pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[gblake]

Cake-ster

Let's get real.

Talking to someone who happens to be in the RPC, but who is not speaking on behalf of the RPC, then whipping together that flyer at 01:00, and then writing the initial post in that "Experience promoting districts in Minnesota" thread, is tossing yet another uncoordinated log(s) onto a fire that shouldn't exist.

In your message you wrote "I'm willing to concede that we aren't at a point where we can properly run a district system, but is it a common ground that we should at least be thinking in that direction?"

I believe that anyone who asks the current RPC about that will find out that more than thinking is already going on. Thereby hangs a tale.

Blake

[Carolyn_Grace]

Stop the passive aggressive posts. They do not promote productive discussion.

[Madison]

Are the people sharing this in a position to guarantee that any of the assertions made on this flyer will be true?

The information about program costs doesn't apply to all districts today; I don't understand how you can create the expectation that it would apply in new districts. Similarly, the remarks about the number of spaces available to teams at the Championship is a guess; you have no way of controlling that and presenting it as a given is irresponsible.

Encouraging folks to contact the RPC intimates that this is endorsed by that RPC. I understand that it isn't explicitly stated as such, but I think any reasonable person could believe that this was created by the planning committee as an effort to drum up support. That's a pretty underhanded tactic for effecting change.

[Jessica Boucher]

Everyone please breathe before you post.

[gblake]

In a tweet, I said that this was, and I quote (without the emojis) "grade A bull crap". While this might seem slightly extreme, I stand by this, for a number of reasons:
The word 'transition' has been used as a verb since at least 1946.
'Transition' is commonly used as a verb. While it isn't the clearest word in this situation, it also isn't a word that ...

LOLs - Apparently I've been tweeted about in an out-of-band channel. - It's a good thing there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Hey, people were mangling English long before 1946, and they ain't likely to slow down any time soon.

If the folks reusing the flyer want to improve it, I still suggest adopting Churchill's approach. He was really good at communicating.

It is possible for one post to contain an important big picture observation, and a separate recommendation to improve that sentence.

Blake

[Andrew Schreiber]

As a breather - can we discuss what is wrong graphically with this flyer?


a) QR code... is this still a thing? What URL is it to? Those of us without a QR reader (which I presume means everyone) have no idea. Even those with one, it's a huge security risk can we just kill this whole concept and use human readable URLs?

b) Where is my eye supposed to be drawn? I see some charts, I see a question, I see a heading... then I see some clip art looking things down at the bottom.

c) There's a LOT of text. As a informative handout this might work well to an invested audience. But as a flyer or as a handout to a neutral/opposing party it's "too long, where's the nearest dumpster?"

Suggestions - axe the QR, figure out where the eye should be drawn, less text and put together a website with more info with a human readable URL if folks want to know more. I'd also suggest coordinating this effort instead of reaching directly to RPC. Perhaps you should collect interest and then schedule time to meet with the RPC, have a discussion on why you and others think this is a good move.


But, overall - a good start at getting some information out. Fact check a little better next time though

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

If the folks reusing the flyer want to improve it, I still suggest adopting Churchill's approach. He was really good at communicating.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

As a breather - can we discuss what is wrong graphically with this flyer?

a) QR code... is this still a thing? What URL is it to? Those of us without a QR reader (which I presume means everyone) have no idea. Even those with one, it's a huge security risk can we just kill this whole concept and use human readable URLs?

b) Where is my eye supposed to be drawn? I see some charts, I see a question, I see a heading... then I see some clip art looking things down at the bottom.

c) There's a LOT of text. As a informative handout this might work well to an invested audience. But as a flyer or as a handout to a neutral/opposing party it's "too long, where's the nearest dumpster?"

Suggestions - axe the QR, figure out where the eye should be drawn, less text and put together a website with more info with a human readable URL if folks want to know more. I'd also suggest coordinating this effort instead of reaching directly to RPC. Perhaps you should collect interest and then schedule time to meet with the RPC, have a discussion on why you and others think this is a good move.

Blake and Schreiber,

Thank you for your advice on how to improve the flyer. I will be sure to send these suggestions to those who have asked for an editable copy to use in their own regions.

Originally Posted by Madison

Are the people sharing this in a position to guarantee that any of the assertions made on this flyer will be true?

Madison,

No, I cannot control any of the numbers on the flyer, and I understand your concern. Given published information from HQ they are the most reasonable numbers we came up with.

The pricing information from events was taken from this page: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...ng-and-payment. Since the majority of the current district areas are on the same pricing model, we elected to use that.

Cost per qualification match assumed 12 qualification matches per team at each district event and 9 qualification matches per at each regional event. Nearly every district event I've attended over the past several years had 12 qualification matches per team (not counting surrogates) and 9 was taken from last year's 10,000 Lakes schedule.

For the number of spots to the World Championship, Minnesota currently has 209 teams registered this season. The latest figure I've heard for number of registered teams this season is 3131, causing Minnesota to be 209/3131 = ~6.67% of FRC, earning 0.0667*600 = 40.05 slots to the world championship. AFAIK, this is the model Frank said HQ uses to determine championship spot allocation for districts.

[Basel A]

If the Minnesota RPC is already moving towards implementing districts and getting volunteers from teams is one of the biggest needs, it sounds like getting the teams pumped for districts is a very important task. Shouldn't the RPC be thanking Rahul for getting it started? Every team that comes to the RPC asking for districts is a team that can be reasonably asked for volunteers.

[gblake]

Folks,

Set aside your pitchforks for a moment.

I did a slower read of the flyer looking for things my English teachers would have corrected (I lost a letter grade each time Ms Austin used her red pen). I didn't take notes, so this post isn't details. Instead it's just a word to the wise.

IMO there is at least one grammar mistake, and a borderline sentence/phrase or two.

The mistake I remember is that "Qualification ... are ...", should change to "Qualification ... is ...".

I'll repeat that a quick once over by someone with serious editing chops wouldn't hurt. They can help make it better.

Blake
PS: transitioning

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

In order to create a district, some amount of people in that area have to be sold on the idea of moving to a district.

The people who need to buy into implementing the district system are the people who will be implementing it. Artificially pumping up demand for it will not increase the speed at which it can be adopted.

If you want to make districts happen in an area you aren't actually helping to run, it doesn't seem productive to just start cheerleading without coordinating your message with the existing efforts and without taking into account what is actually possible given current and potential levels of support.

[Sean Schuff]

I've read the vast majority of the posts in this thread and perused the more long-winded ones and they cause some concern. My concern isn't over whether or not Minnesota or it's neighbors should move to a district model, rather it is the approach that is being taken.

Conversations regarding districts in Wisconsin have been going on for years among a variety of key stakeholders from both within and beyond our borders. There are benefits and drawbacks to both regional and district models and anyone can make a compelling argument for which side of the fence they fall on. Which is better will always remain a matter of opinion.

For those who are promoting districts, i ask you these simple questions: Is the approach you are taking the best way to accomplish your objectives? Would you be better served by speaking to FIRST leadership within your state and making your case there first? Are you fully aware of the inner workings of FIRST in your state and, if so, are you aware of conversations going on regarding this topic? Do you understand ALL of the structural and organizational differences between a regional model and a district model?

Yes, after school robotics programs just received a huge financial shot in the arm in Wisconsin but don't assume that all that funding is going solely to FRC teams. The law actually reads that the funds can be used for any type of robotics team. FIRST, VEX, Botball, BEST, and others are all programs schools can engage in and be eligible for matching funds. Even within the realm of FIRST, both FRC and FTC teams are eligible for funding. Please don't assume that $250,000 / $5,000 per team = 50 new teams.

Beyond these details, there is a plan of action being implemented by the Wisconsin FIRST EAB to expand participation in FIRST programs in the state. Lessons have been learned from the rapid expansion in Minnesota and we are working on a system that will mitigate some of the issues associated with those types of growing pains. Districts have been and will continue to be part of the discussion.

Conversations should continue but they must be with the appropriate parties and need to be civil and constructive. There are a lot of moving parts here. Trying to force the issue because someone thinks it's the best thing to do isn't the appropriate way to go about it.

[Monochron]

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills, but the "intent behind the flyer" seems perfectly clear to me and, actually, no one has really stated it yet. It looks like the intent is to

"Educate those familiar with FRC on the benefits to them in the District model in order to drum up grassroots support for a move to Districts."

That last part seems to be what people are overlooking (and perhaps forgetting to say in their anger?). I am guessing that the writers are looking to use an attractive flying to hook more people into the conversation about districts. They won't enter that conversation fully informed because the writers of the flyer know that that is now how people enter into public forums. I would love it if people entered all public forums fully informed of the nuances of issues, but that is unfortunately a very rare thing.
Their intent is to draw more people into the conversation. A flyer that details the arguments and counterarguments of either side isn't going to hold the attention of the masses like the one they created has.

Let's imagine someone reads the full flyer and believes it all as presented, assuming there are no downsides (similar to what people have suggested here). What is the last thing that the flyer asks them to do? To join the discussion! I am unfamiliar with how far "the discussion" has gotten in MN, but contacting the RPC about it seems like a good first step if that discussion hasn't started yet. And if it really hasn't started yet (not agreeing to transition, but earnestly discussing what it would take / pros and cons), then contacting the RPC may be the best way to start it.

No one believes that a bunch of people wanting Districts will just make it happen, but if enough people join the conversation, progress could be made.

[itsjustjon]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Minnesota grew so fast that the support for all those teams to truly be successful couldn't possibly be there.

If you think throwing $ at teams and then watching them routinely flounder to pass inspection or even field a robot that moves is beneficial to the kids on their team or the kids on other teams your wrong.

Quality sustainable growth is what benefits all. Quantity growth is not.

We all want every high school student to have the possibility to be on an FRC team should they want it, but that doesn't mean we start a team at every school because the money and sponsorship is there, when the support to truly run a successful* team isnt.

*I do not equate winning with success but I can say that nothing inspires more than winning. I can also say that watching your robot not move or score points for 2 days straight doesn't inspire either.

This is a bit of a side-note, but FIRST should really take what you just said to heart.

Having a team at every high school is great and all, but I've been told by several Regional Directors that out of the 6000+ teams in FRC, only 3000+ have been sustainable and persistently re-registering with the program. Most of the other 3000 un-registered teams are rookies who flopped because of little support past their first season.

At the current rate of growth in teams, both Regionals and Districts will be most likely screwed since both types of events cannot accomodate the influx of teams. There has to be some sort of fix or alternate "third" competition/event system where the issues of both districts and regionals (i.e. too many teams, too much money, etc) are resolved, right?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Monochron

...
"Educate those familiar with FRC on the benefits to them in the District model in order to drum up grassroots support for a move to Districts."
...

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, that's understandable, but it shouldn't have. That's a wrong assumption.

Certainly any region's FRC teams will want to be educated consumers of, participants in , and/or contributors to their region's overall FRC program; but from what I hear, neither actual or hydroponic grassroots urging is needed to get this ball rolling. It's already rolling.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, it shouldn't have. It's a wrong assumption.

Certainly any region's FRC teams will want to be educated consumers of, participants in , and/or contributors to their region's overall FRC program; but from what I hear, neither actual or astroturf grassroots urging is needed to get this ball rolling. It's already rolling.

Blake

I promised myself I wouldn't get heated in here again, but I want to be clear: the majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling, but the fact is, as far as most people from MN are concerned, you're just some guy in Virginia making unsubstantiated claims about the state of districts here (which directly conflict with their experience). The people who most need convincing are the people who are least likely to believe you.