Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Before I explain what he's saying:
FIRST has most definitely left the door wide open for a single world champion. They haven't said anything about HOW, yet, and I would imagine that given the reaction they'll be taking their time and talking to people. So maybe, before making threads about how we SHOULD do it, we wait for them to make a proposal, and if it's reasonable we go with that, and if it isn't we let them know? And maybe, instead of assuming that only your proposals are under discussion, allow others to float some?
Anyways: He's proposing that ONE of the two events not be a Championship at all. FLL World Festival is not a championship, though it is held at the FIRST Championships--it's a festival. This sort of thing was suggested before the Town Hall. This is neither of your active proposals.
|
I started this thread to get other ideas. And I like that idea as well. The problem is that FIRST wants the top tier teams to be at the same event as the "festival" teams.
As to whether FIRST will propose a single world championship event, they only did so after a huge outcry on CD. It was not in their original proposal.
So I'm floating other proposals and opening up the discussion. The problem I've seen is that many are simply opposed to even expanding to 800 teams which means splitting into 2 events. I sympathize with FIRST on increasing access. But they seem to be tone deaf to those teams that are focused on achieving competitive excellence. (And there other aspects of excellence.) I'd rather that they develop a proposal in a transparent fashion after exploring different options. Going off to cook up a solution in isolation is not the right way, so, no, I'm not going to sit back and wait for FIRST to offer up a new solution. They may be too wedded to it by then to be open to further discussion. I've participated in too many organizational and political processes as part of my job to not understand that its almost a "done deal" when a public pronouncement is made. And FIRST HQ has already compromised its trust with much of the community with its initial proposal. Let's insist that they make the second go around more transparent.