Quote:
|
As I understand it, the GDC is purposely composed entirely of individuals who are not directly involved with any specific team. This is kind of like getting a group of the best car designers in the world together to design a great car, but then making sure they never drive it! Anyone else see a slight flaw here? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to have people involved right from the start who are looking at the game from a builders/players perspective?
|
This isn't true. Dave Lavery is involved with Epsilon Delta, team 116. There are a couple of posts on here that allude to the relationship, and at kickoff this year Dave also told a story about how he and his team got started with FIRST. I don't really know to what extent he's involved (i.e. is he build lead, electrical, admin, does he attend every meeting, etc), but I don't think that really matters either.
Other than that, a GAC sounds like a decent idea. I'd say we allow only a small additional committee comprised of WFA winners and a random variety of senior mentors (5+ yrs experience, or whatever) review the rules. NDA's would be attached, of course, and I'm not suggesting the everyone review all rules -- actually I think it would be less hassle and run smoother if:
- Small sub components (e.g. bumpers) of the robot were reviewed independently for clarity, via a small 3-5 person group.
- The committee would be given a draft of the rules pertaining to the component, the intent of the rules, and all requirements that the rules are supposed to meet.
- The rules could be verified for clarity so they meet intent and requirements.
- The purpose of the committee would be to help reduce the confusion in the way some teams interpret the rules. This will be successful so long as the sub committee comes from a variety of teams rather than a small region of teams,