FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by dodar

I think FIRST could try going to, atleast for Canada, their space agency and seeing if they would be willing to match the same sponsorship that NASA does for US teams.

And I think if an American team won an EI in an International event NASA would still pay.

Why would it fall on FIRST to seek funding from other sources? A corporation makes funds available, understandably places restrictions on how these funds may be spent, and supports teams that qualify for these funds. It is not FIRST's responsibility to make sure these sponsorships are 'fair'.
In the past, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development have paid the $5,000 registration fee to CMP to teams who have qualified via RCA, regional winners, or RAS. FIRST did not have to approach all other states, provinces, regions to make sure they all reciprocate.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Why would it fall on FIRST to seek funding from other sources? A corporation makes funds available, understandably places restrictions on how these funds may be spent, and supports teams that qualify for these funds. It is not FIRST's responsibility to make sure these sponsorships are 'fair'.
In the past, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development have paid the $5,000 registration fee to CMP to teams who have qualified via RCA, regional winners, or RAS. FIRST did not have to approach all other states, provinces, regions to make sure they all reciprocate.

I'm not saying FIRST has to, but just that FIRST did go to NASA for sponsorship way back when. And you dont think it is FIRST's responsibility to give IT the same EI opportunity that US teams get? What if NASA changed the EI money payout requirement to only teams from Florida, Texas, California, Alabama, Virginia, and Ohio because that's where NASA installments are? Would you be ok with that? Because it is the same prinicple as not having a funding sponsor for IT EI winners vs NASA funding those EI winners from the states.

[Calvin Hartley]

Originally Posted by dodar

What if NASA changed the EI money payout requirement to only teams from Florida, Texas, California, Alabama, Virginia, and Ohio because that's where NASA installments are? Would you be ok with that?...

I would be okay with that. NASA has the right to give their money to who they want to. Any sponsor can (and should) decide who they support and under what conditions. It's their money, they decide what happens with it. Simple as that.

I hope this didn't sound rude or arrogant. I'm just sometimes blunt with what I say.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

I would be okay with that. NASA has the right to give their money to who they want to. Any sponsor can (and should) decide who they support and under what conditions. It's their money, they decide what happens with it. Simple as that.

I hope this didn't sound rude or arrogant. I'm just sometimes blunt with what I say.

No, its perfectly understandable. I guess I'm just trying to say this from a perspective that FIRST should have. Should FIRST allow a portion of teams a greater advantage during the year vs other teams? Like when the conversations started up about how FiM teams were getting 2x, 3x, and sometimes 4x the amount of matches per year before Champs vs anyone else because of districts. FIRST then came out to say that they were going to try and level this out by adding in more regions for teams to get more matches. That was a FIRST team problem that was solved/being solved by FIRST. So why is it hard to believe that this FIRST team problem cannot be solved by FIRST?

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by dodar

So why is it hard to believe that this FIRST team problem cannot be solved by FIRST?

It's not hard to believe FIRST could solve this at all. Is there an easy fix? Yes. Should it be fixed? No.

When it comes down to it, this is a choice of NASA to put this on, and has nothing to do with HQ wanting a monetary attachment to the award. NASA being an American Agency has every right to look out for American interests above another. This is their choice, and it is not FIRST HQ's job to intervene and level the playing field.

There will always be advantages some teams have over others, just as it is in the real world. Just as much as we try our hardest to make borders not exist, in the real world they are still a factor you have to work around. When trying to secure a contract, especially with governments, you bet where your company and workforce is located against where your competitors are plays a huge factor in whether you are awarded the contract or not.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by dag0620

It's not hard to believe FIRST could solve this at all. Is there an easy fix? Yes. Should it be fixed? No.

When it comes down to it, this is a choice of NASA to put this on, and has nothing to do with HQ wanting a monetary attachment to the award. NASA being an American Agency has every right to look out for American interests above another. This is their choice, and it is not FIRST HQ's job to intervene and level the playing field.

There will always be advantages some teams have over others, just as it is in the real world. Just as much as we try our hardest to make borders not exist, in the real world they are still a factor you have to work around. When trying to secure a contract, especially with governments, you bet where your company and workforce is located against where your competitors are plays a huge factor in whether you are awarded the contract or not.

But each company is compared based and competes on the same standards set forth by the one offering the contract.

I'm not arguing the teams' resources but those given to teams by Main FIRST Sponsors. If teams want the chance to win/company wants the chance to win the contract, then everyone needs to be offered the same reward for winning EI/each company should be held to the same standards.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

But each company is compared based and competes on the same standards set forth by the one offering the contract.

I want to expand on this one a bit. I think you're on the right track, but you're missing something.

The one offering the contract may be regulated by other standards, that HAVE to be passed on to their contractors. For example, ITAR. For a U.S. company that doesn't deal with potential weapons applications, no big deal. For a U.S. company that deals with weapons, potential weapons, and their applications, HUGE deal. And, in short, ITAR means for the latter company that foreign parts/persons are going to require lots of paperwork, if they can even show up at all. (I won't even go into sanctions...) Oh, and did I mention: Much of the U.S. space program has been based on Air Force research for weapons systems.

Because the one offering the contract (sponsorship) in this particular case happens to be a government agency (NASA), ITAR and/or other standards regarding dealings with non-U.S. entities almost certainly apply. NASA has to comply with those, and the simplest way (and maybe the only way) is to offer to only U.S. entities.

tl;dr: NASA may want to offer the sponsorship to everybody that wins the EI, but the rest of the U.S. government probably has a regulation against it somewhere. NASA's hands are therefore tied in that respect.

[Pault]

To be blunt, I am actually pretty appalled by this question. I can't imagine any FIRSTer thinking along the lines of "If I can't have it, nobody can." I would not expect NASA to give money to international teams, even if they were not restricted by law. That means that the sponsorships NASA offers should remain solely in the U.S. FIRST does not have a responsibility to level the playing field for international teams in the same way that it is not responsible for providing the same benefits to Chairmans teams. And international teams should be happy for U.S. teams, not jealous. You don't hear anybody complaining that Michigan has an awesome sponsorship program (it really is awesome). How is that any different?

I'm sorry if I insulted the asker. It is just that I perceive this question as really immature in nature.

[Starke]

Originally Posted by Pault

U.S. FIRST

As I was reading your reply, I noticed something that got me thinking about something similar to the theme of this thread. Currently, the FIRST website domain name is www.usfirst.org. I assume that the "US" stands for "United States" unless is actually means the word "us." Is it right/fair for FIRST to show affiliation with one country over another now that it is international?

I do not mean to start a heated "my country is better than yours" discussion. I just find it interesting in the similarity to the NASA funded grant.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Starke

As I was reading your reply, I noticed something that got me thinking about something similar to the theme of this thread. Currently, the FIRST website domain name is www.usfirst.org. I assume that the "US" stands for "United States" unless is actually means the word "us." Is it right/fair for FIRST to show affiliation with one country over another now that it is international?

This 2012 thread has some information on this topic.

Originally Posted by EricH

As Alan pointed out, legally FIRST is the United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, or USFIRST. However, because their brand is built on FIRST, and because they prefer to use FIRST, that is the term we use. That is also the branding they say to use.

It's like the difference between your full legal name and your nickname. You get called by your nickname, despite your legal name being something different. You might not respond when you're called by that legal name, but that is still your name. However, you might not respond to that legal name... possibly because you don't like it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Starke

As I was reading your reply, I noticed something that got me thinking about something similar to the theme of this thread. Currently, the FIRST website domain name is www.usfirst.org. I assume that the "US" stands for "United States" unless is actually means the word "us." Is it right/fair for FIRST to show affiliation with one country over another now that it is international?

Matt, I think you've forgotten what you may have learned back as a rookie. (back when Canada had few teams, though a few they did have). The United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology ("FIRST") generally does not use their FULL name in common use, mainly because it's a lot faster to just use "FIRST". The only places I found it on the website were in consent and release forms, and in the policy on the use of FIRST's trademarks. In other words, legal stuff where they have to use the full name (and even then, it's only long enough to get the acronym in play, usually in the first couple of lines).

I would guess that FIRST picked up the domain back when they weren't so international and kept it because of a combination of the following:
1) It is, after all, their full acronym.
2) It isn't terribly difficult to move a website to a new domain... but it isn't terribly easy either.
3) The confusion to all users, international included, isn't worth it.

Edit: Looks like Nate beat me to it...

[Carol]

And www.first.org was already taken by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams.

[Starke]

Nate and Eric,

Thanks to you both for bring my back to my rookie roots. I did not intend to accuse FIRST of having a preference to one country. If I came across this way I apologize. Over the internet it is sometimes hard to convey a thought clearly.

The intent of my post was to say: Where does the line end? Sometimes there has to be a line drawn in the sand because of country borders (Like NASA and USFIRST). Although that may not be the preference of some FIRSTers, it just has to be.

Does that make more sense?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Starke

As I was reading your reply, I noticed something that got me thinking about something similar to the theme of this thread. Currently, the FIRST website domain name is www.usfirst.org. I assume that the "US" stands for "United States" unless is actually means the word "us." Is it right/fair for FIRST to show affiliation with one country over another now that it is international?

I do not mean to start a heated "my country is better than yours" discussion. I just find it interesting in the similarity to the NASA funded grant.

It seems to me that FIRST has stopped using US publicly in pretty much everything except their domain name; it could just be that it would be too hard to change (as has already been said, "first.org" is already taken).

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by Pault

To be blunt, I am actually pretty appalled by this question. I can't imagine any FIRSTer thinking along the lines of "If I can't have it, nobody can." I would not expect NASA to give money to international teams, even if they were not restricted by law. That means that the sponsorships NASA offers should remain solely in the U.S. FIRST does not have a responsibility to level the playing field for international teams in the same way that it is not responsible for providing the same benefits to Chairmans teams. And international teams should be happy for U.S. teams, not jealous. You don't hear anybody complaining that Michigan has an awesome sponsorship program (it really is awesome). How is that any different?

I'm sorry if I insulted the asker. It is just that I perceive this question as really immature in nature.

This.

To inform everyone this is not the belief for every Canadian. I can't say I haven't been jealous of teams getting money from NASA, because it's NASA, but I don't know of any other Canadian who wanted first to not let NASA do this.

There is always companies that will only sponsor unless certain criteria is met. For example Chrysler will only sponsor if the team has a mentor who works for Chrysler. 772 was lucky enough to get a sponsorship from Chrysler this year and I have to say they are a pretty nice sponsor to have.

I am unsure if the Canadian aerospace association has been contacted about FIRST but I know that Chris Hadfield strongly supports FIRST.