[EricH]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:

No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.

Originally Posted by cgmv123

If he's proposing a standard, it's more along the lines of:

No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.

Just so you two are aware, you're putting words in my mouth. I am proposing no such standard. I am putting out a question that should have been considered, but wasn't. (And just to be more to the point: The question was aimed more at a CD poster who seemed to be saying "HQ is always right, shut up" than at HQ.)

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

I don't see a proposed standard in his post. To me it's more the fact that FIRST should question, and account for, any decision that could cause several experienced mentors to leave the program.

FIRST can make a decision that causes that, but they have to recognise the cost of such a decision up front. We are all worse off if FIRST continue an approach where they only realize the repercussions of important decisions after the damage has been done.[snip]

Exactly what I was getting at. You've got long-term, committed mentors talking about leaving. That's not a good thing for their teams (regardless of the reason).

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change?

No, it wouldn't. It would, however, mean that I would reach out to those mentors either before or immediately following with a very detailed reasoning why the change was being made, and why it was being made in the way that it was. There's a difference between that and the method HQ used... It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly. I would be making sure that I had as much information as I could before making the decision.

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Eric's statement expressed disbelief that FIRST would consider any decision that caused mentors to leave. My point is that, with as many mentors as there are now, there's no major decision that FIRST can make around the competition schedule that won't cause mentors to leave. (I take Eric's POV as more representative than many of the commenters here, based on the team he's affiliated with.)

You also are putting words in my mouth, and you are making a seriously flawed assumption to boot. I'm not expressing disbelief, I'm saying that they apparently didn't consider that particular effect of their decision. And when you look just at the team I'm affiliated with, you ignore the team(S) in my signature. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of at least one, you got another think comin'.

I agree that it's difficult to make a decision and not have mentors leave--but mentors leave anyways, for other reasons. There's a difference between a few mentors leaving for personal reasons and lots of mentors leaving because HQ makes a mistake.

Originally Posted by cgmv123

The ostracism came when they announced what amounts to a major change of direction for all FIRST programs with (as far as we're aware) no input from anyone outside of FIRST HQ.

Bingo. If HQ takes no input, and then changes the course rather radically, then they're going to alienate critical people.

Originally Posted by Racer26

If those teams are less inspiring, does allowing 4000 more students see the husk of their former inspiration achieve more than letting fewer see them be their best?

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Difficult question, isn't it? I think reasonable people, all committed to FIRST's goals, could disagree on the answer.

I'm going to ask a related question; your answer will tell me (and yourself) a lot about your views on the whole topic under discussion.

Quantity or Quality?

Spoiler for :

If you favor "Quantity", your view lines up with HQ's apparent view. Lots of teams means lots of inspired students, which is good for FIRST's goals.

If you favor "Quality", you take the view that a lot of teams do: Slow down the growth in favor of sustainability. Not quite so many teams, but they'll last longer, and each individual team will impact more students. This is also good for FIRST's goals. That's why we're taking the threat of mentors leaving seriously.