[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.

But like, what if their way is not the best? We're starting to come full circle here, but the whole idea is this proposal has been put, no one knew even a rumor about this, until it was a done deal.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.

Just as a thought...

Have you ever stood on a mountain, and looked out to another place? Looks like the best way to get from point A to point B is a route, let's call it X. But if you actually talk to people who've gone that route, X might actually be a really lousy route, for a variety of reasons. Maybe Y, which you see but think isn't the best, is actually the better route, for reasons you didn't think about. But if you are telling a bunch of new hikers that X is better...

That's essentially what FIRST HQ is doing. They're standing up on the mountain, setting the direction for the group. But they aren't actually walking that route with the teams. They largely haven't experienced what teams go through. They've gotten better about trying to pay attention to that, no doubt, but they've still got a long ways to go. Not at the Frank level (he's got enough staff who've been on teams to know what's going on, and he pays attention to forums and all), but above that. This isn't FRC HQ talking in the initial announcement, this is USFIRST HQ talking. FRC HQ is the one who announced the townhall.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

But like, what if their way is not the best? We're starting to come full circle here, but the whole idea is this proposal has been put, no one knew even a rumor about this, until it was a done deal.

And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.

Originally Posted by EricH

Just as a thought...

Have you ever stood on a mountain, and looked out to another place? Looks like the best way to get from point A to point B is a route, let's call it X. But if you actually talk to people who've gone that route, X might actually be a really lousy route, for a variety of reasons. Maybe Y, which you see but think isn't the best, is actually the better route, for reasons you didn't think about. But if you are telling a bunch of new hikers that X is better...

That's essentially what FIRST HQ is doing. They're standing up on the mountain, setting the direction for the group. But they aren't actually walking that route with the teams. They largely haven't experienced what teams go through. They've gotten better about trying to pay attention to that, no doubt, but they've still got a long ways to go. Not at the Frank level (he's got enough staff who've been on teams to know what's going on, and he pays attention to forums and all), but above that. This isn't FRC HQ talking in the initial announcement, this is USFIRST HQ talking. FRC HQ is the one who announced the townhall.

Well you make another point that the group they are suggesting this path to is not just FRC teams. How dose that play into this? How will this look for all the programs in two plus years?

The route of split FIRST world championships is not something an FRC team has done. We all think we know that a tiered system will work and it likely would but the people who have to put it together before we get there have set forth a foreign plan that is so far untested.

They aren't pointing down route X or Y, they found R and want to give it a shot. All of HQ's personnel haven't been on a team and just the same we haven't all run USFIRST.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.



Well you make another point that the group they are suggesting this path to is not just FRC teams. How dose that play into this? How will this look for all the programs in two plus years?

The route of split FIRST world championships is not something an FRC team has done. We all think we know that a tiered system will work and it likely would but the people who have to put it together before we get there have set forth a foreign plan that is so far untested.

They aren't pointing down route X or Y, they found R and want to give it a shot. All of HQ's personnel haven't been on a team and just the same we haven't all run USFIRST.

While I think most of us understand what you're saying, when we build our robots, there are some things we don't have to prototype or test to know it's a bad idea.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

While I think most of us understand what you're saying, when we build our robots, there are some things we don't have to prototype or test to know it's a bad idea.

And there are some things you have to test to know if they are a good idea.

There are also some things you test that should have been a good idea but don't work in the end.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And there are some things you have to test to know if they are a good idea.

There are also some things you test that should have been a good idea but don't work in the end.

When we test ideas, we don't immediately jump it and put it on the competition robot. We check out the geometry, look at everything it could possibly mess up on the robot as is, and then try it on the practice robot before making changes to the competition robot. Same with code, and same should be for FIRST. Any form of communication, pilot test, survey? From what appears to be the consensus on CD, there wasn't anything.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.

Which is exactly the problem. HQ made the deliberate choice to limit their level of research into this issue, and thus their potential for informed thought and analysis. The "what if" is already there: they put it there. What if they'd been transparent? No one can know how this will play out, and HQ made the conscious decision to introduce unknowns into their decision.

Maybe they are right. Maybe "we" are right (whoever "we" are). Maybe we're both wrong. No one will ever know which is most true, because only one decision can be (and will be) implemented. This is normal and inevitable. The current assessment is necessarily a probabilistic one. In those terms, being informed by your stakeholders raises your chances of making an informed decision, which increases the likelihood that the decision will be a correct one.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Siri

Which is exactly the problem. HQ made the deliberate choice to limit their level of research into this issue, and thus their potential for informed thought and analysis. The "what if" is already there: they put it there. What if they'd been transparent? No one can know how this will play out, and HQ made the conscious decision to introduce unknowns into their decision.

Maybe they are right. Maybe "we" are right (whoever "we" are). Maybe we're both wrong. No one will ever know which is most true, because only one decision can be (and will be) implemented. This is normal and inevitable. The current assessment is necessarily a probabilistic one. In those terms, being informed by your stakeholders raises your chances of making an informed decision, which increases the likelihood that the decision will be a correct one.

"We" is the FRC community.

How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.

Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.

How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?

Trust me, I've seen the postings. There are mentors who had that reaction almost immediately. Long-time mentors. If your team had a 10-year+ mentor "threaten" to leave over this, you'd realize just how bad this is. (Mine hasn't, that I know about--but then again, most of the mentors haven't been around FIRST for more than about 5-7 years.)

I don't give a darn that FIRST knows better than anyone what they are able to do. What they have chosen to do is up to them--but if they alienate large numbers of people, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's EXACTLY what they just about did with the announcement. And when they say "this is how it's going to be, now you can ask us questions", a lot of people won't be thinking about the "how". They're thinking about the "if" and the "why couldn't we ask questions before".

These mentors know a far sight better than FIRST HQ what their individual teams' goals, missions, dreams, and abilities are, and what the community reaction will be in event of X happening. When HQ appears to take a step that directly contradicts an awful lot of those local teams' ideals, there are only two possibilities: Either the team mentors are out of touch with HQ's view of FIRST's goals, or HQ is out of touch with the teams. Neither ends well unless someone from either side or both reaches out.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.

How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?

Trust me, I've seen the postings. There are mentors who had that reaction almost immediately. Long-time mentors. If your team had a 10-year+ mentor "threaten" to leave over this, you'd realize just how bad this is. (Mine hasn't, that I know about--but then again, most of the mentors haven't been around FIRST for more than about 5-7 years.)

I don't give a darn that FIRST knows better than anyone what they are able to do. What they have chosen to do is up to them--but if they alienate large numbers of people, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's EXACTLY what they just about did with the announcement. And when they say "this is how it's going to be, now you can ask us questions", a lot of people won't be thinking about the "how". They're thinking about the "if" and the "why couldn't we ask questions before".

These mentors know a far sight better than FIRST HQ what their individual teams' goals, missions, dreams, and abilities are, and what the community reaction will be in event of X happening. When HQ appears to take a step that directly contradicts an awful lot of those local teams' ideals, there are only two possibilities: Either the team mentors are out of touch with HQ's view of FIRST's goals, or HQ is out of touch with the teams. Neither ends well unless someone from either side or both reaches out.

Well I would then suggest you reach out as you say insted of leave.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Well I would then suggest you reach out as you say insted of leave.

I never said that I was leaving. I said that some mentors were thinking about leaving. There is a difference.


I won't be in St. Louis. But I'm really hoping that a number of veteran mentors that ARE there will be at the townhall. (I'm also hoping that there's a Q&A, and that the HQ folks brought a lot of notepaper, because I'm pretty sure they're going to get an earful.)

[Racer26]

And from the sound of things... they're going to need a lot more time for the earful than they will have scheduled for the Town Hall.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jman4747

"We" is the FRC community.

Sorry, that was my "we" intended to designate that the FRC community, even within the dissenters, has not reached a consensus plan. I wasn't attempting to quote you out of context or invoke your definition.

Originally Posted by jman4747

How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.

Knowing what one is able to do does not lead directly to making the correct choice. Having a decision within one's discretion does not mean that one is the best qualified to unilaterally decide it. We all understand that this decision is made; that does not mean that it is good.

There are two different goals for this Town Hall (or as a general response to "we're listening"). One is to figure out how to work within the framework HQ created with these contracts. The other is to express dissatisfaction at HQ's process and/or decision. The latter aim is not simply to complain; it's to elucidate the "cost" side of the cost-benefit to HQ of them ever doing something like this again. And, quite frankly, the cost they've already accrued in doing so.

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't know if anyone's proposed any solutions rather than just grousing, but here's an idea:

Send the winner of whichever event is first to the second one (all expenses paid), have them play the winner of the second one for the World Champions title. Lock their robots up right after the final match of the first event to try to minimize the impact that not playing for a week would have. No withholding allowance. The biggest issue is fatigue of the drive team for the one that just went through a whole champs+Einstein elims bracket, but I don't know if there is any other solution. Rotate which event is the earlier week every other year.

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.

How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?

Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:

No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.