Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I would like to move away from the 2011 KoP and return to the broader subject of transparency.
I feel that FIRST has made a good faith effort to be more transparent over the last season. There have been improvements in the quality of communication and the lead time given to teams.

Below is a list of progress we have seen in the past two seasons. Perhaps I have over looked something. Perhaps I have overstated something. Please point out my oversight or exaggeration.

• Bills Blog has tried to give us a look ahead. An example; The Veteran /Rookie KoP differences .
• As Don mentioned Bill asked for suggestions on what we want to hear about at Championships.
• The rules actually have intent in some instances! I really hate guessing when I am inspecting someone's robot.
• Someone asked FIRST to bring back the FRC store and they did just that by giving us "FIRST Choice"
• Bill let us know about FIRST Choice months in advance and let us see the choices ahead of kickoff. (I don't believe this would have happened a few years ago.)
• First gave us a workable CAN system and has bent over backwards to let help teams understand what is allowed.
• At least in my case I feel that Kate read and heard my survey suggestions. Proper terminations, motor data etc.
  
  
  Perhaps we can't have transparency, but responding to the needs of teams seems pretty close.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I could not agree more!

Yes, at "FRC Live" (held on three occasions) at Atlanta last year. With Bill standing in front of a "hostile" crowd without a bulletproof vest :rolleyes: (OK, we weren't hostile. But it took guts to get up there not knowing what would happen. Gotta admire the guy. And kate, too.)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

There, fixed it for ya. Make sure you seperate your needs and wants. Truly understanding NEEDS vs. WANTS can make for a much happier existence in both FRC and the "Real World" (not to be confused with "The Real World" or Jersey Shore which have needs and wants totally backwards).

Timing of update 1 vs. FIRST Choice ordering was a bit more legitimate of a complaint, but how many actually were effected by this versus the theoretical "people" that may have done that.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

What makes me truly sad is that I really WANT to see the 33 minibot score while producing little signs that say things like: float like a butterfly, zing like a bee. With wings. Seriously.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

The 35 who signed are representatives for a large majority of FIRST. Everybody who has posted on this forum saying thank you or something similar is basically another signature added on to the end of that letter. I feel confident that given the chance, most of us would have signed that letter.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Ok folks - just another little point here which I haven't seen introduced, in defense of FIRST. Reach outside your own team. ANYONE can construct a minibot, and you may deploy a minibot from any team on your robot. If you are constricted by budget - TEAM UP WITH AN FTC Team and make one together. The entire idea of the MiniBot (at least from what I was able to gather) was to increase the awareness of this low-cost robot building competition so that FRC teams could do for FTC what they've done successfully for FLL. Not every high school can afford the FRC program, or find enough mentors - so help start an FTC team or work with an existing one to build your robot. Maybe they have the kids or the funds to build, but not the engineering - team up with them and work together. Or pool money with another team that can't afford the build all by themselves and build one to share. Only 2 teams out of 3 even CAN deploy a bot in any one match. Even if you end up on the same alliance one of the two of you can deploy and the other can hang.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

For the record: All of the FTC teams I wanted to team up with said 'no', because their competition is the same week as FLR.

*sigh*

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

The FTC team I contacted was very concerned that we burnt out our motors and thus was very uncomfortable with us modifying them in manners that would not be legal within FTC itself (i.e. transmission modifications)

Also, they're several states away, but still.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Team up with FTC?
There's a grand total of 10 FTC teams in Michigan.
180 FRC vs. 10 FTC?
It's just not a doable solution.

Deploying someone else's minibot without having designed your deployment specifically for it is near impossible.

Looks like the only remaining solutions are:
1. Mass Building of minibots between FRC teams; which results in the same budget issues, design issues because teams will surely disagree which means lost time
2. Suck it up; Budget issues, issues with the product you're forced to buy, unless you have:
3. No minibot (your robot most likely will not perform as well in competition)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Mods, can we get the Minibot stuff moved to one of the Minibot displeasure threads? It has nothing to do with transparency.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Well, if we designed our minibot deployment mechanism to be modular (which we did), then we might well be able to accommodate whatever minibot happens to roll down the pike...