This is a great addition to the Chairman's Award rules and criteria... an excellent tool to encourage and provide consistency. I'm very happy to see this put in place. We often have discussions about what a particular term really means and what it might imply to the judges... now we have it defined for us. This is definitely a positive change. Thank you HOF teams for your work on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
It could be as simple as having a link in a compliance statement on the submission website - "check this box to acknowledge that you and your team has read and complied with the definitions supplied here." With something like that, no team can claim ignorance...
|
^ This is a perfect suggestion... can't claim ignorance after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
This is a good thing and long overdue, but I still see two potential issues that this document seems to allude to: - FIRST seems to value only FIRST programs. This document infers that robotics and engineering programs that are not affiliated with FIRST are not given the same if any "credit"
- The Chairman's award seems to have returned to a competition of who can start, mentor, and assist, more teams and who can run more events.
|
^ My interpretation has long been that the Chairman's Award does emphasize outreach within the FIRST community. This has also been reinforced with the updated short answer questions in the last couple of years that specifically asked about interactions with and encouragement of other JFLL, FLL, FTC, FRC teams. Alternately I have viewed the Engineering Inspiration Award as encompassing more efforts not necessarily associated with FIRST, as well as emphasizing STEM related outreach as opposed to more charitable efforts like Relay For Life or Special Olympics. Of course, that is just my personal interpretation since it is not explicitly spelled out in the award criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04
To your first point. makes sense to me.
TO #2: That is not it at all. What they are trying to do is standardize what it means to "start" ,"mentor" ,"assist" , teams. It is in no way stating how this is going to be weighted.
I do have a questions about how this is going to be enforced, if it was ever intended to be. Why have the second part of the definitions here at all unless there needs to be some sort of supporting documentation required or each mentored team listed? It makes no sense otherwise.
|
^ An excellent point! Stating the requirement of agreement of the receiving team certainly implies that there will be some sort of validation or expectation of follow-up.