Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It seems to me (without being a technical person, admittedly) that a lot of advances can be made in 5 years in many areas. When I was thinking about asking for more transparency, I was thinking about short term and long term: 2-3 years -> 5 - 7 years -> beyond. 5 years in the business of innovation and technological advancement and change - is a long time, it seems to me.

We haven't talked recently in this thread about the economic downturn of late and how that has impacted and may continue to impact. Does FIRST know who their suppliers and sponsors will be 5 years from now? Do teams know 5 years from now who the team sponsors and supporters are going to be? Do the teams who have classroom space and school support know that they will have the same, very same, classroom space in 5 years that they have now? Do they know they'll have corporate support and space, if their build site is there? What's the guarantee and where is it? Personally, I don't want to see everything be the same 5 years from now. Not in robotics.

Jane

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I'm just curious to see what kind of a game FIRST could make that would mandate a CVT.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Most likely, the CVT would not be mandated by a game design.
Perhaps they envision a simple, reliable and affordable component that levels the playing field for the teams?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Orrr they may be in talks with kit sponsors about potential offerings in the future.

.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

"Simple, reliable" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of a FIRST-scale CVT. :)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Based on the examples of CVTs I have seen produced by FRC teams, simple and reliable don't seem that hard. Making it efficient at the same time, however, is another issue.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I am pretty sure that's the idea. And that helps expain why it is "secret". I can imagine that some of the potential suppliers don't even know they're on the radar yet. (At least, that's how I would do it).

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Obviously it was not helpful to flash the five year plan in front of us and then snatch it away. The lack of respect in that act was unfortunate but understandable. Bill and Kate seem to be under some other pressures and we can only guess what they may be. I believe that it would be fair to say that they believe in the goals of FIRST and want all teams to have a good experience.

So more important than what didn't work last year or what hardware is planned is:
What a more transparent FIRST would act like.
Below are some very raw ideas of what I would see from a more transparent FIRST. These ideas could be polished but I would really like others to fill in areas that I missed.

KOP

Alpha test with select teams in the fall. Revise and release for wide beta test in late spring. Release of new or changed core items by Sept 30th. This allows for all teams to have the opportunity to learn the base technology prior to applying it in competition. This also gives a more accurate picture of the engineering process. Engineering is iterative, no one gets every detail right on the first try. Let teams see what worked and what FIRST plans on improving by posting the results of the alpha tests.

Help teams to budget by giving estimate of product life and projected phase out dates on core items.


Rules

Try to give intent behind rules. The rules ask us to follow intent but often do not let us know what the true intent is.
eg. What is the intent of bumper plywood not touching? Unfair advantage? Safety? Why is a 45 deg bevel OK? I can only guess, and without intent language other peoples explanations are just guesses and are not helpful.

Let teams know if a rule is going to be retained for multiple seasons.

Allow all teams access to the Inspection manual. This is one of the best resources for teams to gauge how well their robot meets the rules. It was really unfortunate that the Inspectors manual was not released for all teams to use this year.

Administration

Let us know that FIRST understands how difficult it is to keep a team running.
EXAMPLE: Get rid of requirements like needing four pair of safety glasses to register. I bring plenty of spares and they are with my team where they should be not in my co-coaches registration bag. As a coach I have a spread sheet of who must have what, where and when, this spread sheet goes from one week before the regional to closing ceremonies on Saturday night. Between coordinating carpools, chaperones, packing lists, shipping paperwork, inspection changes, upgrade strategy, and minute by minute crisis management I could use less "have to's".

FEEDBACK

One of the biggest issues that I see is that there is no method of providing feedback to FIRST so they know what didn't work for us. Thus they can't change it so that it will work next year.
EXAMPLE: The BOM template.
The template was non functional in the condition that it was posted. Even after "fixing" the formatting I was really unclear what the purpose was. This is not a rules question. But having a way to work with FIRST to improve the product would benifit us all.
We need to know that our input has been considered in order to stay invested.
Many professional orginizations have a method of proposals for changes to codes and standards. These proposals require the submitter to give rational for the change and the submitter is provided a response.

I look forward to hearing what transparency would look like to you.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

With regards to alpha/beta testing the KOP, 1) they've been doing that with the control system as best they can, and 2) doing that with less than every team gives certain teams an advantage, and doing it with every team means releasing most of the KOP well before the kickoff. If you can come up with a middle ground, send it on to the GDC.

With regards to the rules, indicating that a rule will be retained would be nice, but seeing as the GDC probably doesn't know that it will be, counterproductive. It's easy to guess which rules will be retained, but not with a 100% accuracy. All teams have access to the Inspection Manual. It's better known as Section 8 of the Manual. The Inspection Checklist is also released, and is what the inspectors go by.

I can understand the request for the intent behind the rules, in cases where it is not clear. Much of the time, it is clear. (And they've gotten much better: More blue boxes next year too would be nicer).

With respect to the administration and feedback, there is a channel. You email them at an address that Bill is more than happy to post in his blog, or you go to the "Contact Us" portion of their site and let them know.

I think that it was partially helpful to briefly show the 5-year plan. It tells us that yes, they are working on it, but no, they aren't done with it (and they would rather not have somebody see it and make it really, really hard for them to carry it out.)

Transparency to you seems to be, "Tell us everything except the game."

Transparency to me is, "Tell me what I need to know, when I need to know it (usually as early as possible), or tell me that you can't tell me. If you can't tell me everything, tell what you can tell, and when I can expect to get the rest." (Oh, and tell if there's nothing to tell--like Updates 17 and 19.)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. I organized one for Maryland. It was a lot of work, but provided feedback that was sent to HQ. There may have been things tweaked because of the Team Forums, but I was never able to really figure that out. Local areas may still conduct their own.

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. One year there was an action plan distributed the last day addressing the concerns submitted. The Regional Directors still serve as the POC for the different regions. I believe they will be meeting in early June. An email to your RD with concrete concerns/suggestions might be one avenue to give feedback.

FRC has a survey this year. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ghlight=survey and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

And as mentioned, Bill's Blog offers a way to comment. But I have no idea what the feedback loop is here either.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Actually, you had one. Read my last post in this thread, the last paragraph.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Dear GDC:

Thank you for stating your intent behind the rules this year. This is a step towards transparency. There is a long ways yet to go.

Sincerely,
Marshal Horn

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

And I'd like to add a big thanks for Bill Miller for offering to run the FRC Live! workshops at Championships again this year. Last year's sessions brought us FIRST Choice this year.

Now all I need to do is send a quick note to Bill on what I'd like to hear from him this year. Everyone should do this.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Am I the only person who thinks that the issues with FTC parts and the mini-bot this year was yet another example of a lack of transparency hurting teams?

If FIRST had come out and said "Hey, this next game will basically require FTC parts - you should account for that in your budget" - teams like mine would not be in the predicament they are now.

I feel like the MiniBot situation was made much worse because FIRST was by no means transparent about it.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

no dave, you're not - with you all the way on this one.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

While that is true, Dave, there may be teams who were planning to do a Minibot, did not realize that the motors and battery were required, and opted not to get the FTC parts kit, then placed their order before Tuesday night. Those teams--what of them? If they can't change their order, they now have to pay for at a minimum the motor and batteries. Strong hints do not definite clarity make.

I think that's part of what Chris is getting at. A simple statement like, "If you want to have a Minibot, you should probably get the Mini Kit from FIRST Choice" would have saved those teams a lot of frustration that they now are feeling.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

What was the reasoning behind not including that FTC kit in the KOP to begin with?

How about the motors and battery and such?

Teams that want to build multiple mini bots will HAVE to purchase these parts.

Are you telling me that one battery will last an entire build season and competition season?

How many FRC teams have one battery and one charger?

How many teams use exactly what's in the KOP and only that?

THERE ARE MANY OTHER PIECES THAT YOU BASICALLY NEED TO PURCHASE TO HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL MINI BOT. That is the point.

The FIRST choice kit is not enough. It's great that it is free. It's great that we get 30% off from another site.

Think about all the down time from ordering the parts from yet another site, the shipping costs, etc.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Really? I mean, really REALLY really?

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually watched the kickoff Telecast would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be a part of FRC this year. Nobody.

And nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- who actually looked at the FIRST Choice options this year would come to the conclusion that FTC wouldn't be part of FRC this year. Nobody.

This whole thing is silly. Before kickoff, I already knew that the FTC kit would be part of the competition this year. It is the ONLY part available in group 1 of FIRST Choice... And that it is available at all was a GIANT CLUE.

This whole angst-bunny act is hilarious. Hop along, little friends -- I'm busy finalizing the designs of my robot.

----------------

Edit:

Alex, I love you, man, but if OMG WE NEED TO BUY STUFF is killing you, you're in the wrong competition.

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has had a harder financial time than Naples at getting a team up and running and sustained. Without spending thousands of dollars of my own money (and boy am I rich with this teacher's salary, I can tell you) and an anonymous donation from another FRC mentor from a different team (to whom we owe an eternal debt), 1551 wouldn't be around today. It took that much to finally attract the awesome attentions of Bausch & Lomb, and we likely wouldn't exist without their patronage.

FIRST takes money. A lot of it. If you don't have it, you probably can't compete. That's why business plans, fundraising, and relationships with local businesses are paramount to the success of teams.

If $500 will make or break you either way -- not that $500 is needed to deal with the MINIBOT regardless -- then you need to direct your attentions toward something you *can* deal with.

...that said, if you need financial help, please let me know. We can probably do something. :D

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It's almost as unbelievable as everyone assuming that trebuchets and cannons were the intent of the the minibot race. But I digress...

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Not a transparency issue Chris, just a decision that a lot of people aren't happy with.

I love the mini-bot idea. Love it because it gives us an excuse to get our old friends from FLL who moved to FTC this year involved again. What I don't like is that it is creating a perception of FIRST trying to force teams into FTC.

So, allow me, if I may be so bold, to venture a guess at the logic. I understand we had to have limits on the parts and I understand the logical choice was either add two more motors to the KOP -OR- make motors specific to this. Since we already have 13 motors in the KoP and by allowing any motors on the mini-bot would drastically change it (in an interesting way imho) we had to use specific motors. It is only logical to say, "hey who do we know who can donate these parts, oh the guys who we already work with..." Oh hey, added benefit, it promotes awareness of a different segment of the FIRST brand. The only question this leaves for me, why can't I build my mini-bot out of lego bricks?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

A few thoughts:

Without being in on their brainstorming sessions, it is impossible for we mere plebians to know the reasoning behind every GDC decision... ....and it is unreasonable to expect them to explain all of them. (Or perhaps even some of them.)

I always assume, when I cannot deduce the reasoning behind a rule, that "it makes it harder" is the correct answer.

I am as cynical as can be. Truly, I always assume the worst when it comes to human motive. That said, geniuses such as Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, and Dave Lavery could make so much more money (and win so much more prestige) by doing almost anything else. They could also stroke their own egos in much easier ways... Thus, the "this is just a ploy to prop up FTC" arguments ring hollow to me.

OF COURSE they want FRC teams to get involved with FTC. I, personally, would rather see FTC as a "middle school" program and shunt FLL strictly to the elementary grades -- which will never happen as long as VEX is cheaper, mind.

But that's neither here nor there.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Regarding recent frustrations, it doesn't make any sense to request transparency when we are wearing blinders. Doesn't work that way.

Jane

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Each team in FIRST programs runs like their own little company with whatever plan is developed by them and given the cards they are dealt. However I would highly caution Against using the plan where the teachers and mentors inject large sums of their personal funds to prop up a team. The dynamics created by this often leaves a legacy and situation that is just not healthy. My experience with witnessing this scenario a few times over the past 10 years in FIRST leaves me with strong opinions on this.
Best wishes to all you hardworking teams this year!

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Hi folks.

OK, so you're unhappy that the GDC did not tell you -prior to kickoff - that you need money to buy parts you'll need to build a competitive robot.

You're kidding me, right?


Surely those complaining are from teams that use only what comes in the KoP and does not spend any other money during the year. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: FRC Costs Money. Spend it on this or that, but eventually, you need to spend it.

By the way: All you MUST buy graciously accept for free are 2 motors and one battery*. And that is only if you decide to build your own minibot.** So quit whining and labeling this a transparency issue, when it isn't.

*(I advise some spares, though).
**(In theory, as few as four per regional will suffice. Can you say "collaboration"?)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think it'd be eye-opening if the GDC were to video tape some of their sessions and release the videos either post kickoff or even post season if they prefer. Either way, just seeing what kind of set-up they use when figuring everything out would speak volumes of the rules they create and would allow people to understand them more without taking alot more of their time to explain themselves. I agree explaining themselves on everything is unreasonable, but perhaps just letting us watch(post kickoff obviously) would be perfectly acceptable and wouldn't require anyone to do much more work then to set up a camera and upload the video.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Actually Jason, just watching them 'in action' would be interesting. I mean, they could videotape their rules discussions, and pick one or two interesting ones to show us so we can understand the 'flavor'. Surely some discussions are "ugly", but we don't need to see those. Just good real examples would be fascinating. Even if we didn't get to see them until after CMP (if fairness is an issue).

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Really? REALLY? REALLY??? You are actually going to go in that direction? Have you actually participated on an FRC Team EVER in your life (yes, that is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it)? You are actually going to sit there and whine about the fact that you don't get EVERYTHING in the Kit Of Parts that you might need to build your robot?

Did you even bother to look at the list of items included in the FIRST Choice Tetrix kit? Obviously, the answer to that is "no." Otherwise, you would know that the motors and battery are included. You get them FOR FREE. But I understand that it is much easier to just jump on the negativity bandwagon and complain about stuff than it is to actually do a little research on your own and finding out if there is any basis in fact for the complaints.

So then you whine that you don't get enough of them to build MULTIPLE mini-bots? Getting enough parts in the Tetrix kit to build a basic minibot is not sufficient? Do you expect that the Kit Of Parts should also contain sufficient parts to make multiple full FRC robots? Exactly how greedy are you?

Then there is the complaint that the teams won't use exactly what's in the KOP and only that, and that somehow the Kit should include everything that you might, possibly, maybe, could some day need for every possible design? Are you serious? Do you actually expect that the Kit should be designed so that you get everything you might possibly need, and that you will never, ever need anything beyond the kit contents to construct your design? You have obviously confused FRC with Lego League.

No, you don't. All you MUST buy is... - wait for it - NOTHING. Once again, everyone needs to read the information that has been made available to them. EVERY team has the ability to order a Tetrix parts kit from FIRST Choice FOR FREE. It is effectively included in your Kit Of Parts. The Tetrix parts kit available through FIRST Choice includes motors and the battery.

-dave



.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I totally agree with everything you have said, Dave. If everything was in the KOP we could just create "Erector Set Robotics" which would not be half as fun as FRC. FIRST has created a way for teams to get much of what they need for a reduced price (free) and the fact that teams are not taking advantage of this is by no means FIRST's fault.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

This may have already been stated however I am not sure this discussion (which has evidently been going on for two years) is in the right place. It seems to me that the majority of the comments posted here are by mentors. This is perhaps a discussion that should take place out of the eyes of the students who are here because they love this program and it's difficulty. That being said...

Regarding the GDC and rules changing etc. This issupposed to be a 'real world' engineering experience. If you ask anyone who has worked in an engineering firm on a large project. They will tell you that until the project is completed everything is in a state of flux and you don't get all the information until the project is submitted to the firm (and even then it can change according to the needs of the customer). Generally speaking the customer doesn't have an engineer sit in on their initial planning meetings. They bring in the engineers after they have a solid idea of what they want. This is the way I see the GDC working.

Oh, and, when has there ever been a game in which there wasn't a need to redesign if you wanted to score the bonus points. If you feel the minibot is that important then refocus your design. Often times the most successful teams are focusing their attention on doing one thing extremely well.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Wow it's very early in the build and people are already getting bent out of shape! Every year the robo-lawyers find something to get upset about, so why not mini-bots? In a couple of weeks we will start hearing about how some rule or another is patently unfair to such and such team. Then as the competitions approach out will come the competition scoring/alliance selection algorithm complaints. It's the same story every year and very predictable. In a very few rare cases, there is an actual flaw or oversight in the rules that are quickly dealt with (of course the corrections are criticised as well).

Our team takes a different approach:

1. We read and analyze the rules.
2. We build the best robot we can in the alloted time to complete the task we have chosen to accomplish within the framework of the game.
3. We show up at the Lonestar regional and compete as hard as we can until they say we can't any more.
4. Next year we do it again.

There are occasional logical flaws in the game that HAVE to be pointed out and in that case we should voice our opinions. MOST of the time, however, there are merely inconvient aspects of the game that upset people that seem to generate the most noise. We don't have time to waste on that stuff because we are cutting aluminum and bolting together our drive train!

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I understand your rather close to the matter and that is why your so upset by all this. Please get rid of the condescending nature of your posts. Your posts are usually some of the best spoken and most interesting. You have many valid points, but I'd appreciate if you could make them in your usual demeanor. There is nothing to be gained by treating people like kids. If you want your message thought about and not just listened to, please acknowledge the community as adults even if you think they are acting childish.

Thanks,
Jason

PS: This is posted in public as a reminder to all that we should keep the forums civil.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

On the contrary, I think whatever slap in the face Dave gave me earlier in this thread is exactly what I needed to hear. I think the message behind either post is somewhat lost with sugar-coating.

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.

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...