[JB987]

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

RE: Chairman's Feedback

One thing I feel Frank has done well is embrace the idea of the FRC community solving FRC problems.

I can't imagine the intent of this move is to forever remove direct feedback for teams, but perhaps to shock the system into generating a better method. I do feel like a better measuring stick (via more examples of teams that win Chairman's) is a key element.

Perhaps an eventual solution to this could be to utilize the FRC community as a body of judges. Teams post their videos and chairman's presentations, and an aggregating site allows volunteers to view them and provide feedback. In theory, it should be as simple as a form a team could submit with an attached document and link to a Youtube video, and a form survey volunteers can give input through. I hate to throw out an idea I don't have the time or skills to implement at this point, but I feel a system like this would provide more exposure for the teams that submit to it as well as a greater volume of feedback.

I know I'm the type of late night forum lurker that would have no problem looking at a couple presentations a week and spending 10-15 minutes typing out the most honest feedback I can.

-Steven

Would this body of FRC team "judges" providing feedback also actively vote for their favorites and actually help select the CA based only on the video? Or would they just provide feedback to that team? If actively selecting the CA is based on video only then isn't there a danger that team's with access to professional media to produce their video would have an advantage over other teams? At least with an essay and live interaction between presenters and judges a team that is "video-graphically challenged" can compensate somewhat for their lack of professional input on their final video product.