[gail]

Whether or not a rule makes sense does matter. A rule with a high likelihood of being broken needs to be examined from a few perspectives:
1. What was the intent of the rule
2. Does it achieve its intended purpose
3. Might there be a better way to accomplish the same goal

Intent of the rule
With respect to the fix it window rule, I can only surmise the intent was to:
1. Create a finite period of work for teams and corporate mentors
2. Put teams "with" and "without" abundant resources on equal footing
3. Not give teams playing their first competition later in the season a longer time to get ready

Does the rule achieve this?

Creating a finite period of commitment
As FIRST is a mentoring program, FIRST anticipated they would have to have to ask corporations to lend their engineers/technicians to teams. They also anticipated having to answer the question "How much time are you asking for?" In an effort to entice rather than scare away potential mentors, FIRST believed by imposing a ship date and then limiting work time beyond the ship date, it increased the chance of finding and keeping mentors to work with teams. Did it work?

I think the answer is no. It did limit the time they can work, but not without putting an undue burden on the mentors who must now eat, sleep and breathe FIRST during this finite period to get the robot done. It is not uncommon for team members, mentors included, to literally give up their families, friends and school during the 6 week build period. If we are honest with those we solicit for help, it certainly doesn't make selling participation any easier. And if we are not honest about the sacrifice they must make, we set the teams up for hardship when the mentors seldom come. The finite period also creates a situation where time is so short, mentors must hijack the project to finish on time, leaving everyone else to watch. This problem is magnified when you consider the mentor feels a responsibility to the corporate sponsor to produce a robot the company will be proud of.

Another point to consider is whether we have undermined our efforts for longevity of teams by putting too much pressure on them to finish within a finite period. The mentor (and even the student) who has sacrificed everything during the FIRST season, may not have the support of his family, friends and school administration next year or two years down the road when he/she chooses to participate again.


Leveling the field based on differences in resources:
Does providing a fix-it window close the gap between the teams with and without abundant resources? It seems to me teams with the most resources (manpower, money and access to machines and engineers) have a far better chance of finishing their robot during the six weeks and accomplishing what is needed during the fix-it window. Therefore the rule actually increases the disparity between the teams with and without abundant resources.

If it takes some teams longer than others to produce a great result, why should FIRST or any other team care? Think of it this way: If it takes one person 20 hours of studying to get an A, but it takes another only 5, should everyone have to stop at 5? Don't we want to teach that you have to work hard to compensate for your weaknesses, not give in to them? The time is there, why not let teams decide how they want to use it? The benefit to FIRST is that the competitions should be more exciting and inspirational when all the robots function better.

Leveling the field based on when you play first event
This argument can cut either way. There are many factors teams consider in choosing which event to play in. Travel budget is one. Level of competition is another. The fix-it window cannot compensate for all of these factors. For instance, everyone knows competition on the field is the lowest at the beginning of the season. You could argue teams playing early that have mega resources which allow them to finish in plenty of time to test, are at a distinct advantage and have a far greater chance of winning earlier. The fix-it window actually helps them by limiting how ready their opponents will be. Similarly, those playing later for the first time will be up against repeat players who have already had the chance to learn what needs to be fixed, what strategies work better, etc.. Either way, teams have to weigh the advantages of playing early or late and decide this for themselves. The fix-it window won't eliminate these factors

Additional factors
Not only does FIRST dictate how many hours you can spend, but also when those hours may occur. Teams are tired after ship date, and equally tired after competitions. Often students and mentors have let other things in their lives slide and need to concentrate on getting those things back on track. Students need to catch up on missed school work, mentors need to catch up on work. Additionally, after a competition, it is often the case that parts need to be ordered and received before a replacement, spare or improvement can be fabricated. Telling us when we can work just doesn't make sense

A Better Way
FIRST should continue to level the playing field by limiting parts, motors, weight, size and overall costs allowed on the robot, but not on how hard teams can work. Let teams decide this for themselves.

I am a proponent of allowing teams to work as many hours as they choose, on whatever days they choose, to accomplish whatever they as a team choose to accomplish. I love to see robots evolve over the course of the season, even if that evolution is the result of imitating a concept from another team. This is how it is in the real world. This is what sharing info is all about. This should be what FIRST is about.