Town Hall Meeting Video

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

They (The board) are devaluing winning.

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

[Hallry]

FIRST has released their official recording, the official transcript, and the presentation slides from the town hall meeting.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

This would make perfect sense if the goal is to have the best robot performance competition possible. I think that have stated that was not their goal when they made this decision.

If you paid attention attention to what Dean and Woodie have been saying for the past 5-10 years you could have seen something like this coming. They consistently said, "it's not about the robot. It is just the vehicle. Take the good from the sports model but reject the negative side that comes with it." They (The board) are devaluing winning. I know that is going to rub some folks the wrong way. This move makes complete sense considering the goals they have set forth.

I know we will never see eye-to-eye on this, but it's not all about winning for 422 (look at our track record if you don't believe me!). However, I think a key component of FRC is the available pursuit of it. There are bad apples that can spoil this key component: the hyper-competitive veterans that can intentionally or inadvertently intimidate weaker teams. That's not a great tool for inspiration. Yet when we set our 10 year goal my senior year to be one of the best teams in FIRST by 2022, that didn't mean we had to be one of those teams. The pursuit of that kind of goal though gets people on and around the team to focus on this idea of accomplishment actively while the work we put into that goal makes the program better (more resources, better documentation, happier students, more satisfied mentors, more engaged school).

Looking past that, the move doesn't make a lot of sense when you pair it up with other decisions the organization is making. Why are we making games focused on robots that require a lot of engineering? Why are we making the Chairman's Award even more competitive than winning an event with the robot? Why are we making tiers at lower levels of competition but dismissing making higher levels of competition? Maybe I'm overreaching but it feels like we are the runner in QWOP and the FIRST Board is pressing all the keys at once to see what happens.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

That's where you and I disagree. There are more winners since there will be a set of winners at each event. More people competing means more teams exposed and a great mix of teams exposed. This will mean that the over all level of competition will go down. I think they understood that when they made the change. Not sure how 25% of teams is "all teams" competing.

I see this as FIRST going back to its roots. This will be closer to what FIRST was like in its first few years.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

This would make perfect sense if the goal is to have the best robot performance competition possible. I think that have stated that was not their goal when they made this decision.

If you paid attention attention to what Dean and Woodie have been saying for the past 5-10 years you could have seen something like this coming. They consistently said, "it's not about the robot. It is just the vehicle. Take the good from the sports model but reject the negative side that comes with it." They (The board) are devaluing winning. I know that is going to rub some folks the wrong way. This move makes complete sense considering the goals they have set forth.

All true and yes I've been listening to the Dean speeches for a long time (since 2003) although we haven't seen much of him up here in New England once we moved to Districts.

I'd be interested to hear their view on the district model which is a system that is results oriented. If your robot doesn't have the performance behind your awards you don't compete with it at your District Championship (minus the Chairmans winners they bring their robots but Engineering Inspiration and Rookie All-Star only let's you present and doesn't auto qualify your robot for the DCMP). I understand how it tackles the issue of needing to add so many regionals with 6 qualifying spots per event but at the same time it runs on a system that FIRST doesn't seem to agree with based off of their thinking with two Championships.

I think FIRST undervalues how well the competitive aspect of FRC mixed with Gracious Professionalism adds to their mission yet it seems like whenever we talk about the highest levels of competition it seems like they feel its against their mission. As it has been said before there will always be the occasional bad apples just like like in sports there are the happy go lucky people who think everyone is a winner and its all about the love of the game while the more negative side is always looking to be the top no matter what.

As we can see this is the downside of having FIRST's board and others at the top running the organization who have no experience with running or participating on a team in FIRST.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I know we will never see eye-to-eye on this, but it's not all about winning for 422 (look at our track record if you don't believe me!). However, I think a key component of FRC is the available pursuit of it. There are bad apples that can spoil this key component: the hyper-competitive veterans that can intentionally or inadvertently intimidate weaker teams. That's not a great tool for inspiration. Yet when we set our 10 year goal my senior year to be one of the best teams in FIRST by 2022, that didn't mean we had to be one of those teams. The pursuit of that kind of goal though gets people on and around the team to focus on this idea of accomplishment actively while the work we put into that goal makes the program better (more resources, better documentation, happier students, more satisfied mentors, more engaged school).

Looking past that, the move doesn't make a lot of sense when you pair it up with other decisions the organization is making. Why are we making games focused on robots that require a lot of engineering? Why are we making the Chairman's Award even more competitive than winning an event with the robot? Why are we making tiers at lower levels of competition but dismissing making higher levels of competition? Maybe I'm overreaching but it feels like we are the runner in QWOP and the FIRST Board is pressing all the keys at once to see what happens.

I'm not sure I can disagree with anything you posted here. I had to ask my student what QWOP was, but besides that, Will, I think you will find that you and I agree far more often than we will disagree. The Pursuit is still there. What is boils down to me personally is that this change does not affect anything my team is doing or will do in the future. We still have many goals to reach. The only thing that has changed, as of today, is geography. Change is hard. I HATE change. But one thing I learned a long time ago is that change is going to happen whether I like it or not.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by Hallry

FIRST has released their official recording, the official transcript, and the presentation slides from the town hall meeting.

Thanks for the links, and to 1640 for the video. After going through both a few times now (I found the transcript easier to read, but the video conveyed the emotions better), these are my final thoughts on the subject, in no particular order:

1. The transcript could at least have the correct spelling of the names of the people asking questions... (And the "Female:" vs "[name]:" was very strange)

2. The whole discussion sort of reminds me of this conversation:
"No, you can't go to the lab, you have to do your homework."
"But..."
"No arguing, you're not going."
In that situation we can both understand that my mom is trying to do what is best for me. But she's not the one in high school, and thus can't always understand what I'm trying to say--instead she has to draw on what happened the last time we had this argument, what the results were, or what she thinks will happen. The arguments where we're able to discuss how much work I have left, or when I could do it instead, always go much more nicely than those where she just says no. In the end though, I can't do anything about it, and being confrontational about it doesn't help.

That analogy, which got a bit more confusing than I intended, was supposed to lead to this: I don't think FIRST really understands what it is like to be on a team (or at least what they said doesn't make it sound like they do), but I also don't think they know that they don't. You don't know what you're missing unless you had it in the first place.

3. If I had to summarize FIRST's view vs CD*'s view:
FIRST: If there are two championships, more teams will get the experience.
CD: If there are two championships, no team will get the true experience.
FIRST: By having more winners, more teams will get to be winners, and they will push harder to be winners.
CD: By having more winners, no team will be a true winner, and they have nothing to push towards.

* I'm still hesitant to say this is what most teams think, because I honestly have no idea what the majority of average / below average (the teams that struggle just to exist, can't afford to attend even if they get on through the waitlist, etc.) think, so instead I'll just call this "CD." This is obviously a very simplified / somewhat extreme view, but I think it represents most of what I've heard.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

As we can see this is the downside of having FIRST's board and others at the top running the organization who have no experience with running or participating on a team in FIRST.

Is that entirely fair? The reverse could be claimed in that most of us haven't run a "USFIRST" before.

Also several of the challenges faced by FRC teams aren't exclusive to us. Check out who is on the BOD. Leading a team, dealing with people, handling money. They have and do run some very large organizations so I figure they've dealt with similar challenges to us before.


In addition I doubt it was only the BOD who worked to research and planed it.

Even the WFA/DL advising thing has a slight problem in that they also may represent a bias in looking at where FIRST should go vs a lot of other participants thus you may not gain much either way.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Is that entirely fair? The reverse could be claimed in that most of us haven't run a "USFIRST" before.

Also several of the challenges faced by FRC teams aren't exclusive to us. Check out who is on the BOD. Leading a team, dealing with people, handling money. They have and do run some very large organizations so I figure they've dealt with similar challenges to us before.


In addition I doubt it was only the BOD who worked to research and planed it.

Even the WFA/DL advising thing has a slight problem in that they also may represent a bias in looking at where FIRST should go vs a lot of other participants thus you may not gain much either way.

Was it a strong statement? Yes. There is a lot about running USFIRST that I do not know and probably will never know. FIRST is a program run mostly by volunteers whose primary mission is to introduce kids from K-12 to STEM and change the culture using their programs run by volunteers. For the most part the mission of FIRST is carried out by mentors and volunteers like you and me who run teams and help organize/volunteer at events. Without us and without (BOD/HQ) FIRST wouldn't happen. While moving to two championships has implications on FIRST is primarily impacts the teams, the participants, and the students.

My point (and one that many others have made included at the town hall) is how is the BOD being advised/informed of what is best for FIRST if they haven't participated in FIRST programs or at least have representation from individuals who have. FIRST is old enough that even some of first participants in the 90s are well into their adult careers that they can serve in an advisory position along with a ton of mentors who have been involved for 20+ years.

Change is never an easy thing and its going to happen. We've always had change over the years and this to a degree is a big one considering the impacts it has on the community of splitting teams up even more so than districts. It also sets a tone for where FIRST is going to take FRC in terms of where the balance of making the World Championship a competitive event as a Championship vs an event where the goal is to get as many teams to attend to inspire them (still an admirable goal). Some of us are very interested in why FIRST is making these big decisions without consulting the community (past or present). While I still wouldn't be entirely thrilled, if the announcement had been made along with an explanation that prior FIRST participants including WFA winners, HOF teams, and/or other FIRST participants were involved in coming up with this plan it would have been received a little better.

Just some thoughts.

[MikeE]

I was busy at the Championships so finally got to watch the video of the Town Hall today. After reading this thread I was honestly surprised how cordial it was given the level of passion around the topic. Anything approaching disrespect from the stage was coming from the moderator more than the panel.

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

As a thought experiment let's say that in 2017 with half the geographic coverage we degrade the competition to "only" the level of the 2015 Einstein semi-finals. For me, and I suspect most attendees, this would be just as inspirational as the current championship model.
I agree that philosophically many know there are awesome teams who are not appearing on Einstein, but that's always true due to the vagaries of competition advancement.

My primary objection to the 2 Championship model is similar to Sandra's, although I don't think that "divorce" is a good analogy.
Splitting World Championship does damage the sense of FRC as a single global community with a common set of goals. The Championship event was the opportunity to come together and celebrate those goals with others from across the community and this just won't happen after 2016.

[David Lame]

Originally Posted by Libby K

It's become pretty clear that they didn't.

Even with Don's defense of 'We can't poll several thousand people about this' (except that you can, and did after the fact) ... FIRST has quite a few 'focus groups' to draw opinions from. WFA's, the Hall of Fame... These are groups and individuals with a good read on the pulse of the FIRST community. Asking them would have made it pretty easy to figure out how the broader group would feel about something before signing a contract.

I would really like to think you are wrong. I'm pretty new around here, and I would like to be positive about things.

I guess I would just like to see some evidence that they understood the down side of their decision, and they just felt that the positives outweigh the negatives. As it is, it seems like they didn't even realize there was any significant negative, and if you are right about their decision making process, the reason they didn't understand would be that they didn't think it was worth the effort to find out. I wonder if they understand a post like Rachel's post above.

[jman4747]

For refrence here are your FIRST BOD members. Again I think we should give them a little more of a chance than none at all.

Sheri S. McCoy - Co-Chair; Chief Executive Officer & Director, Avon Products, Inc.

Robert M. Tuttle - Co-Chair; General Partner, 1848 Associates

John E. Abele - Vice Chair; Founding Chairman, Retired, Boston Scientific Corporation

Walter P. Havenstein - Vice Chair; Chief Executive Officer, Retired, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Dean L. Kamen - Founder; President, DEKA Research & Development Corporation

Donald E. Bossi - Secretary; President, FIRST

Ursula M. Burns - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation

Dr. Paul E. Jacobs - Executive Chairman of the Board, Qualcomm Incorporated

Muhtar Kent - Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer, Coca-Cola Company

John H. Lynch - Former Governor of the State of New Hampshire

Scott McKay - Chief Information Officer & Senior Vice President, Genworth Financial

Dennis A. Muilenburg - Vice Chairman, President & Chief Operating Officer, The Boeing Company

Kelly Ortberg - Chief Executive Officer & President, Rockwell Collins

Robert L. Parkinson, Jr. - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Baxter International Inc.

Steve Sanghi - President, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman, Microchip Technology, Inc.

Myron E. Ullman, III - Chief Executive Officer & Director, JCPenney

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

For refrence here are your FIRST BOD members. Again I think we should give them a little more of a chance than none at all.

Sheri S. McCoy - Co-Chair; Chief Executive Officer & Director, Avon Products, Inc.

Robert M. Tuttle - Co-Chair; General Partner, 1848 Associates

John E. Abele - Vice Chair; Founding Chairman, Retired, Boston Scientific Corporation

Walter P. Havenstein - Vice Chair; Chief Executive Officer, Retired, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Dean L. Kamen - Founder; President, DEKA Research & Development Corporation

Donald E. Bossi - Secretary; President, FIRST

Ursula M. Burns - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation

Dr. Paul E. Jacobs - Executive Chairman of the Board, Qualcomm Incorporated

Muhtar Kent - Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer, Coca-Cola Company

John H. Lynch - Former Governor of the State of New Hampshire

Scott McKay - Chief Information Officer & Senior Vice President, Genworth Financial

Dennis A. Muilenburg - Vice Chairman, President & Chief Operating Officer, The Boeing Company

Kelly Ortberg - Chief Executive Officer & President, Rockwell Collins

Robert L. Parkinson, Jr. - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Baxter International Inc.

Steve Sanghi - President, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman, Microchip Technology, Inc.

Myron E. Ullman, III - Chief Executive Officer & Director, JCPenney

It is an amazing resume of folks in the program! I hope it didn't sound like my comments were attempting to discredit these individuals that was far from the truth.

I don't think anyone can argue with the backgrounds these individuals have combined with their experience and connections they have brought to the table. I wouldn't argue that they aren't doing their best for FIRST.

But FIRST isn't a fortune 500 company or have shares traded on Wall Street. Its a non-profit run by people who view this as their second family and I'm sure for many it feels like their primary family. Its not easy when at the highest level they are going to split it down the middle and send one half of the family reunion to one destination and the other half to another. There are definitely financial implications with either plan (two championships or one) but we aren't talking about decisions that would put FIRST out of business necessarily.

I'm sure the BOD gets the mission of FIRST but do they really get what FIRST (you, me, and the teams) are all about?

Just a little food for thought.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I'm sure the BOD gets the mission of FIRST but do they really get what FIRST (you, me, and the teams) are all about?

Interesting statement. Shouldn't they be the same thing?

Some food for thought.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Interesting statement. Shouldn't they be the same thing?

Some food for thought.

Another badly worded sentence on my part. Its been a long week.

Its one thing to be behind a mission statement. Its another to be "in the trenches" so to speak for months out of the year as a student and as a mentor.