|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
I think we're reaching a crossroads with this issue. In the world where Regionals exist and teams exist that only go to one, I think the 6 week build is necessary. With the proliferation of the district system (FiM, MAR, and this year, NE), I think that an open build is not only plausible, but probably the correct solution. I don't think we need to go to that now, nor need to segment the teams that participate in the district system from the rest of the FRC world via rules changes.
Granted, if we allow open build in the district system, going to a week 1 and week 6 district to allow for the "most" time on field and for fixes. Just as the initial 6 week rule was added for a logistical issue, so too will another system accounting for districts. Do I like the 6 week system, even if it is a marketing slogan at this point? Yes. Do we need it forever? No. Do we need to change now? Not necessarily.
__________________
Team Resume
562 "S.P.A.R.K." - Student Programmer 2008-2011, Field Coach 2011
3623 "Terror Bots" - Technical Mentor, Field Coach 2012 - Present
Volunteer Resume:
BattleCry@WPI 12, 13, 15, 16 - Queuing
BattleCry@WPI 14 - Field Reset
Granite State District Event 2014 - Team Queueing
NEFIRST District Championships '14,'15,'16 - Team Queuing
|