Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
I'm not sure how you came away with that impression based on the quoted rule.
It's quite clear that FIRST wants teams to develop relationships with companies and consider them team members. It literally says that. It then says that if a sponsor is a team member, you do not account for cost of labor.
|
I honestly hadn't thought that was FIRST's intent, and I don't think that rule lends favor to that opinion, but I could certainly understand if that is what FIRST wants.
The rule in question : "and has it machined by a local machine shop that is a recognized Sponsor of the Team.
If the machinists are considered members of the Team, their labor costs do not apply."
It specifically delineates the difference between "a company that is a sponsor" and "specific machinists who both works at the company and are members of the team". If the machinists is not considered a member of the team, then the machining cost must be accounted for correct? I'm mostly wondering for my own team where there is a single machinist who only a parent on our team has met and who has machined things for us. No team member (adult or student) has seen or spoken to this person, and I'm not sure how I could call them a "member of the team". If we create a relationship between them an our team, then it seems much more straight forward.
Just to be clear, I am fully in support of how you guys (and other powerhouse teams similar to you) run your teams. I think you provide a unique and inspiring experience. Teams absolutely should be able to use whatever industrial resources they are able to acquire. I'm just curious about the reporting of those costs because I had assumed something that appears to be very different from reality.