[Basel A]

There can be many interpretations of FiM's choices. No matter the motivation, the interpretation Blake posted above is unavoidable because it's true. Any time an organisation restricts the actions of its constituents, that says "I know better than you what's best for you." Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not.

Michiganders have said all sorts of different things in this thread. I think everybody has been totally honest from their perspective. It goes to show that we're not one big congealed mass of unified opinion and robot awesomeness. We're 360 different FRC teams, about as many as the PNW and California combined.

It's also important to say that Michiganders are not FiM. We don't always agree with FiM's decisions. I know I've disagreed with some things. This isn't at the top of the list, but I don't know much about FLL or FTC.

When folks like Lisa and Spiece say the progression works, I'm willing to believe them, that it works for most students. For groups that are exceptions to that, VEX programs are an available option. If the mandatory progression does in fact increase sustainable growth of FIRST programs, and I'd bet FiM would know better than I if that's true, then it's probably a positive development (but again, I don't know much about FTC and FLL).

As for getting FiM to discuss that with you publicly, well, I think the last time Gail posted on Chief Delphi was several years ago? Of the rest of the FiM Officers and Directors, I believe Jim is the only active member here and at this point I'd say he's chosen not to comment (not that I blame him). It's an organisation that could make big improvements in their transparency and public communication. That's a separate problem.