Originally Posted by ASD20 (Post 1594976)

According to the FRC Wikipedia page, the non-US or Canada teams are:

Israel (62)
Mexico (53)
Australia (39)
China (36)
Turkey (20)
Brazil (6)
Netherlands (3)
Taiwan (3)
United Kingdom (3)
Chile (2)
Dominican Republic (2)
Japan (2)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1)
Colombia (1)
Czech Republic (1)
Denmark (1)
Ecuador (1)
France (1)
Germany (1)
India (1)
Poland (1)
Singapore (1)
United Arab Emirates (1)

So lets pretend all of the US and Canada went to districts suddenly (so I don't have to account for team growth).
Completely ignoring the political/economical/many other factors and just focusing on geography and assuming teams from countries with Regionals go to that regional:

South American and Caribbean teams can go to Mexico
Taiwan, Japan, India, and Singapore can go to China
Israel goes to Districts (Based on geographical size and # of teams alone this seem feasible within a few years)
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the UAE attend a new regional in Turkey along with maybe Poland and the Czech Republic

This would leave 9-11 teams (depending on where Poland and Czech Republic go) all in Europe who don't have a regional. They could go to Turkey or that regional could go to somewhere in Europe that is more central to all of the teams. If Israel still holds a regional, then it probably makes sense to have the new regional in Europe. There could also just be 2 new regionals on the assumption that a lot of American teams would want to go to a European regional. Other than Europe, I think every international team is either as close or nearly as close to a regional as they are right now. It wouldn't be great and I have no idea how the international community will be able to adapt to growth and the potential transition of the large team population centers to Districts, but I think it is possible, at least right now, for the international teams to sustain their own events.

However, I do think it FIRST should come up with a way for teams in low density areas to at least compete in district events, if not qualify for Champs through them.

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1594960)

I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.

Originally Posted by jpetito (Post 1595006)

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley (Post 1595044)

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595058)

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595058)

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595058)

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595058)

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Originally Posted by scottandme (Post 1595069)

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595058)

Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Originally Posted by jpetito (Post 1595006)

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1595071)

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.