Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I totally agree. No one person or organization is perfect. I applaud FIRST for doing what we have asked them to do: be more transparent. I don't think that we can expect full transparency. The improvement during this past year has been impressive, and very welcome.

As we consider everything that FIRST has to juggle, we need to keep telling FIRST what we like and don't like. On a whole, them being more transparent has been a great thing, although there have been a couple of mistakes (teasing us with the technology roadmap, and choosing some wrong wording on a Blog post).

My reminder to the rest of the crew out there is to not focus on the few mistakes, but look at the whole picture of openness and improved communication from FIRST.

Andy B.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Agreed. We also need to keep in mind the recent changes in FIRST management and how that is going to impact.

Relax, enjoy the summer. Let some transitioning and change occur without being angry or resentful. There has been a lot of positive opportunity this season. An example is the time that was taken by individuals like Bill Miller, Dr. Flowers, and Dave Lavery to meet with people and talk with them about the bigger picture, at the Championship. It also gave them an opportunity to share their thoughts and views as well. We should spend as much time listening and paying attention as we do criticizing - probably more.

Jane

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

As much as I usually respect your comments, there is no particularly good reason to get nasty about this. FIRST is clearly putting in the effort, and frankly that's good enough for me. More effort than my state government does with state education policies anyway. :rolleyes:

I will give them time to unveil their plan, they showed this to prove that "yes, we are working on something, we didn't throw your comments to the wayside." Would you rather them respond with this, or not at all for over a year?

Go easy. The FRC community will be learning a few new things fairly shortly (I hope).

Thank you very much for the update Don, reassurance of proposed action is all that I really needed.
.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

There is getting ready to unveil their plan (which I am not convinced they are making an effort to do) and then there is making a half baked move to appease us. I feel this was the latter. If they wanted to say something about their 5 year plan they could have merely said it does exist, made some comments as to the difficulties they have had in the past (as they did) and moved on. It would have been much nicer than waving some piece of paper in front of us. (Ok, I admit, THAT was what irked me the most.) I understand they can't release it and genuinely do appreciate the gesture they made but I reserve the right to complain about how they did it.

(Though, I admit, I was probably a little too harsh)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Perhaps more important than knowing what will change is knowing what will remain the same, and for how long. With that information, teams can budget expenses based on how long the technology will be relevant. If we are told the digital sidecar will be obsolete next year due to CAN, then we know not to invest in digital sidecars. If we know that victor 884s will no longer be legal, then we know not to buy any more. If we know the 2 second reaction time of auto-resetting breakers is deemed unsafe, then we know we don't have to stock up on them. This allows us to use our money on things that will be useful now and 5 years into the future, and avoid buying things that will become obsolete.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Andy, thanks for saying what I've been thinking. My original letter never asked for full disclosure; I (and many others who signed it) just wanted more communication, more "heads up" when major changes were decided.

Witness Bill's Blog, where we get to hear "from the horse's mouth" *. Along with several other smaller things like FRC Live. We are indeed seeing greater transparency from FIRST.

Is it perfect? No, perhaps not, but it is up to US to tell FIRST how they can improve.
Indeed, that would be quite helpful.

So how about it: Who will take on "decoding" that photograph? All we need is some kids with a mission. If you guys can even identify where they got the moon fish image from, this should be a piece of cake.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Have you ever heard of getting an inch and taking a foot? Bill explained why the road map was to be a secret.

If we take everything we get and extort it until we have uncovered too much for our (or FIRST's) own good, will he still be as open with us as we want?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I did a quick zoom on that image. It's way too pixelated to get a clear view of anything listed on there. Is there any chance someone else got a better image?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Not to be insulting, but how about a bug tracker / feature request for recording what changes we'd like to see in FIRST?
It seems it might provide a standard method of identifying an issue, and help keep us from repeating ourselves as we do on these forums.
Perhaps, out of respect, it could be called the "FIRST Feature Request" or something similar.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

That image was a single-frame grab from a HD video by Mark McLeod; perhaps someone can get the few frames that show it clearly and superimpose them (like an old Pinnacle image capture box used to do) and clarify it there.

Like I said: I was able to decode "continuously-variable transmission" from the 2012 and 2013 columns, about 2/3 down from the top, in yellow. But I agree, it's not gonna be easy.

And in 2011 it says "two speed gearbox" and in 2010 it says "Toughbox". FWIW

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. :)