A Request for transparency from FIRST

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

"Simple, reliable" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of a FIRST-scale CVT.

Based on the examples of CVTs I have seen produced by FRC teams, simple and reliable don't seem that hard. Making it efficient at the same time, however, is another issue.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Orrr they may be in talks with kit sponsors about potential offerings in the future.

I am pretty sure that's the idea. And that helps expain why it is "secret". I can imagine that some of the potential suppliers don't even know they're on the radar yet. (At least, that's how I would do it).

[kevinhorn]

Obviously it was not helpful to flash the five year plan in front of us and then snatch it away. The lack of respect in that act was unfortunate but understandable. Bill and Kate seem to be under some other pressures and we can only guess what they may be. I believe that it would be fair to say that they believe in the goals of FIRST and want all teams to have a good experience.

So more important than what didn't work last year or what hardware is planned is:
What a more transparent FIRST would act like.
Below are some very raw ideas of what I would see from a more transparent FIRST. These ideas could be polished but I would really like others to fill in areas that I missed.

KOP

Alpha test with select teams in the fall. Revise and release for wide beta test in late spring. Release of new or changed core items by Sept 30th. This allows for all teams to have the opportunity to learn the base technology prior to applying it in competition. This also gives a more accurate picture of the engineering process. Engineering is iterative, no one gets every detail right on the first try. Let teams see what worked and what FIRST plans on improving by posting the results of the alpha tests.

Help teams to budget by giving estimate of product life and projected phase out dates on core items.


Rules

Try to give intent behind rules. The rules ask us to follow intent but often do not let us know what the true intent is.
eg. What is the intent of bumper plywood not touching? Unfair advantage? Safety? Why is a 45 deg bevel OK? I can only guess, and without intent language other peoples explanations are just guesses and are not helpful.

Let teams know if a rule is going to be retained for multiple seasons.

Allow all teams access to the Inspection manual. This is one of the best resources for teams to gauge how well their robot meets the rules. It was really unfortunate that the Inspectors manual was not released for all teams to use this year.

Administration

Let us know that FIRST understands how difficult it is to keep a team running.
EXAMPLE: Get rid of requirements like needing four pair of safety glasses to register. I bring plenty of spares and they are with my team where they should be not in my co-coaches registration bag. As a coach I have a spread sheet of who must have what, where and when, this spread sheet goes from one week before the regional to closing ceremonies on Saturday night. Between coordinating carpools, chaperones, packing lists, shipping paperwork, inspection changes, upgrade strategy, and minute by minute crisis management I could use less "have to's".

FEEDBACK

One of the biggest issues that I see is that there is no method of providing feedback to FIRST so they know what didn't work for us. Thus they can't change it so that it will work next year.
EXAMPLE: The BOM template.
The template was non functional in the condition that it was posted. Even after "fixing" the formatting I was really unclear what the purpose was. This is not a rules question. But having a way to work with FIRST to improve the product would benifit us all.
We need to know that our input has been considered in order to stay invested.
Many professional orginizations have a method of proposals for changes to codes and standards. These proposals require the submitter to give rational for the change and the submitter is provided a response.

I look forward to hearing what transparency would look like to you.

[EricH]

With regards to alpha/beta testing the KOP, 1) they've been doing that with the control system as best they can, and 2) doing that with less than every team gives certain teams an advantage, and doing it with every team means releasing most of the KOP well before the kickoff. If you can come up with a middle ground, send it on to the GDC.

With regards to the rules, indicating that a rule will be retained would be nice, but seeing as the GDC probably doesn't know that it will be, counterproductive. It's easy to guess which rules will be retained, but not with a 100% accuracy. All teams have access to the Inspection Manual. It's better known as Section 8 of the Manual. The Inspection Checklist is also released, and is what the inspectors go by.

I can understand the request for the intent behind the rules, in cases where it is not clear. Much of the time, it is clear. (And they've gotten much better: More blue boxes next year too would be nicer).

With respect to the administration and feedback, there is a channel. You email them at an address that Bill is more than happy to post in his blog, or you go to the "Contact Us" portion of their site and let them know.

I think that it was partially helpful to briefly show the 5-year plan. It tells us that yes, they are working on it, but no, they aren't done with it (and they would rather not have somebody see it and make it really, really hard for them to carry it out.)

Transparency to you seems to be, "Tell us everything except the game."

Transparency to me is, "Tell me what I need to know, when I need to know it (usually as early as possible), or tell me that you can't tell me. If you can't tell me everything, tell what you can tell, and when I can expect to get the rest." (Oh, and tell if there's nothing to tell--like Updates 17 and 19.)

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by kevinhorn

FEEDBACK

One of the biggest issues that I see is that there is no method of providing feedback to FIRST so they know what didn't work for us. Thus they can't change it so that it will work next year.
EXAMPLE: The BOM template.
The template was non functional in the condition that it was posted. Even after "fixing" the formatting I was really unclear what the purpose was. This is not a rules question. But having a way to work with FIRST to improve the product would benifit us all.
We need to know that our input has been considered in order to stay invested.
Many professional orginizations have a method of proposals for changes to codes and standards. These proposals require the submitter to give rational for the change and the submitter is provided a response.

I look forward to hearing what transparency would look like to you.

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. I organized one for Maryland. It was a lot of work, but provided feedback that was sent to HQ. There may have been things tweaked because of the Team Forums, but I was never able to really figure that out. Local areas may still conduct their own.

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. One year there was an action plan distributed the last day addressing the concerns submitted. The Regional Directors still serve as the POC for the different regions. I believe they will be meeting in early June. An email to your RD with concrete concerns/suggestions might be one avenue to give feedback.

FRC has a survey this year. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ghlight=survey and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

And as mentioned, Bill's Blog offers a way to comment. But I have no idea what the feedback loop is here either.

[kevinhorn]

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

Originally Posted by RoboMom

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. ...

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

Originally Posted by RoboMom

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. ...

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

Originally Posted by RoboMom

FRC has a survey this year. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ghlight=survey and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

[kevinhorn]

These are good suggestions Thankyou!

Originally Posted by RoboMom

FRC used to conduct facilitated "Team Forum" meeting in different geographic areas asking for feedback on questions selected by FRC. ...

Of all the ideas that I listed feedback is the most difficult to achieve.

Originally Posted by RoboMom

For a couple of years I attended the "Regional Directors" meetings at HQ. During those meeting there was an opportunity to submit concerns to be addressed. ...

So there has been an effort in the past. This is good. The meeting is a long way from my home my home, but a possibility for some.

Originally Posted by RoboMom

FRC has a survey this year and it looks like FRC is interested in gathering feedback on certain areas of the FRC team experience. I wish some of these questions were worded differently and had a different menu of options and wish there were more opportunities to address open-ended concerns. I have no idea what the feedback loop is.

I believe that I filled out this and other surveys this year and last. I was specific, I offered to help. I offered my contact info should anyone have follow up questions. Unfortunately it does not feel like feed back if there is no response nor any change. A simple "we will consider it" would be great. Even a "no that isn't gonna happen" would be a start.


So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by kevinhorn

So to keep this moving: I have had two responses to my ideas but no responses stating other peoples ideas of what transparency looks like to them.

Actually, you had one. Read my last post in this thread, the last paragraph.

[kamocat]

Dear GDC:

Thank you for stating your intent behind the rules this year. This is a step towards transparency. There is a long ways yet to go.

Sincerely,
Marshal Horn

[DonRotolo]

And I'd like to add a big thanks for Bill Miller for offering to run the FRC Live! workshops at Championships again this year. Last year's sessions brought us FIRST Choice this year.

Now all I need to do is send a quick note to Bill on what I'd like to hear from him this year. Everyone should do this.

[Chris is me]

Am I the only person who thinks that the issues with FTC parts and the mini-bot this year was yet another example of a lack of transparency hurting teams?

If FIRST had come out and said "Hey, this next game will basically require FTC parts - you should account for that in your budget" - teams like mine would not be in the predicament they are now.

I feel like the MiniBot situation was made much worse because FIRST was by no means transparent about it.

[dlavery]

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

[Steve Compton]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave


.

no dave, you're not - with you all the way on this one.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

While that is true, Dave, there may be teams who were planning to do a Minibot, did not realize that the motors and battery were required, and opted not to get the FTC parts kit, then placed their order before Tuesday night. Those teams--what of them? If they can't change their order, they now have to pay for at a minimum the motor and batteries. Strong hints do not definite clarity make.

I think that's part of what Chris is getting at. A simple statement like, "If you want to have a Minibot, you should probably get the Mini Kit from FIRST Choice" would have saved those teams a lot of frustration that they now are feeling.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Am I the only person that really thinks people should really, really READ and UNDERSTAND the manual and the options they have in front of them rather than endlessly whining about a non-issue?

The FTC parts that teams can use on their mini-bot are FREE. You have effectively already paid for them as part of your registration and they are virtually included as part of the KOP. All you have to do is get on FIRST Choice and have it sent to you.

If you are "budgeting" for large purchases of hundreds of dollars worth of Tetrix parts, then that is your fault for not taking advantage of the resources that have already been given to you. That is not FIRST's fault - it is yours.

-dave



.

What was the reasoning behind not including that FTC kit in the KOP to begin with?

How about the motors and battery and such?

Teams that want to build multiple mini bots will HAVE to purchase these parts.

Are you telling me that one battery will last an entire build season and competition season?

How many FRC teams have one battery and one charger?

How many teams use exactly what's in the KOP and only that?

THERE ARE MANY OTHER PIECES THAT YOU BASICALLY NEED TO PURCHASE TO HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL MINI BOT. That is the point.

The FIRST choice kit is not enough. It's great that it is free. It's great that we get 30% off from another site.

Think about all the down time from ordering the parts from yet another site, the shipping costs, etc.