A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Several mentors collaborated on this letter, which was sent to FIRST by mail on 23 September.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Don, allow me to be the first to say THANK YOU!

EDIT: For reference, the mentors there make up over 350 years of FIRST experience.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

A second thank you. This needed to be done.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It's hard for FIRST not to listen when the signatures are longer than the letter. Thank you to all involved.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I feel content knowing that these mentors have our best interests at heart. Thank you.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands. Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated. Last year a major complaint against FiM was the so-called lack of transparency. It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place for everyone to add their two cents.

That said; I wish the gang of thirty-five well in negotiating their five year plan. My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

If these 35 don't represent the opinions and ideals of majority of the FIRST community...then I don't know who does...

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Do you agree or disagree with what they are asking for? If you agree say so, if not say so and explain why.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I feel that this letter cuts to the point, and does the job of requesting, not demanding, well. Make sure to keep us informed!

I have been involved in this sort of thing before, so let me share what I have learned.

1) Essentially the few are trying to represent the thousands of people who are involved, wouldn't the few want the thousands to have their backs? Especially when dealing with those who lead the thousands? I felt so, and usually I would be proven wrong about what the majority opinion was, even after starting to take action. This would usually lead to returning the issue at hand back to normal.

2)Those who are being asked to change will retaliate one way or another. When I am the one being asked to change, I would react differently if a majority felt the same way, and not just a few. Statements such as this must be made public in order to get a feel as to what the majority opinion is. Sure you have the few that feel one way, but when a statement is made public, and a general consensus can be determined, something should be done. This may be the difference between this letter being tossed to the side, or being brought up for consideration.

3)When you start to make something like this public, keep the public updated. This again goes with having the backs of the few. If the thousands do not know what's new, how can they support it?

Just remember, public opinion on a forum like this is not the decision making tool. This thread is just as lethal as any design your own game thread.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I don't see what your point is here. The intent of this letter was not for a small group of select people to attempt to influence FIRST policy. It was for a representative group of mentors with a lot of experience in FRC to voice their concern that the ship seems to be sailing without a plotted course, so to speak. Maybe FIRST will respond and publish (to everyone, not just this small subset of people) what their vision is for the next 5-10 years and how they plan to get there.

I really don't see how you can be opposed to this.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in public.

Only those 35 people affixed their names to the letter. Many more have been involved in the discussions about what we as team members "deserve" to know about FIRST's plans for the future.

"Once again"? What previous events are you thinking of?

That sounds inconsistent. Was "limit the number of seats" to "thirty-five among thousands" a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

Would you have preferred that this letter remain unpublished? Would you have wanted it to remain unsent? I don't understand what your point is.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Even though this is only my 5th year in FIRST, I could not agree more that we need open lines of communication. I have been in education for over a decade now and every school has a plan for the future and most times the teachers are involved in that process in some way or another.

I wish I could have been involved in this letter as I definitely would have put my name to it, and agree with its contents. I have always wanted to be able to give my input to FIRST and if asked, would eagerly do so.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand what you mean.
Absolutely!
Thank you Alan.
I truly regret that logistics and timing simply did not allow for the input from the "thousands"; however I feel that additional input would not have changed the message or it's impact significantly.

Anyone who feels strongly about it is encouraged to share their comments with their FIRST Regional contact.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thank you for putting your time into this guys. I think this pretty much sums up most of my concerns with FIRST today, and I am glad such an experienced group came together to point this out to the directorship.

The magic curtain they hide the game behind every year should not extend to the overall goals of the organization. It seems almost like blindfolding everyone and then trying to get them to solve the problems we are trying to solve. This never seemed very efficient.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.
You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.
It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

OAO

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

The issues are debated here because often our only chance of "understanding" what FIRST is doing is to debate for a while, then assume. In this case, Transparency would be pretty darn nice. People running teams can more effectively line their team up with the plan of FIRST, saving money and preventing potential embarrassment over things like the FTC switch.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Possibly a bit more elaboration as to motive and reasoning for making the letter public on this forum would reduce cynical speculation as to why it was published. I am a fan of open communication but I would think some amount of long range planning need not be shared with the masses of volunteers in an organization as large as FIRST. Reason being when plans change and not everyone gets the word you are in a worse situation because people were acting upon a public plan.

So I come down in the middle on this request and don't necessarily see the benefit for posting the text of the letter on a public forum where some will take the opportunity to bandwagon on the stink parade. Tends to create an air of confrontation when your letter does not purport to be confrontational.

So if you could succinctly add to your post as to why you chose to make the letter public and how that serves your purpose of seeking transparency I think it might help set the tone for any further debate by removing cynicism from the minds of posters.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

It's not so much that anyone misunderstood. It's that we're having trouble understanding it at all. That's what the questions addressed to you were all about, so that we could find out more clearly what you were trying to say. The fact that you didn't answer any of them makes me wonder even more what you are trying to express.

This doesn't help me figure out what you want us to understand. In this particular case, do you think transparency is unnecessary? Do you think it is impossible? Do you believe that FIRST's goals are served better by not telling people their plans for the near future?

I still don't follow you. Which issues do you wish not to see debated? The letter has been sent. Any discussion here can't affect its content, and no such discussion was suggested. The only issue I see open at the moment is what point of view you're coming from, so that your comments can be interpreted in that context.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

The transparency is that this group of mentors and ex-mentors is telling what has happened. Did this letter get composed without every team having input? Yes. Was the original notice of the plan to create some form of letter disseminated through a medium that not everyone has access to? Yes. Was there any intent to exclude any people from knowing what was done? No - thus the notice posted here.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Guys - My advice at this particular moment is to be careful to look forward a bit more and backward a bit less. We are in danger of getting off the topic. - Blake

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

to get back on topic, I would like to show my support for this letter. improvements have been made communicating with the community about recent changes, but more communication is needed about the future plans of FIRST.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I figure that I'm probably just echoing the crowd here, but you did a phenomenal job of making your points clear without appearing confrontational.

Congrats to all involved!

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

First of all, the letter not only makes some good points, but also makes them in a very GP manner.

I express my support for the letter and appreciation to those who took the time to put it together. Writing a letter by committee is never easy, but this one clearly resonates with the FIRST mentor/coach/teacher community.

I think the idea of "we support you, but let us help you" is an important one. Had the FIRST board listented to the feedback on VEX and FTC, we might have 50+ FVC teams competing in BC instead of 6 FTC teams and 40+ VEX teams.

Jason

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Whenever it is available, will the response from FIRST be made public as well? I'd love to see the reaction.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Succinct was never my forte but here's what I came up with:

I accepted the challenge of communicating this issue to FIRST. I felt it would be too difficult and yield essentially the same result if more people were to be involved, so it was kept small. It was exposed for comment and is far better than what was originally developed because of those comments and edits.

I thought long and hard about posting this even though we started the effort with that intent. In the end I did post it (obviously). My purpose for posting it was to make the larger CD community aware that such a request was being made. A secondary reason was to help 'push' the issue with FIRST a little by making it 'public' - a mild form of peer pressure. The last reason for posting it was to demonstrate to students that one can make their views known to others without intimidation, demands and the negativity that goes with all that.

I will most certainly share all responses received, if appropriate. However, please carefully note I did not ask for any response; instead I asked for a specific action. I do not expect that action to be taken any time before the end of next season, simply because FIRST has certain priorities that have more critical deadlines, and what was requested is not something that can be created with little effort.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thanks for posting Don and your second and third paragraphs are succinct enough for me.:) I appreciate you posting your intent to inform others while also wanting to take the opportunity to model means of requesting follow up or action in a GP manner via your letter.

I get tired of seeing pile on threads of bashing this that or the other and didn't want to see another thread go that direction. Others who post should take into consideration your intentions and follow suit.:)

APS

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I'm not sure exactly how anyone could disagree with this.

There is no suggested change in FIRST's planned actions: it is the equivalent to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request. I.e.: tell us what you you're doing, and what you are planning.

I'm sure any number of teams could hold up example of where forward-planning information would have been very helpful. Purchasing decisions are usually the most affected by that information: for instance a team who runs out and purchases expensive portable machine tools for use at matches might be very disgruntled to discover that FIRST is considering rules changes that have made those tools illegal to bring to events (which did occur).

You have my full support.

FIRST mandates on two forum posts a week for Beta testing teams to keep them in constant communication with the community. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a similar plan.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

That is rather the point from my perspective.

I've been involved in establishing non-profit organizations and sitting on boards for several years. Part of that involvement is establishing long term and short term goals and building those into the business plan and the development of the organization. It is also an area that attracts support, sponsorship, and attention because the organization looks forward, outward, and with optimism towards the future while at the same time, having a realistic course of action in place.

If the goals/plans are impacted by economic changes then those can be addressed as needed while keeping the organization on track.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I think we can safely assume the FIRST staff has our best interests at heart and seeks to promote the FIRST principles and GP. As with any organization, sometimes the immediate tasks tend to draw the most effort, especially with the economic/business climate these days.

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Science is sometimes doing more with less with the emphasis on reasoning and problem solving. The best investment we can make is in our students and their capabilities to reason and solve problems, structure our teams with change and progress in mind, and prepare for what's next.

Thanks for the letter.

See you all in 2010

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Yeah, that's true, and for tech issues I'm sure people would give FIRST lenience in this manner. But stuff like the control system change, FiM implementation, etc. aren't really things that should be changing so rapidly that it's worthless to tell anyone outside of FIRST in advance.

Was I not supposed to make a major investment in Vex parts for FVC? There's no way I could have gotten around that. Yet FIRST discontinues its use not a year after I spent thousands on them.

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.

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.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

So has there been an official response to this?

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Yes. Don gave the response a few posts ago.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I wanted to pull this back into visibility, as the season is nearing its end.
I'm not asking for new posts, but I'd like the greater FIRST community to be aware of this, and to foster clear and respectful communication to ensure everyone's needs are met.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

For what it is worth, Dean mentioned this at the Midwest regional. Boiling it down (others can correct any misstatements), he didn't want to add lots of pressure during the build season. In addition, he really only wanted to see the best of the best in this initial year. The time crunch on teams allowed for the judges to not be overworked with up to 130 essays. I know not all teams submitted two names (or even one in some cases). From the sound of it, it was a post kick-off decision.
That said, I seem to recall there being hints at things to come in the kick-off. I don't know if Dean's List was what was intended.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Well, if you're looking for the best of the best, waiting till the last minute will NOT get you all of the best. Sorry, but this was a crappy, misguided decision if that really was the thinking.

Many teams I'm sure are like mine and don't have a ton of mentors or students sitting around waiting for something to do. I, personally, had to make a decision to ignore the robot withholding work for 2-3 full days because we made the decision to write the nominations. Thus, our robot was not as competitive on the field as it might have been in our initial event. It's not a decision that I regret, but I'm surely not pleased I was forced to make it. Other teams - some of the best with really awesome kids - decided the opposite, and I fully understand and support their choices as well.

Dean's list is a long overdue honor and I'm thrilled it exists. However, to quote a far more astute person than I on these boards, this was an "abortive process" at best this year.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

When something is handled poorly, it is handled poorly.
There are no excuses that are good enough and the results are not an accurate assessment because of the mishandled process.

I'm delighted that teams carved out the time to write and submit essays acknowledging the strength of character, commitment, integrity, and true grit of the students that were selected on their team and, in a way, are representatives of their team's character. I'm thrilled that the Finalists will compete at the Championship level and will have created another beautiful page in the history of FRC. It is wonderful and FRC, as a community, is celebrating this long overdue honor, the Dean's List Award.

But, when something is handled poorly, it is handled poorly and creates unbelievable and unnecessary stress on those who must weigh the consequences of the decision whether to participate or to ignore this wonderful and prestigious moment in the history of FRC.

Next year, we will be able to savor the true depth of the meaning of this award when it is announced in a timely fashion.

Jane

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Now, I'm a fairly involved person on my team. I've spent up to 35 hours at my school in one sitting this past build season, working with my teammates non-stop. I also wrote our Woodie Flowers submissions this year, both the local regional level and the national refresher. You might say I'm fairly checked in. I frequent CD, possibly a few times a day on average.

I had no idea what they were talking about when they mentioned the "Dean's Finalist Award" in San Diego. Literally, I looked around confused because I had not an inkling that this award existed.

Now, I'm sure that there was more notification that I was unaware of...but it just seems to have been somewhat mis-handled.

The worst part? I missed an opportunity. This is my senior year, and I would have loved to nominate one of my fellow seniors for the award. It's saddening that those students around me, who inspire me just as much as our mentors and teachers, have also missed out on the opportunity to be recognized for their overwhelming dedication and intelligence. Oh well, I suppose just telling them in person will have to do for now ;)

The award is obviously well-meaning, and frankly a very necessary one. It has just tripped slightly in it's first year.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

As the original poster, I think FIRST has taken this letter and starting moving with it. We HAVE seen more transparency from FIRST since then, it seems obvious to me that they are trying. They aren't perfect (e.g., Dean's List) but who of us is?

In a conversation with Bill Miller shortly after the letter was sent, he asked to me to keep him honest and check in with him a few weeks after Championships. I will, and will report back here what we discussed.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Don and all of those involved, thank you for sending in this letter. From my 15 years in FIRST reading through your letter, I could only think about the criteria they read off when announcing the winner for the KPCB Entrepreneurship award when I was reading your letter. If only FIRST would do what they asked of teams to do in establishing themselves as a company with plans for the future.

Cass

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I agree with this and think that one person from every team should have a chance to have input using something like the TIMS system.

If the team wants to have input they should have to write a letter (limited by number of letters and/or subjects so it doesn't get to long) on what they want to see changed. That way the people that really care will get time to speak.

Then the letters from the teams all get summarized and a list created. Next the person that wrote the letter gets to vote on a list or put the list in the order of importance to their team.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

If the Dean's List award was honestly thought out and defined at the beginning of the season, I would think that FIRST would have put it out at the very beginning to give people as much time as possible to submit nominations for it.

But following the "never enough time" mantra, alas I believe it was something they wanted to try and squeeze in and give some people the opportunity to receive the honor this year as opposed to waiting until last year. Surely students that deserved the honor are students from teams that make it work regardless of having a short amount of time.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Yeah, I would too. Which makes me wonder why FIRST would make such an important award an impulse decision

I'll go tell the students from 980, 1323, and countless others that had TIMS problems that their team just didn't make it work. :rolleyes:

Teams like mine had to have their students play a significant role in their own essays in order to get them done. We did not have time to discuss candidates, whether or not to submit for the award, etc. in two school days. It was stupid to rush this award and the right people did not get recognized, I guarantee it.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I really don't think Deans List was impulse decision on FIRST part, that said I don't think they had everything ready at the time of kickoff. If you look at everything the winners of Deans list get you can see just how complicated everything was.

Even if they had the award set up, maybe it took them a little longer than expected to make sure they would be able to pay that all expense trip, or maybe there were some other issues that came up last minute.

While I am a little upset that they could not have released the award earlier, I am happy that they brought together so many awesome incentives that really make this award one of the most meaningful in FIRST.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I hope they respond to this in writing... I'd be more interested in reading it in my own time rather than listening to Dean about it during a kickoff event (when I have other things to be anxious about).

Well said, well crafted.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

If "Dean's List" was truly a late-coming program, then perhaps there was an intrisic debate as to when to release it. My opinion is that it's better to release it now and open the opportunity to students sooner rather than later. It's still better than keeping the opportunity under wraps for another year just they have more time to plan it. That has nothing to do with 'transparency'.

I think FIRST is slowly turning the ship towards better seas. The program, the game, and the overall presentation of the message have all improved this year, IMO.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

So are you saying that the people that did get recognized for the award don't deserve it? There are always going to be people that missed out on getting a chance to receive the award and might have deserved it "more" because of the crunch, I admit that, and I realized I didn't say anything along those lines in my initial post. But in the same breath we should be happy for the people who did get recognized because they did deserve it -- more, less, or the same as the people who didn't get a chance to submit, at least we know that those people did things for our FIRST community that must be substantial in order to receive the award. Not crush the credibility of the award because of the rushed process. Hypothetically if I received the honor, I wouldn't want to hear someone else saying that "the right people did not get recognized"...

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

He's not saying that the recipients didn't deserve it.

He's saying that there are a number of deserving students that, due to problems with TIMS, didn't even get to submit for the award, through no fault of their own.

Some teams with students that could have been nominated did not submit, due to the time crunch. Other teams wanted to leave the students out of the loop (due to the same reasons that students do the same thing with the WFFA), but could not due to the process. Teams that had to involve the students could only involve the students who had time to write the essays.

Saying that the right people did not get recognized may be stretching the truth, but it's a natural outgrowth of the above.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Ending the discussion on the Dean's List Gaffe:

Let's just chalk it up to another case of less than perfect (= human) planning. I believe that FIRST is also not happy at how it actually 'went down', but when you're dealing with a mostly-volunteer organization, you really have little recourse and authority ff the person who was supposed to get this done is a few days late.

Now, if this had been announced 7 days earlier, would you have found it to be better? That is, would you be happier about how it happened? TIMS issues would have been resolved, discussions could happen in 4 or 6 days and still plenty of time to write essays, etc.

Well, how may of you have never been late delivering a project?

I can't claim to know ANY of the details, but I see this stuff in other volunteer organizations; Whoever ****ed up knows it, and maybe they won't do it again. You could cut their salary in half, but even 0.5 * 0 = 0. Sure, extending the deadline might have helped, but maybe not (and I'd hate to have less time to judge) - but hindsight is 20/20

The horse is dead; stop beating it please.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

At Boston, Dean spoke with a heartfelt apology for the timing of the Dean's List award. He said they knew it was bad timing, he admitted it and apologized. Simple as that. It was better to announce it that late (when the idea came to the board's mind) than to just wait a year and let an entire year of graduates lose the opportunity.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Dean repeated the heartfelt apology this past Saturday in Raleigh North Carolina.

Even though they didn't get entries from every team the did get a very nice pool of submissions.

Congratulations to the Dean's list regional winners. The honor is well deserved.

I concur with Don. Case closed !

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Thank you Don.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

From this afternoon's entry on
Bill's Blog "Just 5 Days to Go" (my emphasis)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

5 year plan?

My goodness, I gotta call him and offer to shine his shoes or get his coffee or something. Wow, maybe it DID get through...:)

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Does FRC Live get a webcast? I'd be interested in seeing this

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I haven't heard anything in a while, so I am presenting a friendly reminder. A premature post is simply preemptive communication.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Sorry for the delay folks!

The video is posted at http://www.vimeo.com/11064599
Since I ran out of battery near the end, Mark McLeod kindly posted a few fill-ins at: http://www.team358.org/history/2010/...ology-Roadmap/


Mark was also kind enough to extract a single frame from one of his early shots showing the FRC 5 year technology plan. But, Bill made it clear that the plan is a secret (watch the video to hear why).

A challenge to FRC students: Decode the magic scroll. (For what it's worth: I see that for 2012 and 2013, the words "Continuously-Variable Transmission" are written. I just didn't have the time to look closer.)

Also, a HUGE thank you to Mark.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

I don't think that, "We have a plan. We promise," is a particularly useful sort of transparency.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

"Here is my plan for ending world hunger, ensuring world peace, and generating unlimited clean energy. I have a plan, I promise."

See, I can do it too. I could even show you a big document with those words on it. Flash it in front of your faces and claim it is confidential.

Sorry, I am angry about this. If you can't tell us anything don't bring it up. If you are just going to stick your tongue out and say "HA HA I can't tell you anything!" Do us a favor, don't even bring it up. To me all the whole technology road map thing did was to leave a sour taste in my mouth. The rest of the presentation was interesting though.


EDIT: Also Don, your link to 358's site doesn't work.

Re: A Request for transparency from FIRST
 

Bill's got a tough job of balancing access to information against revealing too much, especially when some of that information is either not fully baked, subject to change, or in the works.

What if he lets out some details too early, teams make plans, and then the details fall through. How many people would chase Bill with pitchforks and torches for being wrong?

The seem to have been pretty opening during this FRCLive discussion. Kudos to them and keep it up.

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