FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

I will personally sponsor any FRC team registered in the state of Nebraska that wears blue shirts (with black text) and had won the Gracious Professionalism award in their 2nd year while competing at a regional in Mexico. Their lead mentor must be named Mike and have experience with underwater welding.

I will find this team and hold you to that standard.

[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.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by dodar

And you dont think it is FIRST's responsibility to give IT the same EI opportunity that US teams get?

No, it is not.

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 completely agree.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

No, it is not.

Why not?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

Why not?

Because as far as I can tell, this particular item was NOT initiated by FIRST. It was initiated by NASA offering to sponsor FRC teams who met a certain set of conditions, to a certain amount for a certain purpose. (IIRC, it was even MORE limited than "any U.S. team who wins EI" at one point--it was more like "A U.S. team who wins EI at X Regional(s)" for about a year IF I recall correctly.)

If you're going to say that it is then FIRST's job to look for funding for that purpose in that amount for teams that do NOT meet the conditions, then I have a suggestion for you. Ready?

--Please make the same suggestion regarding the Boeing grants. After all, not all teams have Boeing mentors, so teams with Boeing mentors have a distinct advantage in raising funds.
--Please suggest that FIRST ask that JCPenney help fund all teams. Currently, it's nowhere near that.
--Please ask FIRST to make it so that EVERY team gets a NASA grant or equivalent. After all, teams that do get those have an advantage over those that do by a few thousand dollars.

Do you see where I'm going with this? A sponsor has placed certain conditions on a portion of their gift. This gives an advantage to some teams that meet those conditions--less fundraising. You want FIRST to apply (read: apply for) a similar gift to teams that don't meet those conditions--so why not go all the way and apply that to all grants so all teams are on a more even footing? (I'm not even going to pretend it'll be an even footing--too many other variables involved.)

Now, if teams that are not getting this advantage (even if slight) want to do something about it, their best bet is to find their NASA equivalent (or other big sponsor or potential sponsor) and very politely ask if that sponsor/agency would be willing to meet or beat NASA's funding offer. (I do recall that at one point, there was some sort of grant aimed at Israeli qualifiers--don't remember who gave it, or for how much, or if it's still there.)

Of course, there's the other alternative--but do you really want to hear the howling that will rise if NASA starts pulling sponsorship out? EI winners' registration, webcasts, NASA Grants, NASA house teams, NASA employees who volunteer their time and effort... Anything pulled because it gives an advantage to teams who are able to use it, which is most of those, is an opportunity for mass complaining from those teams and teams that sympathize, along with counter-complaining from teams that think those teams had it too easy.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

Because as far as I can tell, this particular item was NOT initiated by FIRST. It was initiated by NASA offering to sponsor FRC teams who met a certain set of conditions, to a certain amount for a certain purpose. (IIRC, it was even MORE limited than "any U.S. team who wins EI" at one point--it was more like "A U.S. team who wins EI at X Regional(s)" for about a year IF I recall correctly.)

If you're going to say that it is then FIRST's job to look for funding for that purpose in that amount for teams that do NOT meet the conditions, then I have a suggestion for you. Ready?

--Please make the same suggestion regarding the Boeing grants. After all, not all teams have Boeing mentors, so teams with Boeing mentors have a distinct advantage in raising funds.
--Please suggest that FIRST ask that JCPenney help fund all teams. Currently, it's nowhere near that.
--Please ask FIRST to make it so that EVERY team gets a NASA grant or equivalent. After all, teams that do get those have an advantage over those that do by a few thousand dollars.

Do you see where I'm going with this? A sponsor has placed certain conditions on a portion of their gift. This gives an advantage to some teams that meet those conditions--less fundraising. You want FIRST to apply (read: apply for) a similar gift to teams that don't meet those conditions--so why not go all the way and apply that to all grants so all teams are on a more even footing? (I'm not even going to pretend it'll be an even footing--too many other variables involved.)

Now, if teams that are not getting this advantage (even if slight) want to do something about it, their best bet is to find their NASA equivalent (or other big sponsor or potential sponsor) and very politely ask if that sponsor/agency would be willing to meet or beat NASA's funding offer. (I do recall that at one point, there was some sort of grant aimed at Israeli qualifiers--don't remember who gave it, or for how much, or if it's still there.)

Of course, there's the other alternative--but do you really want to hear the howling that will rise if NASA starts pulling sponsorship out? EI winners' registration, webcasts, NASA Grants, NASA house teams, NASA employees who volunteer their time and effort... Anything pulled because it gives an advantage to teams who are able to use it, which is most of those, is an opportunity for mass complaining from those teams and teams that sympathize, along with counter-complaining from teams that think those teams had it too easy.

Does Boeing sponsor an award that anyone can win that gives a reward of the money needed to go to the World Championships? Does JCPenney? Im not saying that NASA should pull out funding for them disadvantaging other teams for not funding them but for FIRST to allow only American EI winners to receive funding from the same award that International EI winners cannot seems a little biased. if you look at it without a POV of being on either a US FIRST team or an International FIRST team, it looks pretty one-sided. I am just saying all this to be cautious of the possibility(or if it has already happened) that an EI winner from Canada, Israel, or Mexico cannot make it to World's to compete both with there robot and for the overall EI award because they didnt have the funds needed to go. Like I said before, just playing the Devil's Advocate here; no need to get really heated over this.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by EricH

Because as far as I can tell, this particular item was NOT initiated by FIRST. It was initiated by NASA offering to sponsor FRC teams who met a certain set of conditions, to a certain amount for a certain purpose. (IIRC, it was even MORE limited than "any U.S. team who wins EI" at one point--it was more like "A U.S. team who wins EI at X Regional(s)" for about a year IF I recall correctly.)

If you're going to say that it is then FIRST's job to look for funding for that purpose in that amount for teams that do NOT meet the conditions, then I have a suggestion for you. Ready?

--Please make the same suggestion regarding the Boeing grants. After all, not all teams have Boeing mentors, so teams with Boeing mentors have a distinct advantage in raising funds.
--Please suggest that FIRST ask that JCPenney help fund all teams. Currently, it's nowhere near that.
--Please ask FIRST to make it so that EVERY team gets a NASA grant or equivalent. After all, teams that do get those have an advantage over those that do by a few thousand dollars.

Do you see where I'm going with this? A sponsor has placed certain conditions on a portion of their gift. This gives an advantage to some teams that meet those conditions--less fundraising. You want FIRST to apply (read: apply for) a similar gift to teams that don't meet those conditions--so why not go all the way and apply that to all grants so all teams are on a more even footing? (I'm not even going to pretend it'll be an even footing--too many other variables involved.)

Now, if teams that are not getting this advantage (even if slight) want to do something about it, their best bet is to find their NASA equivalent (or other big sponsor or potential sponsor) and very politely ask if that sponsor/agency would be willing to meet or beat NASA's funding offer. (I do recall that at one point, there was some sort of grant aimed at Israeli qualifiers--don't remember who gave it, or for how much, or if it's still there.)

Of course, there's the other alternative--but do you really want to hear the howling that will rise if NASA starts pulling sponsorship out? EI winners' registration, webcasts, NASA Grants, NASA house teams, NASA employees who volunteer their time and effort... Anything pulled because it gives an advantage to teams who are able to use it, which is most of those, is an opportunity for mass complaining from those teams and teams that sympathize, along with counter-complaining from teams that think those teams had it too easy.

I perfectly understand what you are saying and I agree with you and what NASA did. It is very nice of them. Can you explain this? Once upon a time, Michigan teams were not eligible to apply for NASA grant. What was our sin? It was because FIRST told us that teams outside of Michigan cannot compete in Michigan district events even though we wanted them to fill the empty slots. I thought people in Michigan pay tax to the US government also. Where do you draw the line what conditions sponsors can put on who they sponsor? When does it become discrimination or unfair? Many great sponsors only sponsor teams where they have a presence (office, plant) or have an employee who mentors the team. These make perfect sense to me.