Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think non-tech investments often get wasted when FIRST makes a sudden change in direction without advance warning. The many Vex kits purchased aren't as much of an issue as the many school programs that lost their relevance to FIRST when FVC became FTC. That single event cost FIRST a lot of goodwill among mentors and sponsors. To ask for something like that not to happen again seems reasonable to me.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Expecting change is fine, I don't think that anyone wants FIRST to tell us exactly what it will do in 5 yrs time and for us to hold them to that. That would be a disaster. Things do change and we need to realize that. The aim here, as far as I can tell, is to see where FIRST is planning on going. The example that is mentioned a lot is the FTC/FVC debacle. Knowing ahead of time that FVC was only temporary and would be replaced with an entirely new system within 5 years would have saved teams a lot of money. The fact that FIRST switched gears rapidly and for no obvious (to us) reason (I am not speculating on a reason here) ticked a lot of people off.

No one wants detailed plans and finalized budgets for 5 and 10 years out, we are asking for vision, goals, and budget proposals so we know where they are heading. Meaning, something a little more attainable and measurable than the general goals of FIRST. Can these goals change based on the environment? OF COURSE, it would be foolish not to. Should they be changed because FIRST wants to please a new sponsor? (hypothetical situation, not saying it would ever happen) Heavens no! We just want to know if FiM will continue for the next 5 years, can we plan on it for budgeting next year? Right now we don't really have methods for FIRST to communicate this. Bill's Blog is a wonderful step in the right direction, I do believe FIRST is trying to become more transparent. I also believe this letter should help to communicate that the community (or at least a subset of the community represented by these mentors) believe that FIRST needs to take these steps.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Actually, it is wise to work with 3 year and 5 year strategic and budget projections and planning, Andrew. A large part of my job has to do with the 3 year planning and budget projections.

Just a thought.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Point taken, I will go back and reword that part to more accurately say what I mean. Thank you.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thank you, Andrew. This is what can happen when bean counters read ChiefDelphi. :)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

We're building robots for a high school competition, not 45 nanometer multi-core processors for Intel.

The PIC-based IFI control system was used more or less unchanged for five years (2004 through 2008). Based upon the current control system, I wouldn't be surprised if we're still using more or less the same hardware well into the 2010s decade.

It's cheaper for us to stay well away from the bleeding edge, and high school students still get inspired either way.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

MI pilot and Israel Regional pilot come to mind. They worked, and are still going. That's not exactly the same as the FTC pilot seasons.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think it's questionable whether or not they do have our best interests at heart.

If their goal is rapid expansion as fast as possible with no regards to sustainability that is not in the best interests of the current teams.

We don't know what their plan is. Their actions seem to say that maybe there might kinda sorta be a plan that they may or may not be referring to from time to time. But we have no idea what that is. If we knew it would help everyone to better direct their efforts to either support that plan, or get out of Dodge. Especially since FIRST is so volunteer driven.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

VEX and Tetrix parts have a longer "investment timeline" than most FRC parts do, as they are intended to be re-used from year-to-year. That is one of the beautiful things about the system... the cost can be amortized over several years of competition. In fact... they kind of have to be in order to make them a good investment of scarce educational funding.

IFI has demonstrated how having a long term plan to gradually transition from one technology to another can allow teams and schools to plan for, and budget for, changes and improvements. They have been clear about what technologies are under development and made it possible for teams to do incremental upgrades. Not only that... but IFI appears to be going to great pains to make sure that their technology advancements actually work before releasing them for sale and competition. For instance we have known that wi-fi was on its way for well over a year, and have just purchased two Wi-Fi upgrades to transition two of our five VEX kits from crystals to the VEXNET system. Next year, I hope to purchase three more upgrades... but I'll probably hold off purchasing a new kit until the new controller is available.

FIRST's idea of a long term strategy was announcing "Your equipment might be obsolete next year." No transition plan, no gradual upgrade path... not even a description of what the new technology was going to be. That made it pretty difficult to plan or budget for the future. It also made it difficult to encourage new teams to sign up... in fact we held off recuiting rookie FTC teams in BC that year because we really didn't know what the future would hold for them. (Turns out the future was quite rosy... but as VRC teams!)

Generally the FIRST directors do a really good job, and I'm willing to believe that they thought they had been sufficiently transparent -- I might have, too, had I been in their shoes -- but that is why I think it was a good idea to politely ask for them to try just a bit harder at sharing their plans and vision for the future of FRC, FTC and FLL.

Jason

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thanks for the letter Don. It truly reflects what I believe, that our team (well, entire organization...) is flexible so long as FIRST is honest with us. Yet I do believe the example for the FRC control system is in danger of being taken as irrelevant.

============================================

In FRC, when you think about it, what exactly changed?
Did we have to pay more to compete in last season? No.
Did some teams get the opportunity to play 60 matches before they made it to Atlanta? Yes. Some of the rest of us are quite irked by our own lack of opportunity to do so.
Did we get additional options for control? Yes. Were they always better? Not exactly, but that's just life as an engineer tbh.
Do things change for those of us who try to keep old robots running? Yes.
Would you rather FIRST come up with a transition plan to a new control system for teams over 2 years or get it all done in 1 year? In all honesty, I'm particularly grateful we did it in one.
Additionally, NI may have asked FIRST to keep things under wraps until NI was able to make everything official from their perspective. So why exactly are we complaining about this lack of transparency to FIRST?

To me, the complaints that we changed to a new system are just like a lobbyist session on Capitol Hill. Every lobbyist has a say in what they want yet they forgo their rights to listen to others or the big picture. They want what they want, that's all they care about, and they'll explode even an infinitesimal irrelevant detail into a big deal if they think it will help them get it.

==============

For the FTC-FVC debocle ... well, I don't know if we'll ever get the truth out of that one. There are many rumors, and (to me) one of them makes complete logical sense no matter how I look at it. Yet the only concrete fact from it all is that now FIRSTers now have other options for a small robotics platform, and either platform has its pros and cons.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

getting back to basics, from the FIRST website

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

My comments:

Above are the stated goals of FIRST. However, caveat galore.... The 1st instinct of any institution is self-preservation. And that can create behavior that overrides the stated mission of the institution.

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

The goal is to promote FIRST values and missions, not 'growth' numbers. Promoting programs for the sake of hitting 'sales' targets isn't helpful, at all !!

In our team travels and ventures we make recommendation to folks. It includes FIRST and non-FIRST programs. It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.

If we need to make a recommendation for VEX or MATE or something else then that is the way it has to roll. It is just confusing and painful for FIRST'ers and the public to digest the 'brand identity' problems.

The word 'debacle' seems to becoming FTC's middle name and with some justification.

On the issue of the new control system for FRC - I think it is a good thing. It is making presentations to high level policy makers, mover, and shakers real easy and effective. That along with other features of FRC help make it easy for these policy makers to really focus on the value of programs like FIRST, VEX, and all the rest.

.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.
If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.
Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

How about a compromise between the two, number of students involved. If memory serves correctly TIMS asks for the number of students on the team. Assuming there is some correlation between number of students involved and cultural impact this number would show us impact of teams new and old. It would allow FIRST to see if teams are starting and then slowly dying off or if teams are growing over time.