Re: California District Proposal
 

From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ya, I'm pretty sure its basically the same. I think NE only opens up 32?/36? out of 40 spots in each event initially, I presume to save some slots for the late registering teams and also to balance the # of teams at each event a little.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Here is the MAR waitlist policy. Not sure if it is handled by the Board of Directors or somebody appointed by them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I am fairly certain that MI is the only district with home events. I think the NE waitlist is first come first serve just like for regionals, but I'm not entirely sure.

Edit: Never mind. This is wrong.

Re: California District Proposal
 

We still have RDs in District - so they still have access to this.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Wait lists are not first come first serve.

Re: California District Proposal
 

agreed, not entirely first come first serve. The RD's will "jump the line" with teams, based on certain criteria - rookies, local teams still looking for a first play, teams that bring a lot of volunteers or specific key volunteers that are needed for the event. They have to look at the bigger picture to do what they can to ensure a successful event and season for every team.

Re: California District Proposal
 

A lot of the problems Eric has with southern California have already been looked into by someone who is already posting here, as she is a contact for half a dozen potential venues in southern California. She's also an RPC member! It's inspiring to see what a 20 year old can do for her region beyond the bounds of a safety glasses table.

Re: California District Proposal
 

But the advice doesn't line up with his preconceived notions, so it must not be helpful or constructive...

Re: California District Proposal
 

One item I have struggled with is aligning LRIs to events by the timeframe FIRST HQ would like. Most of the LRIs in Michigan are affiliated with teams. Some prefer to do events their team I at. Others prefer to do events there team is not at. Almost all prefer to sign up for volunteering after they know what events their team will be attending...

It would be a good topic to have on whether or not teams should get preferential treatment on the waitlist via volunteer (key/critical....) support. Right now, I don't think we do that in Michigan (at least not explicitly to my knowledge), but it is an item I think we should discuss due to other scheduling hassles.

Additionally, on occasion, we have added an event after travel for Key volunteer training is booked, and this caused an added challenge to filling key roles.

On most of these occasions, all involved knew they would be a challenge, and some of us complained, but ultimately we found ways to work through the issues.

Re: California District Proposal
 

What you didn't see is that little note I put a few of my posts back, to check PMs. Discussion doesn't have to happen in public.

Obviously, that note didn't fit with your preconceived notions, so it didn't happen.

If you'd like to continue that discussion, read the rest of the post before you do.


BTW, Jon Stratis hit the nail on the head. If you think back to the MN discussion a couple months back, it's a case of "'outsiders' trying to force something that isn't ready in this area", on the surface (in this case at any rate)--when all the listed input is in one area, it's a natural question to ask if the other area(s) and affected folks had any input (See also: MI District initial discussions, ChampionSplit initial discussions). If you dig a little deeper, it's not--but that wasn't readily apparent. Naturally, the initial response is, "You really don't know the situation around here". That being said, once it's a lot clearer that that is NOT the case, and that there's a decent shot that maybe they do know something, then support can be given a lot more easily. Again, if you read that note, you may want to consider that public discussion doesn't always have to happen to move something along.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.


/S

Re: California District Proposal
 

Didn't you know that Southern California is Baja California?

It sucks how everybody forgets about Baja California.