|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
In and out of season, the group of district VCs get together on conference calls and quite a few email chains to sync up on any issues or new instructions from FIRST that may come up. We're also connected via a few email chains & encouraged to check in if we need more people for an event (especially trained roles - We had some referees drop last-minute before Montgomery this year and being able to email the other VCs with 'can you contact your referees and see if they're free, pretty please?' was a godsend), or to report after our event on any hiccups, or things future-week VC's could help streamline for the upcoming events. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
On the continuing line of Volunteer C's:
Is there a body willing at this time to step up to the task? I ask because if we want some minimal District roll-out in 2018, names and titles and skills must go in the org chart in order to pull it off with a fine degree of Professionalism. It wouldn't hurt too to have a like-minded person/group who would like to take on the several off-season FRC events so there is minimal clash of dates and locations. Unfortunate that Chezy Champs and Fall Classic conflict. Off-season events in the CA: Chezy Champs by FRC 254 Battle at the Border by FRC 1538 MadTown Throwdown by FRC 2073 CalGames Capital City Classic? Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics Did I miss any? Don't think the list is up to date. (and spelling?) Need some help from the research-minded. Joe Petito Machinist |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Thanxx Bailey!
Joe |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It seems like some sort of "Chair of the Volunteer Committee" or "VC Coordinator" role is important to manage the existing volunteer base and help out new VC's as they develop. Does the individual in this "VC management" role also VC an event, or do they remain as purely top-level organizational support? Also seems like mixed results on whether or not VC's cover multiple events, although it seems that a unique VC for each event would minimize the load. Thanks again for all the help! -Mike |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Hi Michael C:
For the org chart thing: Would it be safe to say the large part of us in the discussion have our fingers on the robots of local teams? The next level is an organization like (in my case) LA Robotics-- or VEX, or FLL/FTC, BotBall, various Arduino groups, Maker groups, etc. A possibility: the Volunteer Coordinator on the state level would be something of an intelligence gathering and disseminating position/organization, having contact with the individuals/groups sponsoring the events themselves. We again return to the stretching of volunteers. Not an aficionado of politics, I'm out of the loop of BIG FRC decision making. Who is it in the Cal who makes decisions on dates/sites for events? Joe Building Contractor |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
One other note on the whole "scheduling offseasons" thing:
There was one year that a whole bunch of offseasons were back-to-back-to-back and using the same field. Could be really nice to run that system again, and send any robots competing week-to-week along with the field (maybe in caravan). On the VC element, I know there's some VCs who cover multiple events, but in most of those cases that I'm aware of, they're working with other VCs who are only doing one event. And at at least one regional, there are two VCs, just for that regional, independent of anybody coming in to work with them. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
To minimize volunteer workload and prevent burnout, ideally we would have unique VCs for each District Event in California. Being a VC is a lot of work, especially for brand new events.
Also, if/when we switch to Districts in CA, if we bring events to new locations not currently near any regionals, and we involve mentors/volunteers from those areas in the event planning committees, we should be able to tap into new pools of volunteers. I know there are a lot of people here in the Antelope Valley, for example, who would be great key volunteers. I am sure the same applies to other areas around the state. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles.
![]() |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
Not saying doubling up your OCR VC is a bad idea, just proposing that the model other regions operate could produce similar results. Both seem like fair options, the obvious challenge of the "double up" approach is finding more KVs. Please let us know how 2+ KV's works for OCR! In general, I'm hoping we can organize a push to double up KV roles at 2017 CA Regionals, or at least have a KV and one or two "shadows" in each role. We can grow our Volunteer base in preparation for the transition, but growing the pool in general seems like a healthy goal no matter what. This 2+ KV approach that is OCR is taking seems like a great way to grow the volunteer base. Thanks! -Mike |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
In addition to the list I keep, as an LRI I get to interact with a TON of mentors in the pits, and actively help recruit new volunteers from those interactions - I've found plenty of inspectors and CSA's that way! |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
To elaborate on Libby's post, FIRST Mid-Atlantic continues to work towards having a "coordinator" for each of the key volunteer roles (FTA, Field Supervisors, Head Refs, LRI, etc) that helps take some of the burden off of VCs by identifying volunteers, spreading them out to events, and working training of new individuals in the roles. We're far from perfecting it, but it does seem to be helping so far.
One additional "role" that isn't traditional for FRC and I'm not sure if any other areas do it is the "MAR Equipment Representative (MER)". MERs are volunteers with a thorough knowledge of all of the MAR equipment and assets. These personnel share some responsibility with the event FTA for supervision of equipment unloading and load out as well as field set-up and teardown. By having this, the burden on local event committees and the FTA is lessened and allows more work to be done in parallel (ex. MER is loading cases in the PODS outside while the FTA is finishing packing and OKing cases inside). This role is especially important for our offseason events as they do not always have the same volunteer level of experience as official events. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Distillation of points: * What we do now in the CA is pretty good, with provisos. * Going to the district model means we do more of it, to equal high standards, meanwhile acquiring the volunteers to make it so. * The District model in the CA will be idiosyncratic, in that it will probably not conform to what's happening in the MI., MA, IN, etc. It will be helpful that those there understand that we (not the exclusive "we") must make the thing work in our weird environment: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...nap-story.html Variables and outstanding obstacles: * Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising? * Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to. *Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things... We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings. Joe Petito Wind Turbine Mechanic |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Wow. Usually bringing up the role of the Volunteer Coordinator is a thread killer.
There is actually an "official" role for Districts with the title of "Senior Volunteer Coordinator". The position description from HQ leaves a lot to be desired (doesn't take any planning into account for starters). Attached. I spent hundreds of hours doing this role. What I discovered going into the roll out of FIRST Chesapeake this past season was that documentation from other areas was sparse, other District VCs were generous to share, and that everyone was doing things a bit differently. What works for a single Regional doesn't for Districts. Communication and "pitching in" around volunteer coordination to help across each of the events to benefit the District as a whole is vital. The VCs really do need to work together. I recruited and trained 4 VC's (3 local events and District CMP) for Maryland/DC which was my assigned territory. Truthfully not sure how it was done in VA where I had a counterpart. Merging MD/DC/VA this year had a lot of positives, especially for the teams. And some major heartache for those of us tasked with planning HOW to do things, organizing, documenting and especially communicating across 2 regions who had been doing their own thing quite capably for years. (Shout out to Anne Shade who documented the whole process for roll out of our District events in MD/DC.) I brought all the VC's together once in-person and we had phone meetings on a regular basis. The VC's worked in partnership with other "Senior" positions for their assigned District event- Senior Head Ref(s), Senior LRI, Senior Judge Advisor(s), FTA pool. Recruitment was a team effort between me, the Seniors and the VC's. The Seniors signed off on any key position before any assignment was made and we utilized shared document files and lots of color coding as we moved along. And like MAR we had "Equipment/Logistics" role - someone designated to be the lead for all the stuff. For MD/DC events we also had Event Managers who worked together on some things across the events - like a common caterer for volunteer food. I have a lot I could write here. I learned a tremendous amount this past year. In Maryland, I am the overall Volunteer Director where I work with all 4 programs and cross-program volunteering is something I pay attention to. (Note: one of the VCs actually came from the FLL world where he was a VC. Two were FRC alumni and the 4th had worked with me on the Chesapeake Regional and agreed to cover the District CMP.)I do lots of broad level recruitment with companies and organizations, and I offer the total "buffet" of programs. There are so many factors that go into a decision where/when/what to volunteer and we need to think outside of the current pool. I think it is important to have a Senior VC(s) for a District. Sometimes it is hard keeping up with all the conference calls and updates coming from HQ and the job starts in Sept. so good to have one person covering. And I dealt with all the issues with the VIMS/VMS. It is also important to have one person be the "heavy". For example, one of the unexpected challenges was gearing up positions for 7 District events all leading into one District CMP meant not everyone could have the job they wanted/deserved at the CMP. I had to turn away over 30 volunteers. It was very stressful, and there are volunteers who yelled at me and criticized me in public and in feedback. I took this on, but it was hard. My idea of the perfect volunteer is the one who checks their ego at the door and says "assign me as needed". And means it. You will get the adult beverage of your choice from me and my gratitude. I have stories! About team players and about prima donnas (definition: a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance". But I digress. We used the offseason Battle O'Baltimore last year to train a VC as well as some other key positions. It is gratifying to see this conversation. Happy to answer any questions. Last edited by RoboMom : 07-07-2016 at 04:27. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: California District Proposal
Quote:
In the District System $1000 of your initial registration fee is given to the District and the district keeps all 3rd play $1000 registration fees. The typical district event costs between $10k and $30k to produce while the typical Regional starts at $100~200K and can cost significantly more than that in places where the cost of the venue is high. The typical District Championship runs around the price of a Regional This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well. Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers. Concerning scheduling you really only have to worry about the timing of the events in your District and do not have to worry about neighboring Districts or Regionals. Non District teams are not allowed to compete in a District event and the few teams that choose to do an inter-district play just have to figure out what works with the home events they wish to attend out of the available remaining spaces. In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend. With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|