A Request for transparency from FIRST

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.
You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.
It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

OAO

The issues are debated here because often our only chance of "understanding" what FIRST is doing is to debate for a while, then assume. In this case, Transparency would be pretty darn nice. People running teams can more effectively line their team up with the plan of FIRST, saving money and preventing potential embarrassment over things like the FTC switch.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Several mentors collaborated on this letter, which was sent to FIRST by mail on 23 September.

Possibly a bit more elaboration as to motive and reasoning for making the letter public on this forum would reduce cynical speculation as to why it was published. I am a fan of open communication but I would think some amount of long range planning need not be shared with the masses of volunteers in an organization as large as FIRST. Reason being when plans change and not everyone gets the word you are in a worse situation because people were acting upon a public plan.

So I come down in the middle on this request and don't necessarily see the benefit for posting the text of the letter on a public forum where some will take the opportunity to bandwagon on the stink parade. Tends to create an air of confrontation when your letter does not purport to be confrontational.

So if you could succinctly add to your post as to why you chose to make the letter public and how that serves your purpose of seeking transparency I think it might help set the tone for any further debate by removing cynicism from the minds of posters.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.

It's not so much that anyone misunderstood. It's that we're having trouble understanding it at all. That's what the questions addressed to you were all about, so that we could find out more clearly what you were trying to say. The fact that you didn't answer any of them makes me wonder even more what you are trying to express.

You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.

This doesn't help me figure out what you want us to understand. In this particular case, do you think transparency is unnecessary? Do you think it is impossible? Do you believe that FIRST's goals are served better by not telling people their plans for the near future?

It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

I still don't follow you. Which issues do you wish not to see debated? The letter has been sent. Any discussion here can't affect its content, and no such discussion was suggested. The only issue I see open at the moment is what point of view you're coming from, so that your comments can be interpreted in that context.

[GaryVoshol]

The transparency is that this group of mentors and ex-mentors is telling what has happened. Did this letter get composed without every team having input? Yes. Was the original notice of the plan to create some form of letter disseminated through a medium that not everyone has access to? Yes. Was there any intent to exclude any people from knowing what was done? No - thus the notice posted here.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

...

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

...

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

...

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

...

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

...

Guys - My advice at this particular moment is to be careful to look forward a bit more and backward a bit less. We are in danger of getting off the topic. - Blake

[Jonathan Norris]

to get back on topic, I would like to show my support for this letter. improvements have been made communicating with the community about recent changes, but more communication is needed about the future plans of FIRST.

[Mr. Pockets]

I figure that I'm probably just echoing the crowd here, but you did a phenomenal job of making your points clear without appearing confrontational.

Congrats to all involved!

[dtengineering]

First of all, the letter not only makes some good points, but also makes them in a very GP manner.

I express my support for the letter and appreciation to those who took the time to put it together. Writing a letter by committee is never easy, but this one clearly resonates with the FIRST mentor/coach/teacher community.

I think the idea of "we support you, but let us help you" is an important one. Had the FIRST board listented to the feedback on VEX and FTC, we might have 50+ FVC teams competing in BC instead of 6 FTC teams and 40+ VEX teams.

Jason

[Akash Rastogi]

Whenever it is available, will the response from FIRST be made public as well? I'd love to see the reaction.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

So if you could succinctly add to your post as to why you chose to make the letter public and how that serves your purpose of seeking transparency I think it might help set the tone for any further debate by removing cynicism from the minds of posters.

Succinct was never my forte but here's what I came up with:

I accepted the challenge of communicating this issue to FIRST. I felt it would be too difficult and yield essentially the same result if more people were to be involved, so it was kept small. It was exposed for comment and is far better than what was originally developed because of those comments and edits.

I thought long and hard about posting this even though we started the effort with that intent. In the end I did post it (obviously). My purpose for posting it was to make the larger CD community aware that such a request was being made. A secondary reason was to help 'push' the issue with FIRST a little by making it 'public' - a mild form of peer pressure. The last reason for posting it was to demonstrate to students that one can make their views known to others without intimidation, demands and the negativity that goes with all that.

I will most certainly share all responses received, if appropriate. However, please carefully note I did not ask for any response; instead I asked for a specific action. I do not expect that action to be taken any time before the end of next season, simply because FIRST has certain priorities that have more critical deadlines, and what was requested is not something that can be created with little effort.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Thanks for posting Don and your second and third paragraphs are succinct enough for me. I appreciate you posting your intent to inform others while also wanting to take the opportunity to model means of requesting follow up or action in a GP manner via your letter.

I get tired of seeing pile on threads of bashing this that or the other and didn't want to see another thread go that direction. Others who post should take into consideration your intentions and follow suit.

APS

[Tom Line]

I'm not sure exactly how anyone could disagree with this.

There is no suggested change in FIRST's planned actions: it is the equivalent to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request. I.e.: tell us what you you're doing, and what you are planning.

I'm sure any number of teams could hold up example of where forward-planning information would have been very helpful. Purchasing decisions are usually the most affected by that information: for instance a team who runs out and purchases expensive portable machine tools for use at matches might be very disgruntled to discover that FIRST is considering rules changes that have made those tools illegal to bring to events (which did occur).

You have my full support.

FIRST mandates on two forum posts a week for Beta testing teams to keep them in constant communication with the community. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a similar plan.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

FIRST mandates on two forum posts a week for Beta testing teams to keep them in constant communication with the community. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a similar plan.

That is rather the point from my perspective.

I've been involved in establishing non-profit organizations and sitting on boards for several years. Part of that involvement is establishing long term and short term goals and building those into the business plan and the development of the organization. It is also an area that attracts support, sponsorship, and attention because the organization looks forward, outward, and with optimism towards the future while at the same time, having a realistic course of action in place.

If the goals/plans are impacted by economic changes then those can be addressed as needed while keeping the organization on track.

[Team2339]

I think we can safely assume the FIRST staff has our best interests at heart and seeks to promote the FIRST principles and GP. As with any organization, sometimes the immediate tasks tend to draw the most effort, especially with the economic/business climate these days.

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Science is sometimes doing more with less with the emphasis on reasoning and problem solving. The best investment we can make is in our students and their capabilities to reason and solve problems, structure our teams with change and progress in mind, and prepare for what's next.

Thanks for the letter.

See you all in 2010

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Team2339

A 5 year, 10 Year, etc, plan is a great concept, but with FIRST, it would be by nature a basis for change. Technology is evolving faster than each competition cycle with new innovations making the current robot systems almost obsolete before they hit the floor.

Yeah, that's true, and for tech issues I'm sure people would give FIRST lenience in this manner. But stuff like the control system change, FiM implementation, etc. aren't really things that should be changing so rapidly that it's worthless to tell anyone outside of FIRST in advance.

I believe the answer should be to expect change, expect adaptation to new technologies, expect to think ahead and approach each season lightly without major specific tech investments.

Was I not supposed to make a major investment in Vex parts for FVC? There's no way I could have gotten around that. Yet FIRST discontinues its use not a year after I spent thousands on them.