California District Proposal

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

I'm curious why people are under the impression we are not ready for this in the Southern Half of the state? Is it simply the lack of push on this forum exactly? The volunteers?
We have more teams in our half, with that we have potential for more volunteers.

Volunteers--but to be more specific, KEY volunteers. To be even more specific, key volunteers that have enough available time to work give-or-take double their current event load (because we'll need give-or-take double the number of events). There's ways to work with and around that, partly by some outside recruitment (MI did this early on, as I recall--not sure about any of the other district areas) and partly by interested parties jumping onboard now.

These numbers are specific to SoCal, BTW--I'm excluding NorCal from this due to lack of knowledge, though crossover between the two is probably desirable.
FTA: I think we could probably muster 2-3 FTAs currently, and good ones (and one of those has district experience already if he's available). Might be enough, for a couple years, which buys time to train more. There's always the "import" option as well, which is generally employed on Week 1 events as it is. 2017 will need a lot of FTAAs and some more FTAs stepping up.
LRI: That one is a bit easier. 3-4 currently, and several long-time inspectors that would have a pretty good chance to move up to LRI. I would suspect that this one would be the easiest of the key volunteers to fill. (In addition to the LRIs' habit of showing up at other events as inspectors anyway.)
Field Supervisor: I think we've got 4... get a few more trained, and that should be OK.
Head Ref: 1-2, maybe 3. Actually, reffing in general is a weak point. But with that few head refs, that's going to be very interesting. (I should also note that one of those typically only does one event.) This is a role that would be good to run some crossover SoCal to NorCal, and that does happen currently to at least some extent. That'd really help--unless NorCal is in the same situation.
Lead Queuer: I want to say there's 4, shouldn't be too hard to train more cat herders.

VCs and other "behind the scenes" key volunteers I'm not as familiar with. I will say that those folks tend to crop up--er, "be volunteered"?--pretty handily to my point of view, which is a bit limited on that.

Most of the other (read: non-key) roles are relatively easy to say "Hey, you with the volunteer paperwork! You're doing this" and have someone trained in the role day-of-event. Even inspectors and possibly refs have a decent chance at doing that, if it weren't for the required online training, if they've got rules knowledge. But the key volunteers have to be developed. Development takes time. For some things, I'm not sure 1 year is enough. (Head Refs are either a 2-event or a 2-year minimum as a ref except in exceptional circumstances--I forget just which. That's from FIRST's description, which I'm currently too lazy to go digging through the site for.)


Can that be solved? Sure. Potential volunteers for those roles--or for filling in any "promotion holes"--should be volunteering for 2017 regionals (and 2016 offseasons) in that role if it exists at that offseason. TBH, there's a reason that I volunteer, and that's part of it.

I would also go with the lack of push as being one other reason--part of that is that I would say that a lot of teams aren't on CD. The ones that are here tend to be more vocal for districts. Maybe there's a "silent majority" going on? Not sure which way it'd be going, at present--hard to know, with silent majorities. I know most of the mid-to-upper level teams that I've talked to on that are interested, at least in principle. Even some of the not-so-upper level teams, if conversation's gotten around that way.

tl;dr: The trained key volunteer positions need some more filling, which in some cases will be quick and in others will take a couple seasons. "Untrained" positions won't be an issue. And for whatever reason, I don't think the SoCal teams are being quite as vocal right now.

[Alyssa]

Originally Posted by EricH

And for whatever reason, I don't think the SoCal teams are being quite as vocal right now.

The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alyssa

The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.

That would explain it. Not sure that's limited to SoCal, either (the thinking these forums are toxic part--I've heard of folks saying that from all over). But that's beside the point.

[Ali Ahmed]

It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school.
Or maybe that's just me.

In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.

Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.

[Deetman]

As a data point, a general number for key volunteers would be the number events/2 rounded up. Based on the proposal, this would be 7 total of each for 1 California District Championship and 8 total for 2 California District Championships. This isn't set in stone - some key volunteers seem to have a tendency to go crazy and do more than 2 events, but strikes a nice balance, especially where events are not all within a 2 hour drive and allows for some overlap/trainees in positions.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school.
Or maybe that's just me.

In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.

Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ASD20

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

Correct, 2017 is almost completely booked. 2018 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible. 2019 is much more reasonable.
No where in this thread nor in the documentation Mike, RC, and Andrew put together does it ever suggest 2017 is a possibility.

I think the biggest take away from all of this is, we need to seriously do the groundwork and preparation that is needed to move to Districts. This means training up volunteers, locating venues, finding the financial backing, and the physical resources need to support the much larger number of events.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by billbo911

2108 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible.

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

[Munchskull]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

Think that they could get it down to at least 2097? Perfectly reasonabe, right?

But seriously I would love to see California in districts, it would allow cross play between them and PNW.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

Thanks for the catch! Corrected.

[Ali Ahmed]

Originally Posted by ASD20

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

Not from MI, but as I recall the statements made previously, the 2 volunteers can be anybody and don't have to be at an event that the team is at.

And TBH, that setup makes a lot of sense. (What I'd be wondering is if one person could account for both, but that's not as important.)

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.

[Ali Ahmed]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.

This is great news! I really hope we can implement the same policy. Thanks Ed.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

This is great news! I really hope we can implement the same policy. Thanks Ed.

It's also worth noting that the volunteers in FiM do not necessarily have to volunteer at the event the team is attending to count. For example, if a team were competing in a week 3 and a week 4 event, they could send two volunteers to a week 1 event and two more to a week 2 event, alternatively, they could send 4 volunteers to a single event and meet the requirement. This can sometimes lead to some events being shorter on volunteers than others (especially newer events or events with many new, small teams), but overall it seems to work out fairly well.

There are times that younger, smaller teams have exceptions made for them, but I find that generally this is more due to either a lack of knowledge of the requirement, and/or the teams coach being too in-over-their-heads to coordinate getting volunteers to fill the requirement. Generally though there aren't many repeat offenders when it comes to not providing volunteers, and most teams seem to figure it out by their second year in the program.