A Request for transparency from FIRST

[Adam Y.]

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.

If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.

I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

It was v.5, as in 0.5.

[EricH]

Guys, the long and the short of it is that for whatever reason, the teams didn't get the memo that the VEX system was temporary, whatever that memo was or if there was one. So they invested lots of money in the VEX system, only to have the change to Tetrix happen. Whoever's fault it was, what's done is done, and many people are annoyed. It would have been better to know in advance, but we didn't.

It is certainly nice to know about things that will affect us substantially ahead of time. SAE Aero Design switched to the 2.4 GHz control channel this year. However, for at least two years before the change, there was a notice in the rules to the effect of: "We are changing to 2.4 GHz, probably around 2010. This is so you can plan your budget to get a 2.4 Ghz system. Be ready. To prepare, 2.4 GHz is allowed at competition." It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

[Foster]

I'd like to see the "number of students" number too. We are growing, our FRC team has gone from 10 to 30 students per year (this is year 6). Our VRC teams have gone from 1 team 5 students in 2005-6 to 9 teams with 50+ students this year. So we are reaching out to more students, the growth is good. This is our first year for a FLL team and that's another 12 students.

One of the things about FLL, FTC and VRC is that when we get more roboteers it's a smaller upfront cost to spin up another team. With FRC that's a harder prospect, the base cost is much higher. I like to see everyone engaged and thats a tough thing to do with a large FRC team. Some teams (and you know who you are) have students that are always focused, for some of us it's a much bigger challenge.

And all roboteers don't all groove on the bigger robots. I have high school students that want to work on the VEX bots, the big bot does not interest them. On the other hand I have 7th graders that would dump the small bots in a heartbeat to work on the big one.

Run the program that works for you and your roboteers. There are 50+ million students NOT in a robot program, so we have room for everyone. And remember there are robotic programs for the air and water, they are also worth doing.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

How about a compromise between the two, number of students involved. If memory serves correctly TIMS asks for the number of students on the team. Assuming there is some correlation between number of students involved and cultural impact this number would show us impact of teams new and old. It would allow FIRST to see if teams are starting and then slowly dying off or if teams are growing over time.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

One of the things that has surprised me is how it is relatively straightforward to measure how well the community 'embraces' teams and their efforts to promote STEM education. The Chairman's submission works to assess that by reviewing indicators like partnerships, communication, and other support factors.

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.

Sure, if you ignore things like chemical engineering, biological engineering, earth & atmospheric sciences, nuclear physics, environmental eng., electromagnetics, solid state physics, industrial engineering, material science engineering, aerospace engineering, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, information and modulation theory, and so on.

Engineering and science are huge fields, we barely even touch the tip of the iceberg.

[JaneYoung]

In my opinion, introducing students to robotics programs and interesting them in science and technology is a short-term goal. The long-term goal would be looking at and assessing the results of the college graduates and their degree choices and career decisions stemming from the experiences with FIRST programs in elementary, middle, and high school years.
--
There are many areas that can be addressed when requesting more transparency. To continue to strive to expand at a very fast rate without a clear course of sustainability and therefore, direction - is one that I think is very important.

[GaryVoshol]

Regarding the switch in the controller, part of the concern was also with making it reusable, and not including it and other parts in the Veteran KoP.

A good transition was the way FLL handled RCX --> NXT. Both systems were allowed to be used, so teams with legacy RCX's could still use them; it was pointed out that there would be less and less support for the RCX. Compare that to the abrupt switch away from VEX. I don't recall seeing any RCX during the last season; the transition has pretty much been complete.

Obviously we couldn't use two different control systems in FRC because of the field controls, so the analogy isn't exactly parallel. But if it was known at the beginning that teams would not get as many parts in their kit this year, they may have made some different decisions last year. With advance knowledge comes more options and opportunities. That's all that is being asked for.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by EricH

It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

Getting back on topic: This thread may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Getting back on topic: This thread may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.

Thanks for making the link to recent announcements from FIRST. I didn't want to post the link but was thinking the very same thing in regards to this being honest efforts by FIRST to share information when it is appropriate.

In regards to the championship move, this has probably been in the works for some time and the greater community only needed to know when the deal was finalized.

I still have to believe that the staff at FIRST is working towards the benefit of the program which has to be to the benefit of most teams or the program would die. Not saying they don't make mistakes. The original letter and posts here by some of the signatures, indicate that they have faith in FIRST but would like to be more engaged and made aware of significant changes when it is reasonable to do so.

[Chris is me]

For the Championship, I don't really know what else FIRST could have told us about it. And they did tell us over a year in advance. There's not much to criticize, in my opinion, on that decision.

[Alan Anderson]

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog. For example, there was the mention that crate requirements might change. But the informal tone of the blog and its occasional misstatements of fact tend to keep me from taking it too seriously, and the interesting but irrelevant tidbits about such things as the GDC's dietary habits makes it hard to sift out the important information.

The day-to-day details don't have to be published in order for teams and mentor groups to be more effective. It's the medium- to long-term plans that are needed in order to give us direction. We have the tools, and we'd like to think we have the skills, but we don't have the blueprints, or even the design sketches.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog.

You are absolutely right, Alan. FIRST is giving us a lot more information than they used to. Unfortunately, that's a pandoras' box because once people find out that there is information out there, they want it all (even before decisions are made).

FIRST made a decision to be more transparent with their mid-range plans a few years ago (It seems to me) and now they are paying for it.

FIRSTs goal is to inspire kids to become engineers / inventors. In order to do that they sometimes need to make decisions that will be unpopular or cause turmoil within the established following. These things need to be done unilaterally, and do not need an open discussion, which would happen with any more transparency.

It's my opinion (I'll only speak for myself) that FIRST does a good job of balancing its goals with the needs of the faithful. Yes there are bumps in the road and yes things could always be done better, but I challange anyone whom is in a position of authority to make hard decisions without upsetting someone. It can't be continuously done.

JM(NS)HO

[DonRotolo]

I received a phone call from Bill Miller Wednesday (I've been procrastinating on writing this).

FIRST understands the point of the letter, has discussed it at the highest levels, and absolutely takes it seriously. They are mindful of changes and their impact, and want to keep teams as well-informed as possible.

They do regularly consult with Hall of Fame teams and WFA winners (and sometimes local teams) when making important decisions, and wish they could involve a wider audience but logistics sometimes prevent that. (To Jack Jones' point, oure letter was developed that way).

He told me that they'll definitely take action on this, and I suggested to Bill that we push the time frame on this issue to the end of the 2010 season, so they could develop a quality communication of their vision, not just dash off something. He seemed grateful for the extra time, and promised they'd absolutely address it to the best of their ability.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

I still have to believe that the staff at FIRST is working towards the benefit of the program which has to be to the benefit of most teams

After speaking with Bill Miller, I have to agree Andrew. These guys are passionate about it.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It occurred to me this morning that FIRST already seems to be trying to give us more advance warning of things, in the form of Bill's Blog.

It's the medium- to long-term plans that are needed in order to give us direction.

Alan, did you tap into my phone call? I agree that we are seeing greater transparency already, and now we are pushing the envelope harder (in a good way). I thanked Bill for his blog. In my own opinion, don't be fooled by the informality of the blog, he means what he writes.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

FIRST made a decision to be more transparent with their mid-range plans a few years ago (It seems to me) and now they are paying for it.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to know everything, immediately. Just like here at work, "Management" informs us the best they can, but not everything can be said publicly.