Design - is ChiefDelphi professional?

[Andy Brockway]

Several years ago I questioned the new rule concerning use of designs developed outside of the approved fabrication schedule. The rules as written then appeared to prohibit the use of designs posted on ChiefDelphi.

The question now is if the 2009 rules actually allow the use of these designs. In section 8.2 Definitions under COTS there is the following:

Example 3: a team obtains openly available design drawings from a professional publication during the pre-season, and uses them to fabricate a gearbox for their ROBOT during the build period following kick-off. The design drawings would be considered a COTS item, and may be used as “raw material” to fabricate the gearbox. The finished gearbox itself would be a FABRICATED ITEM, and not a COTS item.

So is ChiefDelphi a “professional publication”? If it is, why is there a specific rule <R65>, for allowing software code obtained from open sources such as “commonly used FRC community-accessible web resources”. This rule is also cited as an example in rule <R24> for code posted in “a generally accessible public forum”.

Should hardware design be given the same weight and definition to remove any ambiguity as to legality? I propose that a rule similar to rule <R65> be included for hardware design.

<R??> For the purposes of the FIRST Robotics Competition, generally available hardware design drawings obtained from open sources (e.g. professional publications, commonly used FRC community-accessible web resources, VENDOR design files, etc.) that are not specifically affiliated with individual FRC teams shall be considered COTS items, and may be used.

Thoughts anyone?

[JesseK]

The design drawings would be considered a COTS item

What's the argument here?

CD is the 'open source' medium, and generally one could argue that the pictures posted here are ideas rather than concrete designs.

[Tristan Lall]

In the absence of a statement to the contrary from FIRST, I've assumed these to be illustrative examples, rather than enforceable rules. (Consider that the previous two examples are clearly illustrative rather than prescriptive, given that they name fictitious vendors and specific components.)

I would say that the example leaves open the possibility that you could also extend the analogy to other sources, because it's totally unclear which elements of the example are necessary, and which are incidental.

But with that said, I think that example 3 is poorly constructed. The 2009 rules simply cannot be applied in a logically consistent way to things that aren't part of the robot. Design drawings are not part of the robot, and are not COTS—unless you propose to shred the paper drawings and make papier-mâché gears. A component, for the purposes of the rules, is a robot part. COTS applies only to components and mechanisms—which are collections of components. Therefore it does not apply to drawings (used conventionally). Furthermore, COTS requires that something be available for purchase—yet the example says that you could obtain it from a "professional publication" without implying that a sale is necessary. What if the professional publication was in the public domain?

I figure FIRST was trying to illustrate the idea that a design drawing (no matter the source) that you follow in order to produce a part yourself, always leads to the part being a fabricated item (and not COTS). They would have benefitted from a bit of assistance with the phrasing, if that was their intention.


With regard to your proposed rule, I think it would be necessary to change the way COTS is defined in order to make that work. FIRST would have to extend the definition to some non-robot non-parts. (That sounds like a bad idea....)

It would also be very useful to state what is not allowed—your formulation of <R??> and <R65> both permit something, but don't prohibit anything. That means we would still have to pore through the rest of the rules, to try to figure out if the item is still permissible, despite not passing <R65> or <R??>. In fact, only if you interpret the text at the top of 8.3.4 to include non-team actions, and be enforceable in the first place (it's not a rule, but it's in the rulebook) is there any substantial restriction on code coming from a non-team source other than the ones listed in <R65>. (Or, you could make the assumption that code is a robot part and apply those rules, but that makes no sense given the way that the rules treat parts as physical things.)

[Chris is me]

I can't imagine teams would be allowed to use exact designs from Chief Delphi. That would mean the only team not allowed to use a given design would be the team that made and posted it. Which means that any offseason sharing would be giving a great design to another team rather than everyone learning from a design not identical to one that will be on a FIRST Robot.

[Bharat Nain]

I don't like these discussions because they dwell too deep into technicalities of things. The intent of all these rules is simply that teams don't build entire robots or entire components before the start of the build. Or program entire software modules. But this is a high school competition and some teams inevitably will use some small components that were designed before build. In the big scheme of things, the little stuff just won't matter. Besides, for most applications, taking a design/software code off somewhere won't just work by default. There is usually a lot of work involved in making it work. Instead of making the rulebook even more complex, I vote we keep things simple. Even if I were to get 1114's entire CAD book, it would be of no use to me for the next season. All I can do is learn from it.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

I don't like these discussions because they dwell too deep into technicalities of things. The intent of all these rules is simply that teams don't build entire robots or entire components before the start of the build. Or program entire software modules. But this is a high school competition and some teams inevitably will use some small components that were designed before build. In the big scheme of things, the little stuff just won't matter. Besides, for most applications, taking a design/software code off somewhere won't just work by default. There is usually a lot of work involved in making it work. Instead of making the rulebook even more complex, I vote we keep things simple. Even if I were to get 1114's entire CAD book, it would be of no use to me for the next season. All I can do is learn from it.

But sometimes you can get so much more picking the minds of the best teams in FIRST and seeing the methods to their madness than you would be simply copying their ideas.
Besides which I always felt people get too caught up in the robot and don't see what really makes the teams function so well is the organization itself.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Besides which I always felt people get too caught up in the robot and don't see what really makes the teams function so well is the organization itself.

In Soul of a New Machine Tracy Kidder wrote that you could see the IBM Corporation in their products. What does your robot(s) say about your team?

[Cody Carey]

I think this is a frivolous discussion. No matter how many times we go over it, It will still all amount to the same Idea.

It Doesn't Matter.

I've used some design ideas from chiefdelphi while designing previous robots. Did I copy them word for word or Dimension by dimension? No. I used the basic concept, and taught myself the principals behind the design, as did my entire team. We're all the better for it. That's how things go... We are humans, and we'll use what is given to us. Any rule outlawing that simple part of who we are would be as useless as the prohibition. As the cliche so finely puts: Steal from the best, invent the rest.