who has posted on this forum saying thank you or something similar is basically another signature added on to the end of that letter. I feel confident that given the chance, most of us would have signed that letter.

[OScubed]

Ok folks - just another little point here which I haven't seen introduced, in defense of FIRST. Reach outside your own team. ANYONE can construct a minibot, and you may deploy a minibot from any team on your robot. If you are constricted by budget - TEAM UP WITH AN FTC Team and make one together. The entire idea of the MiniBot (at least from what I was able to gather) was to increase the awareness of this low-cost robot building competition so that FRC teams could do for FTC what they've done successfully for FLL. Not every high school can afford the FRC program, or find enough mentors - so help start an FTC team or work with an existing one to build your robot. Maybe they have the kids or the funds to build, but not the engineering - team up with them and work together. Or pool money with another team that can't afford the build all by themselves and build one to share. Only 2 teams out of 3 even CAN deploy a bot in any one match. Even if you end up on the same alliance one of the two of you can deploy and the other can hang.

[pfreivald]

For the record: All of the FTC teams I wanted to team up with said 'no', because their competition is the same week as FLR.

*sigh*

[Chris is me]

The FTC team I contacted was very concerned that we burnt out our motors and thus was very uncomfortable with us modifying them in manners that would not be legal within FTC itself (i.e. transmission modifications)

Also, they're several states away, but still.

[Basel A]

Team up with FTC?
There's a grand total of 10 FTC teams in Michigan.
180 FRC vs. 10 FTC?
It's just not a doable solution.

Deploying someone else's minibot without having designed your deployment specifically for it is near impossible.

Looks like the only remaining solutions are:
1. Mass Building of minibots between FRC teams; which results in the same budget issues, design issues because teams will surely disagree which means lost time
2. Suck it up; Budget issues, issues with the product you're forced to buy, unless you have:
3. No minibot (your robot most likely will not perform as well in competition)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Mods, can we get the Minibot stuff moved to one of the Minibot displeasure threads? It has nothing to do with transparency.

[pfreivald]

Team up with FTC?
There's a grand total of 10 FTC teams in Michigan.
180 FRC vs. 10 FTC?
It's just not a doable solution.

Deploying someone else's minibot without having designed your deployment specifically for it is near impossible.

Looks like the only remaining solutions are:
1. Mass Building of minibots between FRC teams; which results in the same budget issues, design issues because teams will surely disagree which means lost time
2. Suck it up; Budget issues, issues with the product you're forced to buy, unless you have:
3. No minibot (your robot most likely will not perform as well in competition)

Well, if we designed our minibot deployment mechanism to be modular (which we did), then we might well be able to accommodate whatever minibot happens to roll down the pike...