Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I also have some experience along those lines, and have been able to draw from some other persons' experiences as well.
If I had to point to a single thing that would keep districts from happening in SoCal, based on my experience and hearing the chatter... I'll point out three.
1) "Non-team" influences. That would be, as discussed previously, some combination of CAFIRST, school administrations, and other persons or groups that aren't necessarily affiliated with teams but have some stake in how FIRST is run in CA. No need to repeat that discussion. (I think the solution is to educate those folks on the benefits to the teams, and to them.)
2) Disunity (not discord, mind you)--this is more of a "we're not actually pulling together, only in the same general direction" than anything else. I'm only aware of WRRF in NorCal as far as robotics support organizations. I'm aware of SCRRF (LARobotics) and OCRA for sure down this way, and if I'm not mistaken there's another group in San Diego. All three will need to work together, more than simply coordinating when their offseason events happen so there aren't conflicts (they're really good at avoiding each other's event dates). Working together can produce a stronger pull than three individual yanks. I don't see a lot of that. Though there was that one year where the events all scheduled back-to-back and got one field for all the events, everybody pitching in to assist in insurance and moving it around the state--that's what we really need to see, everybody working together for a better experience. (#notajoke: I heard that the rev 1 proposal was the first time that SCRRF was officially aware that CAFIRST owned fields. We've been using the same wooden field for much of the last decade, with repairs of course, and sometimes a metal one.)
3) "Hey, aren't you the same person doing this as the last 5 years?" I'm not sure about the other groups, but for whatever reason, finding new people to fill old shoes isn't exactly easy. Either the new folks disappear after a season or two, or they never show up. Leaves the "incumbents" there, until they suddenly can't make it and somebody has to step up. (I didn't duck quick enough when that happened with the head ref at the Fall Classic a couple years back.) There's also the problem of "what can I do to help" turning into "where'd that volunteer go, he said he'd help?", but that could have a number of factors that aren't obvious and there isn't a single solution to that issue.
I think it can be done... but again, it's got to be together. Let's say we figure on two years as the timeframe. I think the first year would be dealing with a lot of the core issues--see the first two items above--on top of talking the system over with teams to identify where they can help (and maybe they can help with those items too). The second year would be the major push: venues, volunteers, and other similar items, in detail, along with getting the proposal in to HQ for a yea/nay. Am I sure it could be done in two years? Not really. It seems to me like dealing with the second-year stuff is being done first--my point of view, not necessarily accurate--which, while helpful in terms of making it faster later, doesn't address any of the first-year stuff that would need to be handled first. Does it need to be done, sure! Can it be done at the same time, sure! But the question is, are we ignoring issues that could prevent us from moving even faster? If we are, we need to stop ignoring those issues and solve them. Or: What do we not know that could wreck plans?
|
Eric,
Great thoughts, thanks for contributing once again. I agree, we need to do this together. That belief is what led me to write the Preface in Rev. 2 on "Change". I think the Preface was an important addition to a document that is meant to bring us together rather than further divide our region.
Your point about "first year" and "second year" things is an interesting one. The proposal does address both "first year" and "second year" things, especially in the Next Steps section. But I also agree that getting some "first year" things done will make "second year" items much easier.
So why does the proposal talk so much about the feasibility of Venues, Volunteers and Finances of the District model (aka. "second year" things)? To put it plainly, we have no authority to implement many of the "first year" tasks. I am not a Regional Director, the proposal contributors are not on the California FIRST BoD, none of us are major CA FIRST sponsors, etc.
One purpose of the proposal is an appeal to our local leadership. We will continue to appeal to our Regional Directors with the hope of open communication at some point down the road.
Another purpose of the proposal is education for the community. I am giving a Fall Workshop on the District model at CCC, and will hopefully have the opportunity to promote the District model at other off-season events in NorCal. I'd encourage anyone else invested in seeing the District model come to CA to similarly promote the proposal within their spheres of influence.
Thanks everyone,
-Mike