[Lil' Lavery]

Rather than a discussion of the specific merits and issues with the michigan structure (which has been discussed ad naseum in other threads), I think Katy's point was to lay out a discussion of what constitutes success.
Regardless of whether or not FIRST puts out an official "criteria for success" of the Michigan district pilot, the community needs to weigh in on what should be considered successful. This is especially imperative since FIRST has not issued such criteria publicly.

This should, and HAS TO, be done before the competitions actually occur (I know that one has already happened) as to avoid any biasing. We are not asking for judgement now, but rather the guidelines to judge.

And Ike also raises a good point. Not only should the volunteers not be blamed (they should also have thick skin and realize its not their fault if the events do not pass the criteria), and the criteria should be written to help make it clear that the volunteers effort is not what causes failure.


Edit:
Some criteria from me.

1) Amount of matches played per team
2) Over-all cost for teams (including travel and other overhead)
3) Amount of VIPs per event (and any quantifiable reactions to their presence there)
4) Sustainability of teams (if possible to differentiate from Michigan economy)
5) Amount of matches that teams spent non-functional
6) If possible, a anonymous satisfaction survey passed out to Michigan teams comparing the two systems
7) Attendance per team per event
8) Amount of school support for teams (more events also means more school missed), in whatever terms quantifiable
9) Amount of volunteer hours required per event
10) Average time per match run compared to regional events