Quote:
Originally Posted by sst.thad
...Ego's hit some of the people VERY hard, and many students feelings were very hurt, including mine.
I have not talked to the people that shoved me out of the pits much since worlds, and am having a difficult time deciding it will be possible for me to return to the teams to mentor next year, as those 2 students are the captains of the teams next year. Also there are 3 other students planning on moving to another team, which is a rookie team. That is where I plan on mentoring as well...
|
I do not recommend students come back as mentors especially their first year out. Especially if you are harboring grudges/hurt feelings. I am making these assumptions as I notice that you have "mentor" in your title block, and yet were a driver this year (and thus must be a student).
************************************************** *******
Chain of command and decision authority are often a difficult aspects for many teams. I know our team still has issues with this from time to time even with years and years of experience.
I am going to make some comments that sst.thad may take offense to. These are not meant to be offensive, but merely to showcase some holes in the strategic or organizational process of forming the coop. I initially was just going to send this in PM, but feel that it may be beneficial for discussion.
#1. While the drivers may have wanted different programming, I have seen many teams loose matches due to tweaking the code without time to fully vet the changes. As a driver, I am sure you were frustrated with something not behaving as you want, but if the programmer has the authority on code, then you you need to accept that. If the drive team has authority, then the programmer needs to accept that. If there is no clear authority, then you have the situation you eluded to. On my team the coach/lead mentor has the ultimate authority.
#2. You said that "our coach" said the teams would be seperate after build season, but was that the other teams understanding? They may have been operating under a different set of assumptions. Were those clearly communicated? Possible assumptions they were operating on could be:
We are in this together!
If one team qualifies (via winning), then it is their right to compete alone, but if it is a purchased spot, then "we" should get to compete as it is the "fair" thing for us and them...
*************************
Partnerships can be very difficult. Laying out and discussing expectations up front can help you deal with situations later. As you are likely going to college, you will have a roommate if you are living in the dorms. Most schools provide a "discussion" sheet of items to discuss.
MAKE SURE YOU DISCUSS EACH AND EVERY ITEM. While you might think it is a no brainer to "not share clothes" your roommate may come from a family where that is common practice and thus expecting it. While you might think sharing food is perfectly acceptable, your roommate may find it a objectionable. When lights can be on. When you can work on your computer. Having friends over. There are literally hundreds of things you need to discuss in order to not get into inreoncileable fight later in the year.
The same is true for doing a robotics partnership. If the two teams compete at the same event, and have identical robots, who gets to apply for which awards (or does it even matter)? Is the other team expecting you to pick them, or are they wanting to be in seperate alliances so as to "double the likelihood of winning"? If parts break, who gets the spares?
Partnerships can be very tough. Hurt feelings usually occur at the intersection of unmet and unstated expectations. When dealing with a partnership, try to remove "expectations" and replace them with "agreements". Partnerships can be done in such a way as to require around 1/2 as much work for some items, but they often require more than 2x as much communication.