Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It's been done.
(2002 kickoff video)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think the real gripe some people have with the minibot as it pertains to transparency is regarding the complete lack of warning. FIRST has been pretty good over the last few years of warning teams ahead of time about new technologies being included/required in order for teams to learn to utilize them before the build season (cRio, PTC, and Labview being the most obvious examples). There was no warning about learning about the Tetrix platform before the kickoff, so many teams (especially those in FTC-devoid markets such as Michigan and Israel) have no experience with the product line and few local resources to turn to. The concepts are simple enough that they seem not to be deal-breakers, but having pre-existing knowledge about any product line usually proves to be pirceless (as any FRC, FTC, FLL, or VRC vet can attest to).

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I sit corrected. Free is free, no argument.
Nothing for nothing, but they DID tell us on December 13 what was available from FIRST Choice (for example), so we really can't say there was a complete lack of warning.


...-.-

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I disagree. Mentors and students are acting like little kids right now. Stop acting like one, and I'm pretty sure you'll stop being treated like one. That said, I didn't read it as him talking to us like little kids, anyway. He made valid points to prove that everyone is going on about this in a pretty immature manner. Who's setting a better example? The adults whining about some non-issue, or the guy who points it out?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Considering that the GDC is always under constant attack from the CDenziens from the quality of the game to their own personal integrity based on rule changes why shouldn't Dave (who leads the GDC) look to rip somebody's head off? Getting barked at all the time gets old.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Jason -

You make a fair point. If this were the day after Kick-off and this topic had not yet fully been digested and reviewed, I would be in complete agreement with you. Or the day after that, or the day after that. But when it gets to be nearly a week into the season and the topic has been discussed and explained multiple times and yet there are still people making the same complaints over and over just because they have not read the materials which have been provided to them, then a different approach is warranted. There are times when all of us - myself included - need a virtual *poink* to the back of the head and someone to say "wake up and stop behaving like a three-year-old."

It is noted that both the content and the tone of my previous message would not be those that I would use with a younger student. Comments from someone with little history in the program and a developing sense of personal responsibility would garner a more tempered response. But when an reputedly mature member of the community, one with a self-proclaimed near decade of experience spread across multiple teams, makes such outlandish challenges, then a different type of reply is justified. The measure and strength of a message should be tailored for the situation and the recipient.

-dave



.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Gracious Professionalism is difficult, I'm sure, for anyone as it is for me.
I've declined to comment about the direction of this thread because, unfortunately, I don't know how to say it nicely.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

This is a pointless letter. If you look at all the past years and if you truly understand what the core values of FIRST you would know the point of the secrecy is to provide the teams with most challenging season possible and to force on the teams to work with FTC and FLL teams (in the case of the Mini-bot) and further extend the program by forcing teams to go to new businesses and find new sponsors. To push these teams until they reach greatness, to get the kids on these teams ready for real life. YOU make me sick, because people like you are why the good things that my former team did where crushed out of existence for nothing more than doing good. This letter you have written while from a certain point of view makes sense it has no place here, in this organization and I can only hope that FIRST gives this letter the same amount of respect that I have given it.

Good Day to you Sir

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

A key to Gracious Professionalism and to participating in all of the FIRST competitions is listening. Listening, paying attention, becoming knowledgeable, and being respectful.

If a student wants to dispute a grade in high school or college, what is the best way to go about that? From the teacher's or professor's perspective (having done their job), it would be to provide information and knowledge that supports the stance taken. To do so in an insulting or immature manner would not help with the situation that the student would like to address. That is just one example of moving forward through a dispute or a difference of opinion.

If we look over this past year, we will see the outstanding efforts that have been made by the people at HQ who are listening, paying attention, and who treated us (their customers and partners) with great respect. Regarding the current topic (which does not belong in this particular thread), the GDC has done its job by providing us with a 2011 game that is challenging and that is making us think. Having to think in ways that are new to us this year can be uncomfortable but we can still find ways to communicate our discomfort in ways that are not insulting or ignorant.

It's really not that hard.

Edit: Morganh - at the time the letter was written, it wasn't considered pointless; respect was given to it. Those of us who participated, understand the value of it and of the opportunities that stemmed from it this past year.

Jane

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

You DO realize the letter is from 2009, right? :confused:

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think you're misunderstanding the letter. It was written to respectfully explain concerns over the execution of FIRST's business plan, not the seasons' challenges. You're certainly free to disagree. Respect, however is still one of those cornerstones of FIRST. (Right, guys?)

If you were curious, this letter was written last year by main-stays of organization, some of whom have been involved almost as long as you've been alive. They're Woodie Flowers Finalists and Winners, leaders on Chairman's teams and FIRST-affiliated organizations who've done more great things than most and helped 1,000s of students and 100s of teams succeed. Personally, I'd advise against writing it off so roughly.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I don't care to get into discussions such as these because it serves no point.

However, I'd like to just repeat something Jane said a page or so ago.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

How does the discussion of topics relating to a letter that members of FIRST HQ openly responded to not serve a point?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Morgan,

I have cheered for you and your old team since 2008 when our teams went to the Championships as rookie of the year. You and your mentors achieved great things that changed the face of first in your state. Contrary to what you say I believe that many of these achievements still stand. While you may disagree totally with the letter writers opinion these mentors and their beliefs had nothing to do with what happened to 2550. What happened was not right but not these peoples doing. You mentioned the core values of FIRST, I believe that one of these values is respect and I believe that we can not have useful dialog without it. Please keep your comments civil and live the core values of FIRST.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I didn't mean discussion of the letter, I meant discussion of the kit/FTC/all of this. I have no place in it. All I wanted was to reiterate Jane's statement - if we are so glued to our particular opinion about transparency/the kit/whatever it is we're arguing about, we're not getting anywhere by yelling at each other on the internet.

The letter is great, I meant no disrespect. Apologies if it came across that way.