[pmallikarjun]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Maybe we should bring that topic to the front. It seems to me that the angry response of a group of people is based on that perception of aggressiveness. I admit to being completely unfamiliar with that group's context, so I have no way to understand their reaction beyond reading the words presented here. With only those words, I can see this situation as kind of a litmus test -- if you believe Minnesota is trying to push you away from volunteering based on what you read into them, your mindset might make you a poor choice for a Key Volunteer position. If I knew more about the reality of the situation (beyond a laundry list of second-hand comments from an anonymous poster), I might have a different impression of what's going on.

To re-iterate what Ryan said earlier, the document itself (all on its own) is not by itself off putting to the group. It was the presentation of the document (and the tone of the presentation) at a meeting not intended for that purpose.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

But then the original untested version got "leaked": ...
The same thing probably happened with the GOFIRST group. The difference is that people there seem to have thought it was an official directive from the MN FIRST leadership, instead of a draft intended for review and comment.

The document was never distributed to GOFIRST members by the group's leadership. The only members (FIRST alumni and non-FIRST alumni) who saw the document were given it directly by the speaker at the meeting or were leaders of the group who did not attend the meeting and were emailed a copy of the document. So, the document was never "leaked"

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I highly doubt the members of GOFIRST represented here actually care about how that document is worded. They may have found the presentation off putting, but I doubt they really even care about that. I'd be willing to bet that their biggest concerns include being able to volunteer in a role of their choice, *and being able to talk about things freely online without repercussion.

*Things that are in good taste, but potentially controversial

YES. YES. YES. This. So much this. Thank you Ryan!! I would really like to have a conversation about how we can bring back the FIRST alumni who feel disillusioned about volunteering in MN and get them involved again. Not even in a key role, but just in a role that makes them feel that their knowledge of FIRST is being utilized and they are able to give back to the program that meant so much to them in high school.

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Let's start talking about important issues, and get over the wording of a dead document.

To start things off, I reccomend reading Tanis' post. Brilliantly stated and a great response to the original question: "How do I help move my area to districts?". It was brilliant, but didn't cover everything. I'd love to see people continue to add information. Hopefully the RPC will take notice, and the community will be informed, and we can end this argument once and for all.

I agree. To add to this, it would also be great to talk about how college students can play some (maybe small) part in helping move an area to districts. It's true that college students cannot do all of the things Bryan listed on their own, but I think they would be willing to assist with many of them and participate on subcommittees designed for a specific task associated with moving an area to districts and helping an area succeed in districts.