Re: California District Proposal
 

Amazing work to everyone involved creating these materials - they're incredibly thorough and well written. This is a great resource for other regions looking to make the transition as well (hello, New York :rolleyes:)

PODS are a pretty great way to transport a field, assuming they aren't cost-prohibitive. The biggest advantage is that your venue doesn't need a loading dock, which opens up the list of possibilities greatly (loading a field into a truck with only a lift gate/forklift is not fun, especially with the really heavy side boarder cases on an AndyMark field).

Re: California District Proposal
 

I believe the documents indicated SVR and LA as possible options. I could see either of those two, or possibly San Diego, at the regional venues, fairly easily. Not quite sure how an outdoor DCMP would go over, but it's an option.

Off and on there's been discussion of "If an event was held in our general area, where would it be held?" among some of the Torbot mentors. That said, we never really liked the answers for one reason or another.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Michigan owns their trailers that house the fields and other equipment. I believe they were donated. They borrow a heavy duty truck from a sponsor to move the field and store the trailer at another sponsor's facility. Zero costs. The trailer has ramp door so it is easy to roll things on and off. No need for docks or liftgates. It is good to have a different mindset when running districts. Some Regional directors are used to writing big checks to get things done because they got enough funding from sponsors and they were budgeted. Running a district event is different because each district event is not expected to raise money from sponsors to cover all costs.

Let's not jump to conclusions. I am sure they have good reasons. May be they believe sponsors prefer flashy regionals, or they get better press coverages when they are not at a crowded high school gym. Who knows. It is best to sit down and talk about it and hope the leaders will do what is best for most CA teams. It will never make everybody happy. Good leaders will do what is best for majority of current teams and the future of the program.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I've heard one or two of the reasons. Here's a sample:

When MI went district, a then 2nd-year team got kicked out of the only event they'd called home (GLR). They landed in L.A. that year--it would NOT repeat NOT be the same without them now. Particularly since they've started bringing friends with them, every year. With the rapidly decreasing numbers of regionals available to attend (and the rapidly decreasing available capacity of those regionals due to everybody wanting to go there), where are those teams going to go for their home event if CA goes district? There are no regionals on their entire continent!

Short version: We like visitors!

Counter-argument: With the lack of space in current regionals, it won't be long before there won't be any visitors anyway!


And I've heard the "they like the big events" and the "they like the show" arguments too, but from different people. "They" referring not to the sponsors, but to the teams. To which the only appropriate response is to figure out how many teams actually want to go district...

Re: California District Proposal
 

This parts isn't highlighted in the proposal, but worth mentioning:

In 2017, 4 of 8 California Regionals will be held on High School campuses.

I have an increasingly hard time buying the "big event" and "big show" argument, considering 1/2 of 2017 California events will already be in district venues.

Eric, if you and the TorBots want to host a District Event, let me know. We will find you a venue ;)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

That is a valid point, but is that FIRST CA's responsibility or is it FIRST headquarter? Unless FIRST headquarter told FIRST CA not to go to district until there are more Asian teams to have their own regional in Asia, I think it is a wrong argument against going to districts. More and more areas will be going to districts in the near future, then you will see more international teams because they will have nowhere else to go. It is very noble for FIRST CA to raise money from sponsors so they can add regional events to accommodate international teams and other areas who have not gone districts.
If you like visitors, inter-district play is one answer.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not entirely accurate, in Michigan at least, FiM seems to fund districts only "as needed" and strongly encourages district planning committees to find funding sources themselves. Our local district was almost entirely funded from our local sponsors (Though FiM does cover the costs associated with the field, such as carpet, tape, and transportation).

Re: California District Proposal
 

You are correct. I have edited my post. Thanks. My point was MI district events try to save money because they don't have a big budget to spend.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Just saying what I've heard. I don't buy it on the "big event" myself, per se. "Big show", maybe. On the other hand, as someone who does some "show" stuff (see below), it isn't about the "show" aspect as much as using the "show" to enhance what's really going on.

Let me put it this way: We're more than capable of finding venues, thank you very much. Several of us can come up with 3-4 possibilities without stretching, including items that could easily disqualify them or render them particularly suitable--like parking, access for robots, or (lack of) cheapness.



Just so you guys are aware, you're sounding like you're inviting me to join the planning. I've got a three-part answer: There aren't enough refs as it is (and refs who are planning group members tend to disappear from the zebra herd quickly), I'm not the type to do event planning if I don't absolutely have to, and I don't have the free time between work and stuff outside of FIRST. (Why, yes, I do have a life outside of FRC, thanks for asking! ;))


[Edit] Ed, I wasn't talking about the Asian teams. I'm talking about Chilean teams--L.A. is their home event for all intents and purposes right now. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure that the folks using that line of reasoning are aware of inter-district play. Also unfortunately, "interdistrict play" is more likely to be PNW-NorCal or NorCal-SoCal due to distances involved. From SoCal to the nearest events outside CA is a full day's drive--nearest district is at least two!

Re: California District Proposal
 

Any plans to send the proposal and the assorted documents to FIRST CA?

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is the worst kept secret in the FIRST community.

I think it's something like 47% of the 2016 FRC population will be operating under the district system in 2017. Were California to also be in the district system we're talking over 55% of FRC teams in the district model.

The rules put in place back in 2008 before the inaugural season of FiM pilot were ones that were negotiated by Michigan and Manchester. Some of those rules were meant to intentionally wall off the laboratory the movers and shakers in Michigan wanted to build; people did NOT like the idea of districts when they started.

There are existing rules put into place that do not necessarily have to be followed (the district model ideally could scale that you could have zero steps between district events and championship events, or 1, or 2!) The locks on inter-district play are being fiddled with in this offseason and I would not be surprised to see some of the newer and smaller district systems open themselves up more to fill out their rosters.

If representation of 55% of FRC teams went to Manchester to petition modifications of district rules, could something happen? California does have an opportunity to lead FRC through sea changes, but they need to actually pick up their anchor and go. Trying to tweak the district model so it can be the path forward for 100% of FRC teams (yes, 100%) is the proverbial gorilla in the room. If the powers-that-be in California want districts, they will help drive that change. If they don't, the rest of the community will be held hostage until smaller confederacies that dot the midwest form up into the model. Then the leadership of FIRST California will likely need to adapt or die.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In SoCal, the big elephant in here with is is the Volunteer issue. The higher up you go on the event food chain (as far as skill and experience is concerned) the more you see the same faces repeatedly. Judges, Refs, Volunteer Coordinators, FTC's, the like. And these faces are doing ten other things: FLL, VEX, FTC, Academic Decathlon, etc., and some holding down a real job in public education, which has become a seventy hour-a-week thing.

Money: Just today our kids and team 294 brought this year's machines to a North/Grumm gig for show and tell, and to thank them for funding us. The bigger geopolitical picture in SoCal shows the firms most in need of the product we produce (technically educated kids), are repeatedly hit up for money by a hundred outstretched hands. Squeezing out more in this environment is becoming harder-- established teams with good organizations will always do well; those reinventing the wheel every year have no history to build on, no institutional memory of how to get funded, and struggle, and become the drop-out percentages. This could be an argument for Going District, but maybe not.

It's not the venues, it's the parking. Silly statement, but true. In the LA South Bay we've got lots of venues, good ones for forty-plus teams and pits, but they're already booked on weekends for paying 'customers' like AYSO, language schools, a hundred other events. School districts need this income and school site admin are leery of the liability incurred with what look to them like piles of rolling junk.

As for the NorCal/SoCal "rivalry" thing-- let's put it aside. We both have structural hurdles to overcome in our specific locales in order to promote this kind of education. Keep hashing the ideas, not the people. Thanks all for your generous allocation of time on this, for your devotion to preparing the next generation when we've left the playing field.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Really? I'm not sure about that. 2 venues have yet to be decided on.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is at least a three headed issue in most areas, but it can be easy to cut off these two (and they won't grow back, I promise)

Shifting from WTRS to FSS events frees up more people to volunteer. A lot of people who love FIRST but need to work to live or be able to "afford volunteering" can't when they need to take 2-2.5 days off of work.

Shift small jobs to teams and get people to train up where there is interest. I know some positions can seem perpetually understaffed. In some regions, you lose the potential for repeat volunteers when the volunteers themselves are not properly engaged or subjected to volunteer cliques where a potential future KV may be shunned from learning from or training for their role. "But it doesn't happen to me!" It's happened to me and other people I know. It's anecdotal. I'd love to have data on it, but I know it has happened more than once, which is too much for something that is preventable.

What's your point here? A team's individual ability to raise money does not really directly affected by the regional model or district model. I would say that through smaller events and the ability for iterations, the district model can directly lead to more quantifiable success for teams than the regional model and then indirectly can lead to a better buy in of team cultural and a development of an institutional memory.

Re: California District Proposal
 

As for the volunteer issue, it's addressed very clearly in this document.
For the 2017 season every role should have an understudy so that individual could fulfill the role as needed as we move to districts.
I know first hand what it's like to try to find volunteers, or for that matter find qualified volunteers.

But this is the thing, so many people want to volunteer for the "cool" positions and one's that seem to matter but they are told they are not qualified enough. Not many people want to volunteer at an event to pass out safety glasses. Thus, making them either not show up or just not volunteering for the position. Having someone be an understudy to let's say a Judge Adviser, a CSA, or an FTA would really help CA grow in the volunteer pool. I've heard from so many people that they wish they could do the higher roles but the older volunteer crowd seems to have it covered. Having them understudy these roles will also grow their want to continue helping out at events since many of these roles have a direct impact with teams and the event itself.

Another note on volunteering. FiM's approach to how they got over the volunteer hurdle when they were changing was to ask for volunteers from teams. This could cover our smaller roles. How many people do you see in the stands at our events just on their phones? Or sitting there bored out of their mind? I bet if teams required two people to volunteer those people would feel more apart of the event.

On Code Orange, this year at LA, the event needed more field re setters and I had a couple students who weren't going to be doing much at the event and we sent them over. Guess what? They loved it. They felt important to the event, could get a great view of the matches, and they wanted to continue volunteering in those roles for our next events and future events.

The volunteer issue is a definite one, but to be honest, I'm very tired of hearing it as an excuse and want to see people execute getting more key volunteers.