Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
Not to make too fine a point of it, but why there is even anything to debate on this topic any more? FIRST has been explicitly clear about this: collaboration is a good thing. ...
|
I don’t think anyone here is against collaboration, per se, but they don’t like the direction it has taken. They forebode a future where many more and even larger coalitions pull teams up by their bootstraps and then use them as soldiers at the only events they can afford to attend. IMO, any who can’t put themselves in the shoes of the also-rans who get caught in that crossfire are the ones who just don’t “get it.”
When will enough be enough? When eight coalitions bring in six teams each so that the other half of the field may as well pack-up during lunch?
Please excuse my naivety, but I thought there was an “I” in FIRST. Apparently not, because the Q&A gets quoted chapter and verse as the definitive doctrine to which we’ll abide. If that’s the way it is; if it’s take-or-leave-it, then I wonder how many will vote with their feet when they reach the conclusion that the only alternative is to become one little cog in a very big wheel.