Town Hall Meeting Video

[IKE]

As a follow on to my lengthy post about "empathy", I thought that this post I saw on Ian Curtis's FB page was a great article to share:
The Engineer's Lament
by Malcolm Gladwell (author of several amazing books).

In the article, he tells a famous engineering joke about a Preist, a Doctor, and an Engineer playing golf. They are held up by a group of golfers clearly struggling. They ask the range manager what is going on, and the manager explains they are a group of firefighters that were blinded fighting a fire not too long ago. The Preist says he will say a prayer for the firefighters. They Doctor says he will call up an optimologist friend to see if there is something she could do. The Engineer asks: "Why can't they play at night?"

In the article, it talks in part about some of the biggest recalls in auto history and how they were handled and mis-handled.

While we may find the best compromise of a given solution set, sometimes the lack of compassion or empathy can come across as out of touch. As many communication experts will tell you, it is often less about what you say, and more about how you say it.

[Dan Petrovic]

While the town hall wasn't what I expected and while I don't think it was super productive, what's done is done and we need to move on.

One particular topic I'm interested in is the concept of allowing a few teams to choose which championship to go to. Which teams get to choose and how many? Will it be a lottery? Will it be by how you qualified (ie Chairman's award finalists, HoF, Legacy, and Rookie All-Star)?

Also, I have a feeling that Houston will be the more attractive option (warmer weather, less murdery than Detroit, likely attendance of 254 ), so how will they balance that?

[AndrewPospeshil]

Thanks to 1640 for the video!

I'm glad that this meeting happened - it shows that FIRST is open to input from teams. The meeting seemed relatively unproductive - expected. Emotions are high, and the kind of people who would miss part of the day to attend are probably the more passionate ones about the issues at hand. A few (very, very rambling) thoughts:

• The whole concern with Detroit as a venue is understandable but imo an overreaction. FIRST would not send thousands upon thousands of kids to a city if they believed it would be unsafe. Not to mention the city is demoing and rebuilding a huge portion of the area between downtown and midtown in the coming years, so I have confidence the city will not be as horrible as some seem to think it will be. If STL was good enough for FIRST's standards (which it had to be, evidently), then Detroit should be too.
• The "0 alumni on the FIRST board" statement was pretty jarring to read/hear but I guess it makes sense. Let's figure someone has to be around, oh 30 years old to have the business experience required to be on the first board (just a rough estimate from a high schooler who doesn't know what he's talking about). That means that they would've competed from roughly 2000-2003. FIRST was a vastly different place back then. Even if they had wanted to hire young alumni onto their board, they would not be as reflective of today's FIRST community as alumni who have competed much more recently.
• I think the main thing that a lot of people are still forgetting is that not every team has the same goal. Some just want to build a robot, compete at a regional (or 2 districts), and go home then learn from their experiences. Some teams want to win Einstein. There's nothing wrong with either. But FIRST is faced with an interesting dilemma: who do they lean towards? It's become obvious that they can't really cater to both kinds of teams - the program is just way too large. So do they create a model that helps mid- to low-level teams get a taste of the CMP experience? Or do they create a more exclusionary but ultimately more exciting model that pushes veteran powerhouses farther? This model also has the benefit of being more exciting for outsiders, but is less sustainable.
• Which brings me to my next thought: team sustainability. After the 2CMP announcement, many veteran teams, members, and mentors were outraged. Some claimed that they would just leave FIRST as they saw that the program was just no longer desirable to them. However, the much less often heard story is the rookie teams who don't have the resources or more importantly the drive to continue for subsequent years. They didn't advance to any level of competition above the minimum, so a lot of people would just give up. Now there are rookie teams who would use this only as motivation to get better and make DCMP or CMP, but I couldn't tell you how many rookies fall into either category. FIRST kind of needs to decide which group they think is more advantageous to aid - the established veterans, who are the cornerstones of their communities, role models for rookies, and even mentors? Or do they support rookie teams looking for just a taste of victory, who might never win Einstein but just want to travel outside their state and see robots from all across the world?

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil

Thanks to 1640 for the video!

I'm glad that this meeting happened - it shows that FIRST is open to input from teams. The meeting seemed relatively unproductive - expected. Emotions are high, and the kind of people who would miss part of the day to attend are probably the more passionate ones about the issues at hand. A few (very, very rambling) thoughts:

• The whole concern with Detroit as a venue is understandable but imo an overreaction. FIRST would not send thousands upon thousands of kids to a city if they believed it would be unsafe. Not to mention the city is demoing and rebuilding a huge portion of the area between downtown and midtown in the coming years, so I have confidence the city will not be as horrible as some seem to think it will be. If STL was good enough for FIRST's standards (which it had to be, evidently), then Detroit should be too.
• The "0 alumni on the FIRST board" statement was pretty jarring to read/hear but I guess it makes sense. Let's figure someone has to be around, oh 30 years old to have the business experience required to be on the first board (just a rough estimate from a high schooler who doesn't know what he's talking about). That means that they would've competed from roughly 2000-2003. FIRST was a vastly different place back then. Even if they had wanted to hire young alumni onto their board, they would not be as reflective of today's FIRST community as alumni who have competed much more recently.
• I think the main thing that a lot of people are still forgetting is that not every team has the same goal. Some just want to build a robot, compete at a regional (or 2 districts), and go home then learn from their experiences. Some teams want to win Einstein. There's nothing wrong with either. But FIRST is faced with an interesting dilemma: who do they lean towards? It's become obvious that they can't really cater to both kinds of teams - the program is just way too large. So do they create a model that helps mid- to low-level teams get a taste of the CMP experience? Or do they create a more exclusionary but ultimately more exciting model that pushes veteran powerhouses farther? This model also has the benefit of being more exciting for outsiders, but is less sustainable.
• Which brings me to my next thought: team sustainability. After the 2CMP announcement, many veteran teams, members, and mentors were outraged. Some claimed that they would just leave FIRST as they saw that the program was just no longer desirable to them. However, the much less often heard story is the rookie teams who don't have the resources or more importantly the drive to continue for subsequent years. They didn't advance to any level of competition above the minimum, so a lot of people would just give up. Now there are rookie teams who would use this only as motivation to get better and make DCMP or CMP, but I couldn't tell you how many rookies fall into either category. FIRST kind of needs to decide which group they think is more advantageous to aid - the established veterans, who are the cornerstones of their communities, role models for rookies, and even mentors? Or do they support rookie teams looking for just a taste of victory, who might never win Einstein but just want to travel outside their state and see robots from all across the world?

I wonder at exactly what level this decision was made. Did it really go to the executive board? Or was it made at a level a little more tuned-in to FIRST teams?

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I wonder at exactly what level this decision was made. Did it really go to the executive board? Or was it made at a level a little more tuned-in to FIRST teams?

I'm sure a decision of this size, impact, and scope most likely made it to the level of The Board of Directors. If on the off chance it didn't go that high, the call was certainly made at the level of the President of FIRST.

[David Lame]

Originally Posted by dag0620

I'm sure a decision of this size, impact, and scope most likely made it to the level of The Board of Directors. If on the off chance it didn't go that high, the call was certainly made at the level of the President of FIRST.

I'm certain that it went up that high.

The real question is how far down did it go? Did they float this idea to anyone on actual teams?

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by David Lame

I'm certain that it went up that high.

The real question is how far down did it go? Did they float this idea to anyone on actual teams?

It's become pretty clear that they didn't.

Even with Don's defense of 'We can't poll several thousand people about this' (except that you can, and did after the fact) ... FIRST has quite a few 'focus groups' to draw opinions from. WFA's, the Hall of Fame... These are groups and individuals with a good read on the pulse of the FIRST community. Asking them would have made it pretty easy to figure out how the broader group would feel about something before signing a contract.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Libby K

It's become pretty clear that they didn't.

Even with Don's defense of 'We can't poll several thousand people about this' (except that you can, and did after the fact) ... FIRST has quite a few 'focus groups' to draw opinions from. WFA's, the Hall of Fame... These are groups and individuals with a good read on the pulse of the FIRST community. Asking them would have made it pretty easy to figure out how the broader group would feel about something before signing a contract.

Not to mention that (and this is something that I now regret not asking at the town hall meeting) nothing seemed to prevent FIRST from saying, "We are looking into holding two geographically-locked championship events; thoughts?". That's the real kicker for me. We knew when FIRST renewed their contract with STL a few years that they were looking at other cities (IIRC the list was STL, Indianapolis, and Orlando; someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this but I remember a blog post from Frank on it), so what stopped them from proposing the idea of two championships to the community? Then proposals like the World Festival/World Championship could have come up earlier and be addressed during the town hall*.

*That's the one major thing I gathered from the meeting, and the major point that angered me. The meeting clearly showed that FIRST has absolutely zero indication of even considering community input in doing anything other than two geographically locked championships.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Not to mention that (and this is something that I now regret not asking at the town hall meeting) nothing seemed to prevent FIRST from saying, "We are looking into holding two geographically-locked championship events; thoughts?". That's the real kicker for me. We knew when FIRST renewed their contract with STL a few years that they were looking at other cities (IIRC the list was STL, Indianapolis, and Orlando; someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this but I remember a blog post from Frank on it), so what stopped them from proposing the idea of two championships to the community? Then proposals like the World Festival/World Championship could have come up earlier and be addressed during the town hall*.

*That's the one major thing I gathered from the meeting, and the major point that angered me. The meeting clearly showed that FIRST has absolutely zero indication of even considering community input in doing anything other than two geographically locked championships.

I think its safe to say they knew the reaction from FRC participants and figured it was easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Any attempt to gather feedback from teams and the community at this stage is a bad attempt to make things right. Best case scenario they consider options into making a World Festival and a World Championship however in my opinion FIRST is trying to steer away from the competitive side of robots so they don't lose the culture they want to see. Worst case they continue forward and they employ the strategy of if you don't like it quit because what you want isn't what we are about. Sadly I feel like this is where they are headed.

I think its in poor taste to keep calling it a championship(s) and instead we need to call them a World Festival. If I were an executive showing up in Houston or Detroit to see the championship I'd be concerned for the rest of FRC if I was seeing some of the teams on the field that I am. I feel like I'm one of the few who can say that considering I competed with one of those robots that shouldn't have been there. Its really sad for teams in districts because we know our DCMPs have a better field of competitors than our divisions and splitting the pool into 8 divisions this year made for some shallow divisions.

FIRST needs to stop using the waitlist at the Championship. Even if more district systems overtake regionals they will still fill all of these vacant slots with waitlisted teams. I'm curious if waitlisted teams this year kept late qualifying teams from attending the championship because finding transportation and hotel was impossible while the waitlisted teams were able to book early.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Its really sad for teams in districts because we know our DCMPs have a better field of competitors than our divisions and splitting the pool into 8 divisions this year made for some shallow divisions.

FIRST needs to stop using the waitlist at the Championship. Even if more district systems overtake regionals they will still fill all of these vacant slots with waitlisted teams.

This would make perfect sense if the goal is to have the best robot performance competition possible. I think that have stated that was not their goal when they made this decision.

If you paid attention attention to what Dean and Woodie have been saying for the past 5-10 years you could have seen something like this coming. They consistently said, "it's not about the robot. It is just the vehicle. Take the good from the sports model but reject the negative side that comes with it." They (The board) are devaluing winning. I know that is going to rub some folks the wrong way. This move makes complete sense considering the goals they have set forth.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

They (The board) are devaluing winning.

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

That's where you and I disagree. There are more winners since there will be a set of winners at each event. More people competing means more teams exposed and a great mix of teams exposed. This will mean that the over all level of competition will go down. I think they understood that when they made the change. Not sure how 25% of teams is "all teams" competing.

I see this as FIRST going back to its roots. This will be closer to what FIRST was like in its first few years.

[MikeE]

I was busy at the Championships so finally got to watch the video of the Town Hall today. After reading this thread I was honestly surprised how cordial it was given the level of passion around the topic. Anything approaching disrespect from the stage was coming from the moderator more than the panel.

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

More precisely, they are devaluing competition. Most teams don't win, but all teams compete. A high level of competition is (IMO) one of the most powerful tools of inspiration that FRC has.

As a thought experiment let's say that in 2017 with half the geographic coverage we degrade the competition to "only" the level of the 2015 Einstein semi-finals. For me, and I suspect most attendees, this would be just as inspirational as the current championship model.
I agree that philosophically many know there are awesome teams who are not appearing on Einstein, but that's always true due to the vagaries of competition advancement.

My primary objection to the 2 Championship model is similar to Sandra's, although I don't think that "divorce" is a good analogy.
Splitting World Championship does damage the sense of FRC as a single global community with a common set of goals. The Championship event was the opportunity to come together and celebrate those goals with others from across the community and this just won't happen after 2016.

[Hallry]

FIRST has released their official recording, the official transcript, and the presentation slides from the town hall meeting.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by Hallry

FIRST has released their official recording, the official transcript, and the presentation slides from the town hall meeting.

Thanks for the links, and to 1640 for the video. After going through both a few times now (I found the transcript easier to read, but the video conveyed the emotions better), these are my final thoughts on the subject, in no particular order:

1. The transcript could at least have the correct spelling of the names of the people asking questions... (And the "Female:" vs "[name]:" was very strange)

2. The whole discussion sort of reminds me of this conversation:
"No, you can't go to the lab, you have to do your homework."
"But..."
"No arguing, you're not going."
In that situation we can both understand that my mom is trying to do what is best for me. But she's not the one in high school, and thus can't always understand what I'm trying to say--instead she has to draw on what happened the last time we had this argument, what the results were, or what she thinks will happen. The arguments where we're able to discuss how much work I have left, or when I could do it instead, always go much more nicely than those where she just says no. In the end though, I can't do anything about it, and being confrontational about it doesn't help.

That analogy, which got a bit more confusing than I intended, was supposed to lead to this: I don't think FIRST really understands what it is like to be on a team (or at least what they said doesn't make it sound like they do), but I also don't think they know that they don't. You don't know what you're missing unless you had it in the first place.

3. If I had to summarize FIRST's view vs CD*'s view:
FIRST: If there are two championships, more teams will get the experience.
CD: If there are two championships, no team will get the true experience.
FIRST: By having more winners, more teams will get to be winners, and they will push harder to be winners.
CD: By having more winners, no team will be a true winner, and they have nothing to push towards.

* I'm still hesitant to say this is what most teams think, because I honestly have no idea what the majority of average / below average (the teams that struggle just to exist, can't afford to attend even if they get on through the waitlist, etc.) think, so instead I'll just call this "CD." This is obviously a very simplified / somewhat extreme view, but I think it represents most of what I've heard.