Re: California District Proposal
 

What impact would going to districts have on California in terms of championship percentage? For purposes of an easy answer, compare to last year's number.

Re: California District Proposal
 

It is on page 2 of the District 101 document which is a nice read. I encourage you to read it because it has a lot of other information also.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Yes, I know exactly what it was directed at, and what it was a reference to. Frankly, it's a ridiculous comment, as I can point to many college-aged students right here in MN that are either in key roles or training for them. I'm not going to comment on issues that a few individuals have had, I feel it would be unprofessional of me to publicly discuss others in that way.

But really, you're going to drag out something posted 3 months ago about Minnesota into a thread about California? Why don't we keep those discussions separated and focus on actual productive posts. That's, literally, the only thing I've been asking for in all my posts in this thread. Because, believe it or not, I'm interested in the issues other areas are/have faced, the solutions they've used to solve them, and the results they've seen over the long run. It may be applicable to my area in the future.

Re: California District Proposal
 

From District 101 document:

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi John--

And thanks to all who are toning down the rhetoric, focusing on the actualities.

Basis of agreement:

--Many venues acceptable to FRC events, with adequate playing space and co-located pits.

--Numerous site and district administrators supportive of this kind of education, willing to take risks with these events.

--The volunteer issue is a problem that can be solved, though again the current volunteer pool is stretched beyond breaking. I appreciate all those outside the region for their strategic comments on helping solve the difficulty, though the perspective from "outside" cannot grasp the tactical difficulties on the ground (not a put-down of helpful ideas).

-- Admin are not Hell Bent against FRC. They're mostly ignorant (not the pejorative ignorant; merely not cognizant of what FRC MEANS, as opposed to what FRC IS). Admin are consumed by a hundred issues that occupy their time, and it's rare to find one who can take a portion of their day and focus on the structural needs of an outside entity (FRC)


To continue the discussion:

--Finding supportive admin with adequate facilities located where they are needed most: central locations for local teams. This takes legwork, and might merely be what Andrew/Data Nerd suggests: asking. This asking I think should start at the team level at the local school.

Oops-gotta run. Getting a mill and lathe and junk donated to us and can't wait…

Think we're getting close, though want success the first time out.

Joe

Re: California District Proposal
 

I'd actually suggest centrally coordinating the ask. Even if the actual ask is delegated down to a local team rep having multiple people asking could get REALLY annoying. Also it allows for having a central list of questions to ask about the venue.

I'd suggest trying to see if any existing district has a starting list of requirements. Brando I assume you're floating around here, do you know if NE has one?

Re: California District Proposal
 

I know this is a reference for the original proposal, but I don't think it has been mentioned in the thread itself yet, so here is FIRST's official district planning guide (http://www.firstinspires.org/resourc...lanning-guides ). Venue Site Selection has a list of 'best practices'. I'm interested to see how well it matches up to the individual districts' list of requirements since it hasn't been updated since 2013 and FIRST HQ hasn't exactly planned a lot of district events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Dealing with administration:

As getting administration excited can be difficult, it might be worthwhile to get some quotes comments from some of the long term FiM venues. There was one principle or Administrator that asked to speak at one of the events I attended. This was the second year for the event.
He said something to the effect that the previous year he was unsure. He had never seen an event before. When he watched the playoffs Saturday afternoon, it literally brought tears to his eyes. He had never seen his gym so alive before. There was crazy uproar during key matches. There was singing and dancing from 30+ schools that clearly were competing but also a common family. There were opponents helping each other get ready for the next match.
Other quotes I have heard from administrators: I got to meet political leader XYZ and or industry leader XYZ and give a speech to the same group as them. I got 30 different school districts to come and see what my school had to offer.

In Michigan, we have a lot of venues that have now been doing it for years, and there is a lot of pride the venue administrators take in their event.

It might be good to ask the leaders of other districts for a "reference list" or administrators that might be good spokespersons. Often those on the inside can come across as giving a sales pitch where as someone with equal position can help discuss concerns at the same level.

************************************************** **
On the negative:

We also have some 1 hit wonders. I think "floor damage" concerns are one of the primary causes for a venue to not want teams back, though you would have to talk to the FiM management for reasons they don't go back to a venue. I know at least a few of them were dealing with floor damage concerns. Though that is not the only reason.
************************************************** ***

Another item on venues. FIRST really does follow a field of dreams "If you build it they will come" trend.
What I mean by this is within a region, you may want a couple "stretch" venues that might not be the center of the current population. Once a new venue arrives, the local area tends to start a lot more teams. The proximity gives them a cheap option to play at (no hotel), and nothing gets people as excited about a FIRST event as seeing it live. While I would not make every venue remote, it might be a good idea to target a couple areas that could use a shot in the arm.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Yes. The best way to get administrative support for an event (and also for your team) is to get the administration to an event. The first year my team hosted an event, we got both our principal and superintendent to be judges and our superintendent also gave a speech at opening ceremonies. Let me say our team received more recognition and support from the administration in the month after the competition, than in the two and a half years we existed before the event combined and the event planning was A LOT smoother the second year (though it was also largely because it was our second time planning it). Our superintendent also loved it so much, he did it again the next year. Judging is an especially great way to get your administration involved because they will get to talk to so many kids and hear from them about why FRC is so great. The best way to ensure the long term success of your event is to have the administration personally invested. Bringing administrators to other events is also a great way to get them to want to start hosting one and to just get them to understand and support your team even if you aren't trying to host an event.

TL;DR: GET YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO EVENTS!!!

Re: California District Proposal
 

Here is the document outlining the IndianaFIRST RFP process.

This is sent from the InF Competition Committee to prospective hosts (usually teams) and they can use it for discussions with their school's administrators.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks Collin!

I got a similar document with some more step-by-step instructions from CHS, these are really helpful resources, and a great way to equip the "boots on the ground"!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

You're right Jon! Why don't we keep the posts productive? I promise from here on out, I will remain on topic and/or just remove myself from this thread entirely. I have the luxury of getting off work early on Fridays, so sometimes I can go down to the river, take a nap at home, or prepare for a robotics meeting. Today, I decided to use some of my time to re-read every single post in this thread and try to find any similar words to the effect of what you and Eric described.

I made an effort to go look at every post possible, hoping to see it the way you do. I was really hoping someone said something to the effect of "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen" or "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Throughout the entire thread up to post 120, the only real thing happening in the thread was a series of exchanges that were mostly like this: "I have this concern"-->"here's what we do" or "here's what we have thought of for that." I'm really sorry if the idea of sharing these experiences in this way have made people feel personally victimized. I really doubt a neutral observer would see it that way, but your perception is your reality.

After that, there was a single slightly malicious post. It was very emotionally charged and probably could have been less direct.

From there, we keep maintaining discussion. People bring up a concern, someone shares a way they solved it. Pictures and documents to illuminate the discussion are shared. Joe P even was able to sum up the discussion in one of these documents, which I hope was helpful to the people involved. There was a slightly tangential but very important discussion regarding the well-being of international teams. While California hosts fewer international teams than some of the posts could lead one to believe, they certainly host more international teams than Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington DC and State, Oregon, Michigan, New England, and Indiana combined! There was really great discussion about that.

However things really seemed to take a turn for the worse.

Brandon Holley, who is without question probably one of the best active mentors in FIRST, shared the same concern I have with Eric's take on the posts above. It appeared to me, a lowly outsider, that the discussion for all intents and purposes was productive and the sentiment Eric described was not at all present in the thread until he himself stated it. It felt really disappointing that all of the conversation up to that point potentially could have been rendered for naught as those from outside California saw themselves being edged out of the discussion.

Then you decided to tell Brandon and the rest of the thread that essentially helpful and constructive advice was not to be found in this thread if your Location didn't list California. You implied that the sentiment of the thread was that "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse". I think you might be mistaking that for another thread because, as I have said, I really haven't seen that in here. The real coup de grâce came when you played the Gracious Professionalism trump card on Brandon ******* Holley and expected people were just going to be cool with that.

I guess it could be fair to say "wow, this is just like the Minnesota drama" when I would argue that it really isn't. People that know things were answering questions of people who didn't in both directions. "I don't know how this works in districts"-->"This is how" and "I don't know what it's like in California"-->"This is how" were exchanges happening all over the thread until you made the decision to implicitly draw parallels to Minnesota (and Eric made them explicit). The people who are far stronger willed than I am ignored you, but alas, I am not that kind of person.

I went through the whole thread with an open mind, trying to see it your way, but I come to the end of it more bitter than before. I guess it's my fault for taking the bait; I just can't seem to follow the wise words someone said: "If your [sic] from a district, stop posting about how an area you don't play in and you don't help run should make a big, sweeping change."

Keep it professional.
-Wil

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks for doing the work on this Mike. I hope California can figure out how to move to a district style format soon. It seems like there are some hurdles on the way there, but there is also plenty of incentive to jump over them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I dug through my email and found the Chesapeake venue RFI document that was sent out to their mailing lists last year: here it is

Re: California District Proposal
 

One interesting thing I noticed is that Chesapeake starts load in at 8 am on day 0. I understand how having that much time is really nice, but I also know that it is not absolutely necessary. The first year that my school hosted (2015), they didn't let anyone start load in until school got out at 2:11 and, while stressful, teams were still able to start load in at 5 and IIRC, there were some practice matches that night as well. It definitely is nice to start earlier (and we were able to start at 12 this year), but # of volunteers and load in time are inversely correlated, so the more volunteers the host team can provide, the later load in can start. 8 am, or even 12, is definitely not a hard requirement, especially if the field is simpler than it was this year.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Almost all of the things in the CHS facility list are "requirements". They're things they'd like but are flexible.

Re: California District Proposal
 

No more burned Wild Card slots is a nice benefit!

I know I have been at some events that I would feel somewhat bad for winning at because the way alliances advanced would burn Wild Cards. On top of that is Qualifying Awards being granted to a team that has already qualified having an unreasonable likelihood of burning a card under many circumstances.

I find it really sad every single time a Wild Card gets burned.

In a perfect world every regional should grant 6 NEW slots.

Re: California District Proposal
 

To continue the discussion part II

--Timing: does the northern half want to pull this off for season 2017?

--I cannot speak for all, or even a portion, but we're nowhere near ready for this in the south.

--Probably means a bunch of people on the north end have to sit in one room looking at one another with a big map. The remote control digital thing only goes so far.

--Probably a targeted list of schools, and then a delegation of students and parents willing to take on meeting with admin.

--Those schools who have hosted previously are assumed good to go?

Joe.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't think anyone is pushing for districts in 2017, afaik regionals are already approved by FIRST.

2018 would be the earliest possible year to push for.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Joe,

Beautiful lathe! If you are looking for a DRO, we bought ours from DRO PROS, they are based in NorCal and gave us an educational discount for our DRO's.

1. Definitely not 2017. The RD's are working hard right now to finalize 2017 Regional Venues. This is all looking at 2018 at the earliest.

2. I understand the sentiment. I believe the next logical question is "when will we know that we are ready?" You've brought up some great action items in your White Paper that are great next steps to get closer to the elusive goal of being ready.

3. There are plans for NorCal people to get together again to talk more details (obviously, very fluid right now). I had an in-person meeting with the organizers of MTTD and CC in 2014, back when I started researching districts.

4. Love the plan of action. Other regions have posted venue check lists which I will adopt to FIRST CA's application. Hope to post that this weekend.

5. I would not assume that 100%. CCC, yes. Madera, yes. Looks like SF as well. But I have also heard that some existing venues are not very warm towards FRC. So I think at this point it is a mixed back, but maybe your action items in point 4 would help put more boots on the ground and return more yield on venue proposals?

Great thoughts, please keep them coming!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

True. As I read the document, 2017 would be a year to do a number of things to prepare, including lots of volunteer recruiting/training and lots of team educating on the "finer points"--example, more matches means more robot maintenance, so build strong. Essentially, build a foundation so that districts can hit the ground running.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks Mike!
Except the obvious benefit for FIRST California, your work have made great resources for the entire FIRST community.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I'm curious why people are under the impression we are not ready for this in the Southern Half of the state? Is it simply the lack of push on this forum exactly? The volunteers?
We have more teams in our half, with that we have potential for more volunteers.
Everyone I seem to talk to at events, from a team standpoint, seems to be in favor of the district model. They just are not vocal on forums.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Volunteers--but to be more specific, KEY volunteers. To be even more specific, key volunteers that have enough available time to work give-or-take double their current event load (because we'll need give-or-take double the number of events). There's ways to work with and around that, partly by some outside recruitment (MI did this early on, as I recall--not sure about any of the other district areas) and partly by interested parties jumping onboard now.

These numbers are specific to SoCal, BTW--I'm excluding NorCal from this due to lack of knowledge, though crossover between the two is probably desirable.
FTA: I think we could probably muster 2-3 FTAs currently, and good ones (and one of those has district experience already if he's available). Might be enough, for a couple years, which buys time to train more. There's always the "import" option as well, which is generally employed on Week 1 events as it is. 2017 will need a lot of FTAAs and some more FTAs stepping up.
LRI: That one is a bit easier. 3-4 currently, and several long-time inspectors that would have a pretty good chance to move up to LRI. I would suspect that this one would be the easiest of the key volunteers to fill. (In addition to the LRIs' habit of showing up at other events as inspectors anyway.)
Field Supervisor: I think we've got 4... get a few more trained, and that should be OK.
Head Ref: 1-2, maybe 3. Actually, reffing in general is a weak point. But with that few head refs, that's going to be very interesting. (I should also note that one of those typically only does one event.) This is a role that would be good to run some crossover SoCal to NorCal, and that does happen currently to at least some extent. That'd really help--unless NorCal is in the same situation.
Lead Queuer: I want to say there's 4, shouldn't be too hard to train more cat herders.

VCs and other "behind the scenes" key volunteers I'm not as familiar with. I will say that those folks tend to crop up--er, "be volunteered"?--pretty handily to my point of view, which is a bit limited on that.

Most of the other (read: non-key) roles are relatively easy to say "Hey, you with the volunteer paperwork! You're doing this" and have someone trained in the role day-of-event. Even inspectors and possibly refs have a decent chance at doing that, if it weren't for the required online training, if they've got rules knowledge. But the key volunteers have to be developed. Development takes time. For some things, I'm not sure 1 year is enough. (Head Refs are either a 2-event or a 2-year minimum as a ref except in exceptional circumstances--I forget just which. That's from FIRST's description, which I'm currently too lazy to go digging through the site for.)


Can that be solved? Sure. Potential volunteers for those roles--or for filling in any "promotion holes"--should be volunteering for 2017 regionals (and 2016 offseasons) in that role if it exists at that offseason. TBH, there's a reason that I volunteer, and that's part of it.

I would also go with the lack of push as being one other reason--part of that is that I would say that a lot of teams aren't on CD. The ones that are here tend to be more vocal for districts. Maybe there's a "silent majority" going on? Not sure which way it'd be going, at present--hard to know, with silent majorities. I know most of the mid-to-upper level teams that I've talked to on that are interested, at least in principle. Even some of the not-so-upper level teams, if conversation's gotten around that way.

tl;dr: The trained key volunteer positions need some more filling, which in some cases will be quick and in others will take a couple seasons. "Untrained" positions won't be an issue. And for whatever reason, I don't think the SoCal teams are being quite as vocal right now.

Re: California District Proposal
 

The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.

Re: California District Proposal
 

That would explain it. Not sure that's limited to SoCal, either (the thinking these forums are toxic part--I've heard of folks saying that from all over). But that's beside the point.

Re: California District Proposal
 

It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school. :cool:
Or maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:

In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.

Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.

Re: California District Proposal
 

As a data point, a general number for key volunteers would be the number events/2 rounded up. Based on the proposal, this would be 7 total of each for 1 California District Championship and 8 total for 2 California District Championships. This isn't set in stone - some key volunteers seem to have a tendency to go crazy and do more than 2 events, but strikes a nice balance, especially where events are not all within a 2 hour drive and allows for some overlap/trainees in positions.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Ed-

Thanks for devoting your skill and the extra effort collating the data on teams/venues/weeks. It's tedious.

May I caution you on the spreadsheet/distance thing? Getting from South Torrance to John Burroughs HS on a Thursday/Friday afternoon will take an hour and a half, maybe two, depending on the variables. Probably about the same out to Valencia HS in Placentia. And the same time back, not counting a Chavez Ravine event or some basketball soccer thing downtown, or Knotts BF or the DisneyPlace. Even though it's only thirty-five miles via GPS device.

Joe.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hey Mark- If it's not already, it may soon be… hard for me to keep the orange/citrus teams distinct!

Joe

Re: California District Proposal
 

May I suggest a holiday on this thread?

Have a nice one.

See you next week!

Joe Petito

Re: California District Proposal
 

Preach girl preach. Plenty of people in SoCal want districts, and want to be part of the change to make it happen. We can't forget that OCR was a new regional with a rookie volunteer coordinator who did an excellent job. It's more than possible to find the support for districts if we can band together.

For me, it's unbelievably sad to watch teams fall apart because massive regionals like LA haven't been worth the bang for their buck.

Re: California District Proposal
 

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Correct, 2017 is almost completely booked. 2018 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible. 2019 is much more reasonable.
No where in this thread nor in the documentation Mike, RC, and Andrew put together does it ever suggest 2017 is a possibility.

I think the biggest take away from all of this is, we need to seriously do the groundwork and preparation that is needed to move to Districts. This means training up volunteers, locating venues, finding the financial backing, and the physical resources need to support the much larger number of events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California. :D :D

Re: California District Proposal
 

Think that they could get it down to at least 2097? Perfectly reasonabe, right?

But seriously I would love to see California in districts, it would allow cross play between them and PNW.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks for the catch! Corrected.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not from MI, but as I recall the statements made previously, the 2 volunteers can be anybody and don't have to be at an event that the team is at.

And TBH, that setup makes a lot of sense. (What I'd be wondering is if one person could account for both, but that's not as important.)

Re: California District Proposal
 

The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is great news! I really hope we can implement the same policy. Thanks Ed.

Re: California District Proposal
 

It's also worth noting that the volunteers in FiM do not necessarily have to volunteer at the event the team is attending to count. For example, if a team were competing in a week 3 and a week 4 event, they could send two volunteers to a week 1 event and two more to a week 2 event, alternatively, they could send 4 volunteers to a single event and meet the requirement. This can sometimes lead to some events being shorter on volunteers than others (especially newer events or events with many new, small teams), but overall it seems to work out fairly well.

There are times that younger, smaller teams have exceptions made for them, but I find that generally this is more due to either a lack of knowledge of the requirement, and/or the teams coach being too in-over-their-heads to coordinate getting volunteers to fill the requirement. Generally though there aren't many repeat offenders when it comes to not providing volunteers, and most teams seem to figure it out by their second year in the program.

Re: California District Proposal
 

One of the keys to making the volunteer piece work is not just having more volunteers - but putting the attention and recognition into have good Volunteer Coordinators. This role is just as important as most of the key technical roles. It starts earlier than most of the technical roles. It takes a diplomat who is good with people, being able to facilitate, mediate and organize and making the volunteer feel valued no matter what the position. It starts way before most of the other positions and lasts after the other positions. It takes the whole planning committee to help with recruitment - both within the existing community of FIRSTers as well as reaching out to new people. And all the VC's in a District need to be able to communicate with each other unless you have a system full of silos.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Fixed that for you.

Great VC --> Great Event.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi RoboMom--

We tend manytimes to pass over the Volunteer coordinator as a Key Role. As we sit in our dark rooms dashing off our geeky perceptions, it's the VC's, able to make the human connection between people that pull it all together. It's like the drummer and the sound guy before and after the gig- they've got the most gear and have to do the most planning, and come early and stay late, and there's little acknowledgment for how they make the pretty people on the stage look and sound pretty.

Connect this to Ali A's comment on being Too Cool, and the willingness of so many on the Left Coast who let others stoop to the Hard Jobs. Going from the Regional to the District will make for grubby competition between consortiums of teams or organizations to locate venues, and timing of events to avoid conflicting needs for finding the hard-to-locate lead positions. We don't want that drama between personalities and between venues--it distracts us from our focus as an educational organization. As is, we're facing two off-season events in our area that will siphon off teams, making neither event successful.

We existed with a silo system because it works/worked. Going to Districts will mean, as you've suggested, a means for Volunteer C's to communicate state-wide so as not to rob one another of skilled people. ErichH has outlined the numbers of skilled people clearly, I think, and the difficulties of keeping their skilled volunteerism, not throwing it onto the bonfire of our perceptions.

Joe Petito
Veteran, USMC

PS- On Ali's point of being Too Cool: we are a geeky lot; let CD not become a substitute for real relationships.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks for the sounds advice Jenny!

Can you elaborate on the role of the VC in districts?

How do they communicate volunteer needs across events?

Is there a different VC for every district event, or do some perform the role of VC at multiple events?

Is there one "master VC" in the district to help coordinate all the volunteer efforts within the district?

Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Indiana has Carolyn Beyer as the Chair of our Volunteer Committee, member of the BOD, and "master" VC. She helps manage the VC's for our district events and helps place key volunteers at each event.

Having her in this position also makes it easier for new event VC's, since she can use her experience to help mentor the new VC.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In Michigan, each event has a VC, though many VCs cover more than one event, especially in SE Michigan where the events are much closer together.

In Michigan, due to the number of events, we have also been assigning key position leads. These leads help with organizing key volunteer coverage for events as well as mentor for the new key volunteers.

Re: California District Proposal
 

We've done this in Minnesota, even though we aren't in districts. So for example one "Chief" LRI to help keep all the LRI's organized, oversee training opportunities, and coordinate with our VC and the regional planning committees. It may be a little overkill right now with just 4 events, but I think it's helping to set up a good structure that can easily grow when needed. It also helps to spread out the training concerns - While a VC may just be worried about having someone in that role at their event, the chief's can focus on ensuring they have enough to cover existing events and enough in training to account for attrition and the addition of new events. You definitely need that overall view of the region, regardless if you are in regionals or districts... if everyone is just focused on their event, you'll never have the right people available to add events without forcing people to do extra duty the first year or two of a new event.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In FIRST Mid-Atlantic, each event has their own VC, including the DCMP. We also have a VC Coordinator who serves as a coordination point for all the VCs in the region, and helps out where needed, especially training new VCs as they adjust to their role.

In and out of season, the group of district VCs get together on conference calls and quite a few email chains to sync up on any issues or new instructions from FIRST that may come up. We're also connected via a few email chains & encouraged to check in if we need more people for an event (especially trained roles - We had some referees drop last-minute before Montgomery this year and being able to email the other VCs with 'can you contact your referees and see if they're free, pretty please?' was a godsend), or to report after our event on any hiccups, or things future-week VC's could help streamline for the upcoming events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

On the continuing line of Volunteer C's:

Is there a body willing at this time to step up to the task? I ask because if we want some minimal District roll-out in 2018, names and titles and skills must go in the org chart in order to pull it off with a fine degree of Professionalism.

It wouldn't hurt too to have a like-minded person/group who would like to take on the several off-season FRC events so there is minimal clash of dates and locations. Unfortunate that Chezy Champs and Fall Classic conflict.

Off-season events in the CA:

Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 2073
CalGames
Capital City Classic?
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics

Did I miss any? Don't think the list is up to date. (and spelling?) Need some help from the research-minded.

Joe Petito
Machinist

Re: California District Proposal
 

and 2485

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanxx Bailey!

Joe

Re: California District Proposal
 

Huge thank you to each of you for the valuable feedback!

It seems like some sort of "Chair of the Volunteer Committee" or "VC Coordinator" role is important to manage the existing volunteer base and help out new VC's as they develop. Does the individual in this "VC management" role also VC an event, or do they remain as purely top-level organizational support?

Also seems like mixed results on whether or not VC's cover multiple events, although it seems that a unique VC for each event would minimize the load.

Thanks again for all the help!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Minor corrections.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Off-season events in the CA:

Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 1323
CalGames
Capital City Classic by FRC1678/2073/3859
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics [Note: Pre-bag, so last weekend of build season--multiple scrimmages this weekend can't be avoided]
Beach Blitz by OCRA & FRC3309/3476/4276 [New this year]

Re: California District Proposal
 

Another adjustment.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Michael C:

For the org chart thing:

Would it be safe to say the large part of us in the discussion have our fingers on the robots of local teams? The next level is an organization like (in my case) LA Robotics-- or VEX, or FLL/FTC, BotBall, various Arduino groups, Maker groups, etc.

A possibility: the Volunteer Coordinator on the state level would be something of an intelligence gathering and disseminating position/organization, having contact with the individuals/groups sponsoring the events themselves. We again return to the stretching of volunteers.

Not an aficionado of politics, I'm out of the loop of BIG FRC decision making. Who is it in the Cal who makes decisions on dates/sites for events?

Joe
Building Contractor

Re: California District Proposal
 

One other note on the whole "scheduling offseasons" thing:

There was one year that a whole bunch of offseasons were back-to-back-to-back and using the same field. Could be really nice to run that system again, and send any robots competing week-to-week along with the field (maybe in caravan).


On the VC element, I know there's some VCs who cover multiple events, but in most of those cases that I'm aware of, they're working with other VCs who are only doing one event. And at at least one regional, there are two VCs, just for that regional, independent of anybody coming in to work with them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

To minimize volunteer workload and prevent burnout, ideally we would have unique VCs for each District Event in California. Being a VC is a lot of work, especially for brand new events.

Also, if/when we switch to Districts in CA, if we bring events to new locations not currently near any regionals, and we involve mentors/volunteers from those areas in the event planning committees, we should be able to tap into new pools of volunteers. I know there are a lot of people here in the Antelope Valley, for example, who would be great key volunteers. I am sure the same applies to other areas around the state.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles. :)

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Joe!

All District Areas (to the best of my knowledge) have a non-profit entity that assumes the liability from FIRST HQ for their District. FIRST in Michigan, Indiana FIRST, etc are all examples of this. I assume California would follow a similar model. I believe Jim Beck has established a FIRST California 501c3, although I do not know the details.

It looks like this is roughly the model that other regions operate under. Are you proposing a similar model be implemented in CA, or are you suggesting something different?

For Regionals: the California RD's work with FIRST HQ and SRE to schedule and book venues.

For Off-Season Events: I email 254 and RC (1323) to double check that we won't be interfering with their events (Cal Games usually announces dates before we are scheduling CCC). I generally don't consider scheduling conflicts with SoCal because of the distance.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Great feedback, it seems like VC's working in a vacuum can be burdensome. While doubling up (or more) is one good way to go, it seems like some top level support (especially to arrange KV's, etc) could also help lessen the load.

Not saying doubling up your OCR VC is a bad idea, just proposing that the model other regions operate could produce similar results.

Both seem like fair options, the obvious challenge of the "double up" approach is finding more KVs. Please let us know how 2+ KV's works for OCR!

In general, I'm hoping we can organize a push to double up KV roles at 2017 CA Regionals, or at least have a KV and one or two "shadows" in each role. We can grow our Volunteer base in preparation for the transition, but growing the pool in general seems like a healthy goal no matter what. This 2+ KV approach that is OCR is taking seems like a great way to grow the volunteer base.

Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

The person I believe helps coordinate the VCs here also covers 2 or 3 events in the VC role.
Here, the VC role seems to have a couple flavors.
VC Event specific: We have a couple events that are clearly sponsored by a particular company and they bring in a decent chunk of volunteers, especially in judging role. Their corporate connection is very valuable to those events, and they often just do the one event.
We also have a few extremely remote events where a local VC may only cover that event.

VC Generalists: These are long time FIRST people that tend to know a lot of FIRST volunteers and could literally staff a FIRST event with only a week or two of notice. They have the amazing personal skill of asking people to jump through crazy hoops when needed, and the person will thank them for the opportunity when done.

Again, I need to emphasize the number of events and proximity of events here in SE Michigan. I attended an event every weekend (not recommended) that was within 1 hour of my home, and several weekends, I could have attended a different event within an hour of my home . With the convenience of proximity it is often less of a hassle to cover more than 1 event.

This is pretty special now, but I imagine other areas will be similar in the future.

Re: California District Proposal
 

If you can't find additional people to serve as VC "assistants" (we have a few of those here in MN helping our primary VC with each event), recruit your key volunteers to help the VC. While a VC may be in charge of the entire event, having the LRI, Head Ref, Field Supervisor, and other such positions actively helping with recruitment can go a long way. I personally maintain a list of people that have inspected in MN in the past few years so I can approach them again this fall when our 4 events are scheduled. From past experience, that is usually good enough for ~80% of our inspector needs - recruiting the last 1-2 people for each event is a lot easier than coming in and seeing a need to recruit 10!

In addition to the list I keep, as an LRI I get to interact with a TON of mentors in the pits, and actively help recruit new volunteers from those interactions - I've found plenty of inspectors and CSA's that way!

Re: California District Proposal
 

To elaborate on Libby's post, FIRST Mid-Atlantic continues to work towards having a "coordinator" for each of the key volunteer roles (FTA, Field Supervisors, Head Refs, LRI, etc) that helps take some of the burden off of VCs by identifying volunteers, spreading them out to events, and working training of new individuals in the roles. We're far from perfecting it, but it does seem to be helping so far.

One additional "role" that isn't traditional for FRC and I'm not sure if any other areas do it is the "MAR Equipment Representative (MER)". MERs are volunteers with a thorough knowledge of all of the MAR equipment and assets. These personnel share some responsibility with the event FTA for supervision of equipment unloading and load out as well as field set-up and teardown. By having this, the burden on local event committees and the FTA is lessened and allows more work to be done in parallel (ex. MER is loading cases in the PODS outside while the FTA is finishing packing and OKing cases inside). This role is especially important for our offseason events as they do not always have the same volunteer level of experience as official events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

* What we do now in the CA is pretty good, with provisos.
* Going to the district model means we do more of it, to equal high standards, meanwhile acquiring the volunteers to make it so.
* The District model in the CA will be idiosyncratic, in that it will probably not conform to what's happening in the MI., MA, IN, etc. It will be helpful that those there understand that we (not the exclusive "we") must make the thing work in our weird environment:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...nap-story.html

Variables and outstanding obstacles:

* Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising?
* Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to.
*Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things...

We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings.

Joe Petito
Wind Turbine Mechanic

Re: California District Proposal
 

Wow. Usually bringing up the role of the Volunteer Coordinator is a thread killer. ;)

There is actually an "official" role for Districts with the title of "Senior Volunteer Coordinator". The position description from HQ leaves a lot to be desired (doesn't take any planning into account for starters). Attached.

I spent hundreds of hours doing this role.

What I discovered going into the roll out of FIRST Chesapeake this past season was that documentation from other areas was sparse, other District VCs were generous to share, and that everyone was doing things a bit differently. What works for a single Regional doesn't for Districts. Communication and "pitching in" around volunteer coordination to help across each of the events to benefit the District as a whole is vital. The VCs really do need to work together.

I recruited and trained 4 VC's (3 local events and District CMP) for Maryland/DC which was my assigned territory. Truthfully not sure how it was done in VA where I had a counterpart. Merging MD/DC/VA this year had a lot of positives, especially for the teams. And some major heartache for those of us tasked with planning HOW to do things, organizing, documenting and especially communicating across 2 regions who had been doing their own thing quite capably for years. (Shout out to Anne Shade who documented the whole process for roll out of our District events in MD/DC.)

I brought all the VC's together once in-person and we had phone meetings on a regular basis. The VC's worked in partnership with other "Senior" positions for their assigned District event- Senior Head Ref(s), Senior LRI, Senior Judge Advisor(s), FTA pool. Recruitment was a team effort between me, the Seniors and the VC's. The Seniors signed off on any key position before any assignment was made and we utilized shared document files and lots of color coding as we moved along. And like MAR we had "Equipment/Logistics" role - someone designated to be the lead for all the stuff. For MD/DC events we also had Event Managers who worked together on some things across the events - like a common caterer for volunteer food.

I have a lot I could write here. I learned a tremendous amount this past year. In Maryland, I am the overall Volunteer Director where I work with all 4 programs and cross-program volunteering is something I pay attention to. (Note: one of the VCs actually came from the FLL world where he was a VC. Two were FRC alumni and the 4th had worked with me on the Chesapeake Regional and agreed to cover the District CMP.)I do lots of broad level recruitment with companies and organizations, and I offer the total "buffet" of programs. There are so many factors that go into a decision where/when/what to volunteer and we need to think outside of the current pool.

I think it is important to have a Senior VC(s) for a District. Sometimes it is hard keeping up with all the conference calls and updates coming from HQ and the job starts in Sept. so good to have one person covering. And I dealt with all the issues with the VIMS/VMS.

It is also important to have one person be the "heavy". For example, one of the unexpected challenges was gearing up positions for 7 District events all leading into one District CMP meant not everyone could have the job they wanted/deserved at the CMP. I had to turn away over 30 volunteers. It was very stressful, and there are volunteers who yelled at me and criticized me in public and in feedback. I took this on, but it was hard. My idea of the perfect volunteer is the one who checks their ego at the door and says "assign me as needed". And means it. You will get the adult beverage of your choice from me and my gratitude. I have stories! About team players and about prima donnas (definition: a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance".

But I digress.

We used the offseason Battle O'Baltimore last year to train a VC as well as some other key positions.

It is gratifying to see this conversation. Happy to answer any questions.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In the Regional System all of your $5000 initial (and $4000) registration fee goes to FIRST HQ. The actual event costs are payed for with the funds raised by the RD. Note FIRST HQ does act as a back stop and will step in and provide the remaining funds for a Regional if there is a shortfall.

In the District System $1000 of your initial registration fee is given to the District and the district keeps all 3rd play $1000 registration fees.

The typical district event costs between $10k and $30k to produce while the typical Regional starts at $100~200K and can cost significantly more than that in places where the cost of the venue is high. The typical District Championship runs around the price of a Regional

This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well.

Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.

Concerning scheduling you really only have to worry about the timing of the events in your District and do not have to worry about neighboring Districts or Regionals. Non District teams are not allowed to compete in a District event and the few teams that choose to do an inter-district play just have to figure out what works with the home events they wish to attend out of the available remaining spaces.

In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend.

With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields.

Re: California District Proposal
 

RoboMom & Mr. V---

In my small perspective, two of the most valuable posts. Thank you for your time and effort and the "checking the ego at the door" thing.

Joe Petito
Facilities Maintenance

PS- the photo is what my head feels like sometimes…Very flat, very featureless

Re: California District Proposal
 

Same or adjacent weekends...Last year:
Week 3 UT
Week 4 CO; SAC
Week 5 ID; LV
Week 5* WCan
These events are the closest candidates for second events for teams in the intermountain west area.

Re: California District Proposal
 

To add to a few points...

This is one of the key things FiM has sought to address with districts in Michigan, by moving to High School venues, most if not all of the venue rental costs are eliminated (as many school do not charge for the use of the facilities), typically leaving only maintenance and staffing costs for custodial and security services. While these costs do also vary by venue, they are still, for the most part, orders of magnitude lower than the costs for a traditional regional venue.

Also not entirely true, FiM encourages districts to find local sponsorship for their events and will simply fill in any gaps in funding on an as-needed basis. Most events are geographically far enough away that they avoids overlap in requests for sponsorship, and because the costs are less, it makes more sense to seek out smaller sponsorships from smaller local businesses. Also by placing some of the burden of finding sponsors on the events, it causes district event planing committees to be more frugal with their money, further reducing costs (after all, what incentive do you have to cut costs if you know you're getting a blank check).

In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.

Re: California District Proposal
 

FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.

We also have some very awesome people who like to drive big trucks around the state :) But some good scheduling can limit that. Multiple weekends in a row with west coast events, or northern Michigan events, etc.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Out of curiosity, where do we have this problem? I dare say MN has some of the closest regionals around (the two in Duluth are in the same building, the two in Minneapolis are across the street from each other!, and those pairs are only a 2 hour drive apart), but we've never had those sorts of problems. Everyone involved is dedicated to making all 4 events work.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Well I was close, anyways. :rolleyes:

I work with some of the guys who put together the electrical boxes and breakers that come on the FiM trucks, and they had mentioned at one point that FiM had been interested in having a 5th set made, so we may have assumed there would soon be a 5th field.


On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.

Re: California District Proposal
 

+1

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't like the regional loophole to begin with, but if FIRST isn't going to change that, then I guess allowing the same with inter-district play at least sort of lowers the barrier for entry for it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "

"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.

...Another military truism is that successful planners must clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions. All real-world plans will require some assumptions, as information will never be perfect. However, a successful planner will then try to verify or falsify his assumptions, continuing to do so until successful--either proving the assumption true, making it into a fact, or proving it false. 3"

From chapter Educator Bias, in Ditching Shop Class; How Educators Feed the Achievement Gap

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Joe,

I suppose I don't understand what the above quote contributes to the discussion? Are you cautioning one person, a sub-set, or the group about making assumptions?

I've made a lot of assumptions in the California Districts Proposal, but I've also been fortunate to have many talented and generous individuals help me get data to verify or falsify those assumptions.

On that point...

I am hoping to release a Rev 2 of the California Districts Proposal this weekend! Updated budget figures, and other structural changes to make the proposal more friendly/compatible with FIRST HQ's goals for FIRST.

**NEEDED** If you are familiar with FRC team data sets and willing to help process some region/district-specific growth/retention rates over the past 10 years, or have analysis about district/regional growth/retention rates, please PM me! I'd like to have some additional figures/numbers to back up some additional theories being added to Proposal Rev 2.

Also, did Joe Ross calculate California District Points for 2016? I remember he calculated CA district points in past years.

Thanks everyone!

-Mike

Awesome! Really looking forward to seeing it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Michael-

Look forward to rev. 2. And again many thanks for the reflection on hard topics.

The thing on assumptions is for us to make plain what the difficulties are and how to solve them by getting as empirical as we can. As with the Walker spy case, many wished things to be so, assumed they were so, and got burned terribly. Don't mean to do the aspersion thing…

Others with more experience than I, who I respect greatly, with more hands on effort putting together FRC events are extremely leery of getting into a massive mess because some make assumptions about how easy it will be.

Joe
Slack Cutter

PS- The us above is all of us, me too!

Re: California District Proposal
 

It's hard to imagine that anyone involved in process is thinking "boy I hope I never have to double check our methods and assumption with the other people involved in California FRC".

Re: California District Proposal
 

I think the point is more:

We need to remove assumptions as much as possible. We need more data. But where assumptions are necessary, we need to act on those as soon as possible as far as finding out if they're right or wrong.

What looks really good on paper may or may not actually look really good in practice, and what works in practice is rather more likely to actually work on paper, though maybe not as well in theory as what looks good on paper. Remember that ideal physics problems take place in frictionless vacuums, while real physics has to deal with too much (or too little) friction with all contacting surfaces.

One of the best "rookie" events that I've heard about (or attended) was the O.C. Regional. Kind of helped that they'd eliminated a lot of the assumptions the previous fall at an offseason event, by testing the regional layout--and that test had learned from the same event the previous fall. Sure, there were some new elements to work around--but at the same time, dealing with 5 assumptions can generally beat dealing with 10, 20, or 50!

Re: California District Proposal
 

I wanted to give an update on this. I got some additional info from someone with FiM who is heavily involved with venue coordination:

Of all the events, I have been informed that only 3 had some actual form of floor damage, and only one did not return (of which floor damage was not the only reason).

I do know it has been a concern and a point of discussion at a few events. For instance, at one event we had a team cart that would tear slits in the tarps when turning/maneuvering. This was a stressful item for a few hours while trying to find the "root cause", but ended up not being a big deal by the time the event ended. Overall though, floor damage has not been substantive reason for venues not returning.

I was given various reasons for venues not coming back with many tied to change in support level of those championing the event. Champions could be a school administrator or a FRC leader.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ike,

Thanks for the feedback on this. All of this experience sharing has really helped the conversation move forward.

All,

I apologize for not posting the Rev 2 of the CA Districts proposal this weekend. I am working to post the updated proposal on Wednesday.

I will say, I owe a huge thank you to many FRC community members from across the continent for their help in collecting and analyzing data for Rev 2. I am humbled and indebted by your support.

Again, apologies for the delay.

Best,

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Who can say who will be debating and what the format/venue will be?

https://www.facebook.com/FirstUpdatesNow/?fref=nf