Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It was v.5, as in 0.5.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Guys, the long and the short of it is that for whatever reason, the teams didn't get the memo that the VEX system was temporary, whatever that memo was or if there was one. So they invested lots of money in the VEX system, only to have the change to Tetrix happen. Whoever's fault it was, what's done is done, and many people are annoyed. It would have been better to know in advance, but we didn't.

It is certainly nice to know about things that will affect us substantially ahead of time. SAE Aero Design switched to the 2.4 GHz control channel this year. However, for at least two years before the change, there was a notice in the rules to the effect of: "We are changing to 2.4 GHz, probably around 2010. This is so you can plan your budget to get a 2.4 Ghz system. Be ready. To prepare, 2.4 GHz is allowed at competition." It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I'd like to see the "number of students" number too. We are growing, our FRC team has gone from 10 to 30 students per year (this is year 6). Our VRC teams have gone from 1 team 5 students in 2005-6 to 9 teams with 50+ students this year. So we are reaching out to more students, the growth is good. This is our first year for a FLL team and that's another 12 students.

One of the things about FLL, FTC and VRC is that when we get more roboteers it's a smaller upfront cost to spin up another team. With FRC that's a harder prospect, the base cost is much higher. I like to see everyone engaged and thats a tough thing to do with a large FRC team. Some teams (and you know who you are) have students that are always focused, for some of us it's a much bigger challenge.

And all roboteers don't all groove on the bigger robots. I have high school students that want to work on the VEX bots, the big bot does not interest them. On the other hand I have 7th graders that would dump the small bots in a heartbeat to work on the big one.

Run the program that works for you and your roboteers. There are 50+ million students NOT in a robot program, so we have room for everyone. And remember there are robotic programs for the air and water, they are also worth doing.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

One of the things that has surprised me is how it is relatively straightforward to measure how well the community 'embraces' teams and their efforts to promote STEM education. The Chairman's submission works to assess that by reviewing indicators like partnerships, communication, and other support factors.

Sure, if you ignore things like chemical engineering, biological engineering, earth & atmospheric sciences, nuclear physics, environmental eng., electromagnetics, solid state physics, industrial engineering, material science engineering, aerospace engineering, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, information and modulation theory, and so on.

Engineering and science are huge fields, we barely even touch the tip of the iceberg.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

In my opinion, introducing students to robotics programs and interesting them in science and technology is a short-term goal. The long-term goal would be looking at and assessing the results of the college graduates and their degree choices and career decisions stemming from the experiences with FIRST programs in elementary, middle, and high school years.
--
There are many areas that can be addressed when requesting more transparency. To continue to strive to expand at a very fast rate without a clear course of sustainability and therefore, direction - is one that I think is very important.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Regarding the switch in the controller, part of the concern was also with making it reusable, and not including it and other parts in the Veteran KoP.

A good transition was the way FLL handled RCX --> NXT. Both systems were allowed to be used, so teams with legacy RCX's could still use them; it was pointed out that there would be less and less support for the RCX. Compare that to the abrupt switch away from VEX. I don't recall seeing any RCX during the last season; the transition has pretty much been complete.

Obviously we couldn't use two different control systems in FRC because of the field controls, so the analogy isn't exactly parallel. But if it was known at the beginning that teams would not get as many parts in their kit this year, they may have made some different decisions last year. With advance knowledge comes more options and opportunities. That's all that is being asked for.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Getting back on topic: This thread may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thanks for making the link to recent announcements from FIRST. I didn't want to post the link but was thinking the very same thing in regards to this being honest efforts by FIRST to share information when it is appropriate.

In regards to the championship move, this has probably been in the works for some time and the greater community only needed to know when the deal was finalized.

I still have to believe that the staff at FIRST is working towards the benefit of the program which has to be to the benefit of most teams or the program would die. Not saying they don't make mistakes. The original letter and posts here by some of the signatures, indicate that they have faith in FIRST but would like to be more engaged and made aware of significant changes when it is reasonable to do so.:cool:

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

For the Championship, I don't really know what else FIRST could have told us about it. And they did tell us over a year in advance. There's not much to criticize, in my opinion, on that decision.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog. For example, there was the mention that crate requirements might change. But the informal tone of the blog and its occasional misstatements of fact tend to keep me from taking it too seriously, and the interesting but irrelevant tidbits about such things as the GDC's dietary habits makes it hard to sift out the important information.

The day-to-day details don't have to be published in order for teams and mentor groups to be more effective. It's the medium- to long-term plans that are needed in order to give us direction. We have the tools, and we'd like to think we have the skills, but we don't have the blueprints, or even the design sketches.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

You are absolutely right, Alan. FIRST is giving us a lot more information than they used to. Unfortunately, that's a pandoras' box because once people find out that there is information out there, they want it all (even before decisions are made).

FIRST made a decision to be more transparent with their mid-range plans a few years ago (It seems to me) and now they are paying for it.

FIRSTs goal is to inspire kids to become engineers / inventors. In order to do that they sometimes need to make decisions that will be unpopular or cause turmoil within the established following. These things need to be done unilaterally, and do not need an open discussion, which would happen with any more transparency.

It's my opinion (I'll only speak for myself) that FIRST does a good job of balancing its goals with the needs of the faithful. Yes there are bumps in the road and yes things could always be done better, but I challange anyone whom is in a position of authority to make hard decisions without upsetting someone. It can't be continuously done.

JM(NS)HO

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I received a phone call from Bill Miller Wednesday (I've been procrastinating on writing this).

FIRST understands the point of the letter, has discussed it at the highest levels, and absolutely takes it seriously. They are mindful of changes and their impact, and want to keep teams as well-informed as possible.

They do regularly consult with Hall of Fame teams and WFA winners (and sometimes local teams) when making important decisions, and wish they could involve a wider audience but logistics sometimes prevent that. (To Jack Jones' point, oure letter was developed that way).

He told me that they'll definitely take action on this, and I suggested to Bill that we push the time frame on this issue to the end of the 2010 season, so they could develop a quality communication of their vision, not just dash off something. He seemed grateful for the extra time, and promised they'd absolutely address it to the best of their ability.

After speaking with Bill Miller, I have to agree Andrew. These guys are passionate about it.
Alan, did you tap into my phone call? I agree that we are seeing greater transparency already, and now we are pushing the envelope harder (in a good way). I thanked Bill for his blog. In my own opinion, don't be fooled by the informality of the blog, he means what he writes.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to know everything, immediately. Just like here at work, "Management" informs us the best they can, but not everything can be said publicly.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

First of all, looks like FIRST has had a busy month, if they've been personally answering all of the "Concerned Citizens" letters that they've been getting lately (and it sounds like they've been getting a lot!). I have to really give them credit for listening to feedback and seeming to be dedicated to addressing the issues involved.

Secondly, it's unfortunate that things have progressed this far that a large public letter was necessary to address FIRST's transparency issues. I've been having this conversation for at least the last 5 years, and this is the first time that it's all really boiled over the top.

Lastly, to the apologists and the naysayers saying that transparency has CAUSED the issues and we should leave the full-disclosure to the "important people":
In the leadership class I'm taking, we had an exercise - 5 people in a group, Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald and Goofy. The first 3 could only communicate with Donald individually, and Goofy could only communicate through Donald. Unbeknownst to everyone, only Goofy had the goals of the exercise, but needed information from all of the other members.
In the teams that succeeded (mine! :D ), Manager Goofy (me! :D ) explicitly told Middle-Management Donald what the goals of the exercise were. The teams where Goofy held all of the cards and all of the plebeians below were left in the dark failed miserably.

Our teams are going to fail, either through frustration or through bad team management, if the Goofys in Manchester/Detroit aren't more open with which direction the organization is going. I don't think these prestigious mentors are asking for a GPS system to tell us EVERYTHING we want to know, but simply asking for a MAP so we can find our own way to the promised land of "inspir[ing] young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that ... foster ... leadership"

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I'm sure many have noticed that lately FIRST actually has come through and is being more transparent in what they've been doing lately.

Once again, thank you to those who participated in this letter. Looks like things are working out. :)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thanks 'stogi. I see it too. But I'm still going to hold Bill to his promise some time after Championship.