Before we let our own personal convictions turn this thread instantly into a 200-posts-in-two-hours-type-thread, let's take a step back for a second and think about this.
FIRST makes no intention of telling teams how to run themselves. FIRST does not tell teams what hours to meet during or after school, or what brand of tools to build their robot with, or what food to eat during the build season.
There's a reason for this, and that's the certain level of responsibility and self-reliance that is laid upon every FIRST team to govern themselves and operate in the manner which they feel is most conducive to carrying out FIRST's goals of inspiring students.
I don't think any rules explaining exactly how teams can/should govern themselves are necessary, since overwhelming mentorship is a self-limiting in a team. If the students aren't being inspired in some sense (whether it's for engineering itself or just a greater respect and recognition of science and technology in general), they aren't having fun. If they aren't having fun, then why participate in robotics? If there are no students, there is no team.
Just remember, while you may prefer student-built or mentor built (or a combination of the two), there will always be teams who stand by the opposite, since that's the way they feel is best to inspire their students. Instead of opening up this same discussion for the ∞ + 1th time, let's just come to a conclusion that if students are being inspired by both models, we should just accept the fact that there is more than one road to success, and that as a community let's move onwards.
