Let's hear it for the Refs !

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by alicen

I don't believe refs who aren't head refs have a decent avenue to give feedback to FIRST and the GDC on their experience (what was hard, easy, what was not fun, what they would suggest changes for, etc).

In short - no my feedback isn't acknowledged and no, nothing is acted upon.

If anyone from FIRST is lurking... ^^ THIS ^^

Growth in any organization can be a good thing, or very bad, it's all in how it's managed. We all want FIRST to grow, in more play opportunity (i.e. moves to districts), in more teams, more outreach, more fun, and more inspiration. To do that we need more infrastructure, more volunteers and more communication/interaction with FIRST as we hit bumps along the way.

And to all the volunteers... Thank you.

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by alicen

Nobody has ever asked me that!
I don't believe refs who aren't head refs have a decent avenue to give feedback to FIRST and the GDC on their experience (what was hard, easy, what was not fun, what they would suggest changes for, etc).

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

As an experienced robot inspector who has also served as an LRI and FTA in the past, I am very comfortable talking with Key Volunteers and VCs directly, if the need arises. Generally I have trusted their judgement to filter feedback and minimize clutter in the communication.

However, new or less experienced volunteers might want a different channel for their feedback, possible an anonymous one. Some such channels already exist, such as the volunteer surveys we are asked to complete. I can also imagine some situations in which "we've always done it this way" could be a very strong filter, essentially squelching feedback from a more recent volunteer whose perspective could be helpful if it were heard by the right people.

My perspective as a referee is much closer to that of a newbie -- I have only reffed for three seasons now at one or two events each season. My experiences (as a volunteer) with head referees have all been positive, but I have heard comments from some others who had different experiences.

[alicen]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

Oh no, I've never had a complaint about a head ref, all the ones I've worked with are fantastic people (I'm totally not biased )

You're correct in that the head ref is the avenue for giving feedback to HQ, but in my experience, head refs have a heck of a lot to keep track of and don't necessarily log all of the minute things that could be useful feedback.

I personally feel that if HQ asked for feedback from all refs directly they would also be given quite a few ideas on how things could be altered to make everyone's jobs easier.