Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

From my understanding of the proposal, the only real splitting is District Champs. It is still all run by one organization and there has not been a clear answer yet on North and South teams being able to attend the other's district events.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

The comment I have received from CA RD's is A) to not use the California FIRST Logo and B) a general reminder that this is not an official proposal. I'm hoping the conversation can progress further. Side note: Senior Mentors receive a stipend (I believe).

I think CA could roll out together or separately. It will depend on more than just one proposal to determine that direction. It is important to, at a baseline, recognize that splitting state into two DCMPs will be key to make DCMP affordable for the most CA teams. Beyond that, I think roll-out timing, going together or separate, etc, is more of a "cross that bridge when we get there" sort of topic.

As mentioned before, a few volunteers are working to get some open communication channels with CA FIRST staff. This has been more difficult than I had hoped, but will keep trying.

I will remove the logo, thanks for expressing the concern. I would rather not track/tally all the discussion contributors, that list is over 200 people long at this point (which is a great thing!) The individuals listed currently went above and beyond to support me as I drafted the first and second revisions.

Do you have any recommendations for improving the section? PM me if you have specific additions you'd like to see, or post here.

No nerves struck, thanks for posting!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

For the record...

The name is Rick Sisk, FIRST Senior Mentor, SoCal
And yes, we do receive a small stipend for our work (IMO, one of the best jobs in FIRST)

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

This is probably less a problem in CA because 1) the state is really so huge and 2) it has a long history of divided programs across the state. For example in many high school sports there are not state championships, but rather section titles, even N/S sections. Football is a classic example. If the program is advertised as being phased in at different rates, that should cover these issues.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I feel that it isn't that much of an issue because the proposal is for the whole state to go to districts. It would be a different story if only Northern California went to districts for example. Both districts will also be ran by the same organizational body.

Unrelated, but I also think it won't be that big a deal if we can allow inter-district play in California (NorCal-SoCal events) to count for district ranking points.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Been a while since I could catch up on this one...

I think that with the way the proposal is structured, it would be possible to run one end of the state on regional and one on district, should that become necessary, for a short while. I also don't think it'll be necessary.

I understand PA's objection to splitting the state, I think, but one thing the East Coast folks need to keep in mind when we're talking about distances is this: 307 miles from end to end (PA) is a fair piece... but CA is only about 500 from San Diego to Sacramento or San Fransisco (covers many of the teams), which doesn't include the northern part of the state. And there's mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. We're used to being "split" due to the distances and terrain. (Here's a hint, for the NE folks: I think you could probably fit CT AND RI into one of our larger counties, with room to spare.)

So, with that said, I definitely think that for purposes of practicality (and/or "persuasion"), the option to run districts in one half and regionals in the other half, for a short term, should remain on the table. Should that actually happen, of course, a couple of district events really, really close to the border might be in order, for a variety of reasons.

I would assume that North/South division would only be for the DCMPs (on paper), but that actual play north/south would be more of a "is the team willing to travel when there's two events that aren't overnight away?" question.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Assumptions:

Don't want to make any, in that there could be the perception of some rivalry between N and S. There is none, to be clear.

Making this work (the District Model) within the existing complexities would be helpful were there a consortium, within North, who would be willing to jump into the thing and experiment, whilst south steps up and participates in some of the events to get a handle on what must be done. And be a part of planning, if only to observe. It may take a couple of game cycles to get data from teams and analyze behavior and movement of teams between venues, and see what kind of success there is with actually booking venues for our purposes. The Reluctant Administrator Syndrome. (bless you those Administrators for getting behind us to push our Differentiated education!)

Does North have an organization that can pull this together in the next year or two? * South does not, to my knowledge. We have a lot of very good stuff, we keep a lot of balls juggled, but to be honest, it's not cohesive in such a way as to pull off this District thing in the existing or prospective environment.

* I do not wish to put pressure on teams or individuals by asking-merely an honest assessment of the Status Quo.

Joe
Repurposer

PS- Thank you Boeing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L0B...ature=youtu.be

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

What makes you say that? I know absolutely nothing about FIRST in California, so I'm genuinely curious why the South is incapable of Districts, even in 2 years.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Eric,

This is certainly one way to do it.

A straight split North/South would be another way to do it.

I'm sure a lot of people would prefer the option you presented.

However, there could be logistics issues with that approach that should be considered (planning for event capacity, district point allocations, etc).

Either way, for the purpose of this proposal, I think it is OK to leave this point open until other critical details get confirmed. Definitely something to think about long-term.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I'd like to disagree. There are so many great people in SoCal doing amazing work that frankly are not active on this website (and for good reason).

I've been speaking to SoCal Mentors/Students/Alumni/Volunteers for years and most want the district move and want to aid the transition.
You can even see that more SoCal people are posting on other forms of social media rather than this page. And frankly, many well known mentors try to not engage in arguments back on forth on these platforms.

Most mentors on my own team don't engage in these forums.
How can you judge an entire region when CD only represents a small portion?

I'm sure if I sent an email to every single FIST-er in SoCal the response would be less "ghost town" and more "how can I help"
Thanks
-Pauline

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

Pauline,

Great points you've made. A lot of people in California want districts! We will be discussing at most NorCal off-season events this fall about how to mobilize.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for Joe :) He does come from years of leadership with SCRRF, an organization that has served robotics initiatives in SoCal for many years. While I don't agree with his diagnosis, I think his evaluation comes from more than just these forums, and is based out of his experience with SCRRF.

I understand districts is a huge logistical and volunteer challenge. However, 9(?) other regions have moved to the district model already. What challenges do we face that other regions have battled, what challenges are unique to CA, and what perceived challenges are in reality trivial to overcome?

To Joe's point, I agree that working with school administrations is a challenge, but I do not agree that the challenge is unique to California. Other regions that run most or all of their events in High Schools have found solutions to this particular challenge that California should be able to adopt.

I think solution #1 is booking with venues early. Solution #2 is being willing to pay the usage fees (the 25k district event budget includes 10k for venue).

Thanks for contributing everyone!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I think that the biggest unique problem for California (or New York, whichever comes first :rolleyes:) to trailblaze is district size and team distribution. Like Eric said above, California is big, and there are large parts of the state without the team density to host events. This is the root of the discussion surrounding possibly splitting Northern and Southern CA in some fashion. A similar problem exists in NY between teams in/around NYC and those upstate.

Whoever can work out scaling districts to situations like these (making a system that benefits teams and that HQ approves of) will end up having a large impact.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I think the point is that CA FIRSTers and its 501c (or plural) need to investigate the impact of any potential state (or other) funding on a "split" state format. That's not to say it should automatically rule out a split state format or that the state of California would be guaranteed not to support multiple partial state organizations, but it's a factor worthy of consideration. Getting blindsided by such as issue would be a definite negative for everyone involved, and especially so for those who hope to create a Michigan-like FRC environment in California.

Also, there's mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, too. ;)

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I agree that CA is tricky due to the size both geographically and team count and I personally think that splitting the state into 2 districts is probably the best way to go. Then maybe after everything is up and running pilot points portability only for teams from and playing in the NCA and SCA Districts.

Two separate DCMPs avoids both potential long travel times and the need for an oversized FiM style DCMP. Points portability would potentially keep it as "one thing" in the eyes of the state and other potential donors.

Re: California District Proposal, Rev 2
 

I also have some experience along those lines, and have been able to draw from some other persons' experiences as well.

If I had to point to a single thing that would keep districts from happening in SoCal, based on my experience and hearing the chatter... I'll point out three.

1) "Non-team" influences. That would be, as discussed previously, some combination of CAFIRST, school administrations, and other persons or groups that aren't necessarily affiliated with teams but have some stake in how FIRST is run in CA. No need to repeat that discussion. (I think the solution is to educate those folks on the benefits to the teams, and to them.)

2) Disunity (not discord, mind you)--this is more of a "we're not actually pulling together, only in the same general direction" than anything else. I'm only aware of WRRF in NorCal as far as robotics support organizations. I'm aware of SCRRF (LARobotics) and OCRA for sure down this way, and if I'm not mistaken there's another group in San Diego. All three will need to work together, more than simply coordinating when their offseason events happen so there aren't conflicts (they're really good at avoiding each other's event dates). Working together can produce a stronger pull than three individual yanks. I don't see a lot of that. Though there was that one year where the events all scheduled back-to-back and got one field for all the events, everybody pitching in to assist in insurance and moving it around the state--that's what we really need to see, everybody working together for a better experience. (#notajoke: I heard that the rev 1 proposal was the first time that SCRRF was officially aware that CAFIRST owned fields. We've been using the same wooden field for much of the last decade, with repairs of course, and sometimes a metal one.)

3) "Hey, aren't you the same person doing this as the last 5 years?" I'm not sure about the other groups, but for whatever reason, finding new people to fill old shoes isn't exactly easy. Either the new folks disappear after a season or two, or they never show up. Leaves the "incumbents" there, until they suddenly can't make it and somebody has to step up. (I didn't duck quick enough when that happened with the head ref at the Fall Classic a couple years back.) There's also the problem of "what can I do to help" turning into "where'd that volunteer go, he said he'd help?", but that could have a number of factors that aren't obvious and there isn't a single solution to that issue.


I think it can be done... but again, it's got to be together. Let's say we figure on two years as the timeframe. I think the first year would be dealing with a lot of the core issues--see the first two items above--on top of talking the system over with teams to identify where they can help (and maybe they can help with those items too). The second year would be the major push: venues, volunteers, and other similar items, in detail, along with getting the proposal in to HQ for a yea/nay. Am I sure it could be done in two years? Not really. It seems to me like dealing with the second-year stuff is being done first--my point of view, not necessarily accurate--which, while helpful in terms of making it faster later, doesn't address any of the first-year stuff that would need to be handled first. Does it need to be done, sure! Can it be done at the same time, sure! But the question is, are we ignoring issues that could prevent us from moving even faster? If we are, we need to stop ignoring those issues and solve them. Or: What do we not know that could wreck plans?



[This part mainly for humor.]
@Sean: The main pass north-south is higher than PA's highest point, by about 900'. I'd say that everything's bigger in CA, but any Texans reading this would probably object. :p (On a serious note, speaking of Texas, they actually submitted paperwork for districts and they've got a bigger spread/cluster effect than CA. Think we could learn a few lessons from those documents, but I don't recall them being made public.)