A Request for transparency from FIRST

[Jack Jones]

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands. Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated. Last year a major complaint against FiM was the so-called lack of transparency. It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place for everyone to add their two cents.

That said; I wish the gang of thirty-five well in negotiating their five year plan. My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

by a group of thirty-five among thousands. .

If these 35 don't represent the opinions and ideals of majority of the FIRST community...then I don't know who does...

[Dancin103]

Don and all of those involved, thank you for sending in this letter. From my 15 years in FIRST reading through your letter, I could only think about the criteria they read off when announcing the winner for the KPCB Entrepreneurship award when I was reading your letter. If only FIRST would do what they asked of teams to do in establishing themselves as a company with plans for the future.

Cass

[Mr.G]

I agree with this and think that one person from every team should have a chance to have input using something like the TIMS system.

If the team wants to have input they should have to write a letter (limited by number of letters and/or subjects so it doesn't get to long) on what they want to see changed. That way the people that really care will get time to speak.

Then the letters from the teams all get summarized and a list created. Next the person that wrote the letter gets to vote on a list or put the list in the order of importance to their team.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands. Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated.

Do you agree or disagree with what they are asking for? If you agree say so, if not say so and explain why.

[Schnabel]

I feel that this letter cuts to the point, and does the job of requesting, not demanding, well. Make sure to keep us informed!

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public.

I have been involved in this sort of thing before, so let me share what I have learned.

1) Essentially the few are trying to represent the thousands of people who are involved, wouldn't the few want the thousands to have their backs? Especially when dealing with those who lead the thousands? I felt so, and usually I would be proven wrong about what the majority opinion was, even after starting to take action. This would usually lead to returning the issue at hand back to normal.

2)Those who are being asked to change will retaliate one way or another. When I am the one being asked to change, I would react differently if a majority felt the same way, and not just a few. Statements such as this must be made public in order to get a feel as to what the majority opinion is. Sure you have the few that feel one way, but when a statement is made public, and a general consensus can be determined, something should be done. This may be the difference between this letter being tossed to the side, or being brought up for consideration.

3)When you start to make something like this public, keep the public updated. This again goes with having the backs of the few. If the thousands do not know what's new, how can they support it?

Just remember, public opinion on a forum like this is not the decision making tool. This thread is just as lethal as any design your own game thread.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

That said; I wish the gang of thirty-five well in negotiating their five year plan. My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

I don't see what your point is here. The intent of this letter was not for a small group of select people to attempt to influence FIRST policy. It was for a representative group of mentors with a lot of experience in FRC to voice their concern that the ship seems to be sailing without a plotted course, so to speak. Maybe FIRST will respond and publish (to everyone, not just this small subset of people) what their vision is for the next 5-10 years and how they plan to get there.

I really don't see how you can be opposed to this.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands.

It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in public.

Only those 35 people affixed their names to the letter. Many more have been involved in the discussions about what we as team members "deserve" to know about FIRST's plans for the future.

Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated.

"Once again"? What previous events are you thinking of?

It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place (as JVN once put it) ‘for everyone to put their stink on it.’

That sounds inconsistent. Was "limit the number of seats" to "thirty-five among thousands" a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?

Would you have preferred that this letter remain unpublished? Would you have wanted it to remain unsent? I don't understand what your point is.

[yodameister]

Even though this is only my 5th year in FIRST, I could not agree more that we need open lines of communication. I have been in education for over a decade now and every school has a plan for the future and most times the teachers are involved in that process in some way or another.

I wish I could have been involved in this letter as I definitely would have put my name to it, and agree with its contents. I have always wanted to be able to give my input to FIRST and if asked, would eagerly do so.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

My only hope is that you do not try to get it done by petitioning the majority of us who exist from day to day on issues such as these.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by Schnabel

Make sure to keep us informed!

Absolutely!

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in public.

Thank you Alan.

Originally Posted by yodameister

I wish I could have been involved in this letter as I definitely would have put my name to it, and agree with its contents. I have always wanted to be able to give my input to FIRST and if asked, would eagerly do so.

I truly regret that logistics and timing simply did not allow for the input from the "thousands"; however I feel that additional input would not have changed the message or it's impact significantly.

Anyone who feels strongly about it is encouraged to share their comments with their FIRST Regional contact.

[,4lex S.]

Thank you for putting your time into this guys. I think this pretty much sums up most of my concerns with FIRST today, and I am glad such an experienced group came together to point this out to the directorship.

The magic curtain they hide the game behind every year should not extend to the overall goals of the organization. It seems almost like blindfolding everyone and then trying to get them to solve the problems we are trying to solve. This never seemed very efficient.

[kamocat]

I wanted to pull this back into visibility, as the season is nearing its end.
I'm not asking for new posts, but I'd like the greater FIRST community to be aware of this, and to foster clear and respectful communication to ensure everyone's needs are met.

[Chris is me]

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

They've been doing great with some things! Less than great with others. I'm sure the Dean's List was not an impulse decision...

For what it is worth, Dean mentioned this at the Midwest regional. Boiling it down (others can correct any misstatements), he didn't want to add lots of pressure during the build season. In addition, he really only wanted to see the best of the best in this initial year. The time crunch on teams allowed for the judges to not be overworked with up to 130 essays. I know not all teams submitted two names (or even one in some cases). From the sound of it, it was a post kick-off decision.
That said, I seem to recall there being hints at things to come in the kick-off. I don't know if Dean's List was what was intended.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by RMiller

For what it is worth, Dean mentioned this at the Midwest regional. Boiling it down (others can correct any misstatements), he didn't want to add lots of pressure during the build season. In addition, he really only wanted to see the best of the best in this initial year. The time crunch on teams allowed for the judges to not be overworked with up to 130 essays. I know not all teams submitted two names (or even one in some cases). From the sound of it, it was a post kick-off decision.
That said, I seem to recall there being hints at things to come in the kick-off. I don't know if Dean's List was what was intended.

Well, if you're looking for the best of the best, waiting till the last minute will NOT get you all of the best. Sorry, but this was a crappy, misguided decision if that really was the thinking.

Many teams I'm sure are like mine and don't have a ton of mentors or students sitting around waiting for something to do. I, personally, had to make a decision to ignore the robot withholding work for 2-3 full days because we made the decision to write the nominations. Thus, our robot was not as competitive on the field as it might have been in our initial event. It's not a decision that I regret, but I'm surely not pleased I was forced to make it. Other teams - some of the best with really awesome kids - decided the opposite, and I fully understand and support their choices as well.

Dean's list is a long overdue honor and I'm thrilled it exists. However, to quote a far more astute person than I on these boards, this was an "abortive process" at best this year.