Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Probably should read the proposal above.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I would encourage you and anyone else to question bold numbers like that!
In this proposal we made it a point to break down how we got the numbers we did, I would encourage you to ask for the same explanation when people throw around numbers like 25-35 events.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Ever is a strong world. Depending on how the whole brexit things shake out California is somewhere between the the 4th and 7th biggest economies.... Pretty sure we have the resources.

We also have somewhere around 500% of michigans population, 80% as many teams and currently 0% as many districts.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

This is what you can expect at most district events: local team's shop if you are at a high school or some tools in a corner staffed by volunteers. 125 has been a big resource in keeping NE events stocked with tools for a machine shop and some transportation issues left RIDE uncovered but teams worked together and everyone shared what they had. It also prompted us to start bringing a larger vice, bandsaw, and belt sander to Boston the next weekend and our pit became a machine shop outpost with volunteers using our tools more than we did. ;)

The machine shops aren't as nice as what teams see in reigonals but you have to keep in mind with teams getting six hours of unbag time in their shops a lot of the machining work teams need to do gets done at their shops. The machine shops still get plenty of use for the times we need it however we use it less than we did during a regional.

It does get beefed up for the District Championships. Connecticut had one of the NASA mobile machine shops this year and I believe WPI uses the shop on campus.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

For the discussion on venue machine shops, see this thread:

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/n...reply&t=149665

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

In 2016, California had 258 teams. Michigan had just a hair over 400 teams. So in actuality, that number is ~65%.

But beyond that, the logic of having 35% less FRC teams than Michigan, yet needing 25-75% more events than Michigan, is crazy. I've heard other great people in CA share similar figures, but after a brief explanation of district numbers/team count, they better understand that the 25-35 event number is pretty exaggerated. It comes down to an awareness issue, which I'm hoping the proposal helps with!

For those too lazy to read the whole proposal, we project needing 17 district events, plus two championships, in 2018. This estimate is assuming 10% FRC team growth year over year for the next two seasons.

Happy to answer any additional questions.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

In case no one reading this knows, If you plan on having 40 team district events, and each team playing at least 2, then the math works out to:

Number of District events = Number of teams expected/20 rounded up to whole integer.

IE 258*1.1=284 expected teams 284/20 = 14.2 thus a minimum of 15 district events plus a championship for a count of 16. The 15 district events would leave 32 open slots for teams to get 3rd plays our out of towners. By doing 16 events, California would increase the convenience factor as well as then have potentially 72 open slots for 3rd plays, though in reality, some venues might be more comfortable at say 36 to 38 which will decrease the available extra slots.

Several years Michigan has had 1 whole events worth of extra slots. This typically helps low resource teams have another option (think both proximity and/or timing) and it helps higher resource teams as they are often the ones signing up for another event to get additional practice/out of bag time.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I have read the proposal, all I'm saying is that is what I was told by the NorCal director.

If I talk to her again I will, all I'm saying is that was what I was told. I'm not providing any argument or analysis of that statement.

Yes, she did not say "ever", her tone was just that FIRST was not considering districts for California, as they already looked at it, found that it required too many resources, and then closed the case on it. Again, I'm not against the idea of districts, I'm just relaying what I have been told.

For anyone wondering, I was told this information at the San Mateo Maker Faire offseason event.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

First, thank you for taking the time to read the proposal! :)

Second, I appreciate you sharing your experience with FIRST staff in CA. Any data point helps understand the current situation in our state.

Best,

-Mike

Yep, no problem. As I said before, I'm all for California districts, and was saddened when I heard that they FIRST decided that they weren't coming anytime soon.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

That is unfortunate. I have not heard that FIRST HQ made any decisions regarding District model adoption in CA, but thank you for relaying that information.

As far as I knew, going to Districts in a region involved the region and FIRST coming to a mutual agreement regarding pricing, contracts, fiscal liability, staffing, etc. I did not know that FIRST was barring certain regions from making the switch. That could complicate this whole effort :rolleyes:

Overall, FRC is moving towards Districts, which means FRC is moving to a similar organization model that FTC, FLL and Jr. FLL currently operate under. From FIRST's perspective, there are definitely fiscal pros and cons for a region moving from Regionals to Districts. Lots of liability and expenses change hands, so it can be a bit tricky to keep it all straight and determine whether it ends up being a net positive or negative for FIRST HQ.

Best,

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Thanks for everyone's contributions and thoughts on this. I believe that Districts would be a benefit to my teams and the teams I help sponsor in the so cal area. I also very much appreciate the volunteer community getting our act together so when a FIRST conversation does happen, we will be ready and not railroaded into actions that are not in our bests interests. Now for the rambling thoughts that have been collecting.

1) Has FIRST made any comment in an official/non capacity to these 2 proposal threads? Rick Sick is the only FIRST person that has contributed. But, as a Senior Mentor he is still on the volunteer side.

2) Is it a "California" proposal for a particular reason? East to define? Political? Easy for the legal aspects?

I appreciate the willingness to treat Nor Cal and So Cal as needing their own considerations. Do we NEED to carry the 2 areas forward together? Is it better to discuss the areas actions separately? For timing? Workload? Necessity? Personally I think that the combined discussion is best and I would love action to be taken together but I would not want the best solutions to fail because of any artificial requirements imposed but not needed.

3) We need to strengthen the section regarding requests to and discussion from CA FIRST staff. At some point we actually have to deal with FIRST; expanding the discussion outside of the volunteer community. FIRST depends VERY heavily on its volunteer base. This discussion is an opportunity to help FIRST support our community better. And in turn, we can support the students better.

4) I am actually a BIT uncomfortable using the FIRST logo on the proposal. Because, this is the work of volunteers that have no corporate standing in FIRST. I would be happy with a contributors list showing every single team that has entered the discussion as an exotension to the authors list currently on the front cover.

5) I think we need to strengthen the section on Volunteer needs. Thanks for adding the spreadsheet of volunteers and roles. It was great that we have already identified Volunteer recruitment/development/coordination as a major need that requires considerable work from the volunteer community as well as FIRST. Its nice to see that action is already happening in this regard. Thanks Joe Petito for putting Inspector development into Off Season Event plans. I will be working on similar development for San Diego events.

6) Discussions pointed out that the Volunteer Coordinator was possibly the most important key role for event success. Random question--Would events be better if the Volunteer Coordinator was a paid position? Possibly idea would be a VC for each of the fields, assuming fields are planned to ship as locally as possible then the VC would have a solid handle on all the available volunteers and KEY volunteers within reasonable distance of multiple events.

If I struck some interest (or a nerve) please add your thoughts. --Steve

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Among other experiences, I've been a VC for a district event and a district championship. I think knowing local volunteers, having familiarity with local teams/businesses/other non-profits that are good places to recruit new volunteers, and understanding any local issues to be aware of are important traits for a VC to have, especially in the first year of a new district event. I don't think making VCs a paid position would have an impact on those key attributes. Perhaps it would make it easier to recruit new VCs, but I can also see it potentially attracting the wrong people to be VCs.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I can see that, too. Let's have VCs who have drunk the koolaid and are in this as committed addicts.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I don't know what their justification was but as someone in MAR, I would strongly suggest against splitting the state. We have trouble getting funding from PA because not all PA students are allowed to benefit from our organization.