California District Proposal

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.

-Mike

I disagree with you there. I get that this is a FIRST HQ problem, not a California problem, but for an international team in a new country, the barrier of entry to FRC can't be starting 50 teams and 3 events (a district region). There must be a way to participate in FRC short of that, whether it's attending a district or regional. They should have a roughly equal opportunity to qualify for a Championship as well.

Having said all that, it's totally acceptable for the leaders of FRC California to mostly or completely ignore the needs of international teams. It's a FIRST HQ problem.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

Then why don't you stop complaining about every possible detail and actually try helping for once, Eric? If I have to read another comment about how you "want districts" but don't even try because you think they're not feasible, I'm going to puke. Stop putting down other's ideas because you're so pessimistic about this whole situation. The only thing Michael is doing is pushing for awareness of districts, nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't want to support awareness for districts in California, that's fine, but stop throwing your dirty laundry all over this thread. You're not helping any.

If you want to misread my posts, that's your problem.

I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.

Originally Posted by Rick

Except the high school would not be hosting a 60+ team regional over 4 days but rather a 40 team district with a need for 1200 seats and spots for 400 cars over 2.5 days.

The room for 1200 people in bleacher style seats and 400 parking spots is the biggest deal breaker I've seen when looking into venues. The next most common deal breaker is lack of pit space.

That's still a pretty good amount of space. One of the sites on the list that's been posted I'm skeptical of--I know it can be done, but having been there it'll be a tight fit. (Not that small venues aren't.)

Mike and Pauline--check your PMs in a couple of minutes.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Why would anyone contribute helpful or constructive advice if we're being told we can never understand the area or problems unique to that area?

That type of response is doing the exact opposite of inviting useful feedback which is why I pointed it out.

I'm not pushing anyone, anywhere. I've put a ton of effort into helping my region make a leap - and a lot of people are in a similar situation I was a few years ago. Many of them have reached out for my advice and I'm simply stating it.

-Brando

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

As someone involved heavily in Southern California frc, I really do appreciate all the helpful advice from everyone. They in fact have dealt with the same issues and making SoCal open to that advice is something we need to do. And you know what, saying we don't have the venues, volunteers, ect are just excuses that others are trying to help us overcome. We will never be ready as a state if we don't push each other.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by scottandme

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.

1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.

We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.

We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!

From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.

Ya, I'm pretty sure its basically the same. I think NE only opens up 32?/36? out of 40 spots in each event initially, I presume to save some slots for the late registering teams and also to balance the # of teams at each event a little.

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.

In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%

We still have RDs in District - so they still have access to this.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%

One item I have struggled with is aligning LRIs to events by the timeframe FIRST HQ would like. Most of the LRIs in Michigan are affiliated with teams. Some prefer to do events their team I at. Others prefer to do events there team is not at. Almost all prefer to sign up for volunteering after they know what events their team will be attending...

It would be a good topic to have on whether or not teams should get preferential treatment on the waitlist via volunteer (key/critical....) support. Right now, I don't think we do that in Michigan (at least not explicitly to my knowledge), but it is an item I think we should discuss due to other scheduling hassles.

Additionally, on occasion, we have added an event after travel for Key volunteer training is booked, and this caused an added challenge to filling key roles.

On most of these occasions, all involved knew they would be a challenge, and some of us complained, but ultimately we found ways to work through the issues.