How do I help my area move to districts?

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This thread is asking how to help move an area to the district format.

The content of this thread is mostly hearsay and bickering regarding the wording of a letter. Very little productive dialogue has taken place.

Dude, your post was probably the least productive of them all.

The thread is discussing potential issues holding back MN FIRST from districts, exactly what the OP wanted. What else do you want to make this more productive?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Dude, your post was probably the least productive of them all.

The thread is discussing potential issues holding back MN FIRST from districts, exactly what the OP wanted. What else do you want to make this more productive?

Discussion generally involves two sides. If there was an honest attempt an engaging the issues preventing Minnesota from transitioning, that would be one thing. Rather, this thread is largely piling on against an absent second party. There is little point in continuing to pour on hearsay and anonymous bashing until MN FIRST gives their side of the story.


More generally, while the OP linked a document specific to Minnesota, this thread is not simply about Minnesota. My post, quoted in the OP, is about districts in general. There is a potential use for this thread regarding what logistics are involved in the creation and administration of districts, and how concerned teams and individuals can assist in the transition from a regional system to a district system. That is the type of productive conversation that should be happening. Mud slinging is not productive.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

What volunteer roles have you served in the past?

Originally Posted by Ilovepineapples

I am a volunteer who has been trained in a key position and served as a diligent volunteer spending hundreds of dollars in hotel costs who is now told I can only run safety glasses and the practice field. Without anyone telling me what changed or why I can't serve in my key position.

I'm an alumni that can run and coordinate a district event when I'm at college but when I travel home I can only run safety glasses.

I'm a graduate from a FRC team in Minnesota who has volunteered as field reset for four years after graduating but still isn't given any other field position no matter how many times I ask.

I'm a volunteer who registered to help queue but I'm told there are not any positions available, followed by an email to coaches the next day requesting more queuers to volunteer.

I am a volunteer how has been a robot inspector since graduating high school 6 years ago. In Minnesota I have expressed interest in FTAing, CSAing and score keeping but have never been assigned. I then am offered spots as a FTA or CSA in other areas around the United States.

As a student, I was spoken to about my social media posts, as they were showing MN FIRST in a bad light and told to delete what I posted. Now I've only been offered spots as Field Reset.

This is a small sampling of volunteer stories from the Minnesota Regionals.

Looks like this person was a robot inspector for many years in the past (bold), wants to be a queuer or something else if they can't be an RI (underlined), but has grown weary of the scenario they have to deal with in terms of the what the RPC in Minnesota "operates" (under the guidance of HQ as they are not an independent NPC).

I don't operate anywhere close to Minnesota and I will not speculate what may or may not be happening but if it looks like x and smells like x, I don't want to see if it tastes like x.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ilovepineapples

I was pm'd this document...

I don't see anything disturbing or off-putting about that document. It seems quite reasonable to me. It basically says not to think that you "deserve" a Key Volunteer position before you've demonstrated yourself, and suggests how you can go about doing that. Unless there's something else that people are being told beyond what it says, I do not understand why anyone would be upset by it.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't see anything disturbing or off-putting about that document. It seems quite reasonable to me. It basically says not to think that you "deserve" a Key Volunteer position before you've demonstrated yourself, and suggests how you can go about doing that. Unless there's something else that people are being told beyond what it says, I do not understand why anyone would be upset by it.

Here's what was off-putting to me.

As a college student, I am unbelievably lucky to live 2 blocks from an FRC team. However, not every student has that opportunity. Their only lasting connection to FIRST may be volunteering.

Like I said in my post, I am not saying that this post is blatantly saying "We don't want you."

HOWEVER, what this document does do is make a college student like me feel not welcome. The sheer tone of this is terribly off-putting.

A region (especially one that is hoping/should be hoping to move to districts) should always be actively seeking volunteers. Beyond the active seeking of volunteers, they should be actively training new people to fill new jobs, as more events will require more key volunteers.

Furthermore, I have countless friends my age, or just older than me, that ARE key volunteers in their areas (FTAs, Refs, planning committee members). There is no reason to discourage a student from seeking a position like this. While not every college student is as great as Dave Givens (New England FIRST'S future), we can still contribute and (apparently contrary to popular belief) be leaders with key positions.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by bkahl

HOWEVER, what this document does do is make a college student like me feel not welcome. The sheer tone of this is terribly off-putting.

I honestly don't see anything there that gives a "not welcome" tone. On the contrary, it starts with the command DO volunteer often and energetically.

A region (especially one that is hoping/should be hoping to move to districts) should always be actively seeking volunteers. Beyond the active seeking of volunteers, they should be actively training new people to fill new jobs, as more events will require more key volunteers.

Isn't that what the document is about? It is a guide for how you should work toward becoming whatever kind of volunteer you want. It makes that explicit in the first paragraph.

Furthermore, I have countless friends my age, or just older than me, that ARE key volunteers in their areas (FTAs, Refs, planning committee members). There is no reason to discourage a student from seeking a position like this. While not every college student is a Dave Givens, we can (apparently contrary to popular belief) be good leaders and hold important positions.

Seriously, what's going on that I am not seeing? Every Key Volunteer I know was a "regular" volunteer for at least a couple of years first. That's what the document is saying. It isn't telling anyone not to aspire to a Key Volunteer position. What it's telling people is how to become a Key Volunteer.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I honestly don't see anything there that gives a "not welcome" tone. On the contrary, it starts with the command DO volunteer often and energetically.



Isn't that what the document is about? It is a guide for how you should work toward becoming whatever kind of volunteer you want. It makes that explicit in the first paragraph.



Seriously, what's going on that I am not seeing? Every Key Volunteer I know was a "regular" volunteer for at least a couple of years first. That's what the document is saying. It isn't telling anyone not to aspire to a Key Volunteer position. What it's telling people is how to become a Key Volunteer.

I tell ya, kids these days...

Wait, crap.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't see anything disturbing or off-putting about that document. It seems quite reasonable to me. It basically says not to think that you "deserve" a Key Volunteer position before you've demonstrated yourself, and suggests how you can go about doing that. Unless there's something else that people are being told beyond what it says, I do not understand why anyone would be upset by it.

It's a combination of what this document says and what is actually happening with the intended audience of this document (which I assume is the GOFIRST group at the University of Minnesota).

There's been friction between the alumni of MN FIRST and the RPC. A big point of contention here is the current double-regional event format of Minnesota. The young alumni want to switch to districts, and want to get involved and start the conversation and the planning required to get there. Everyone is aware this is a big undertaking that requires several years to implement right. However, the leadership in MN is very attached to their double regional format, knowing they run the "biggest and best" regionals in the country. The alumni want to get their teams more bang for their buck, but the RPC doesn't want to lose the media attention for FIRST that these events gain. Of course, on top of this, there are the normal concerns that everyone has with transitioning to districts (finding venues, volunteers, etc). Due to all of these factors, it appears that the RPC believes their current system to be superior, and therefore does not want to pursue transitioning to districts at all.

Like Bailey said, one of the few ways that college students can reasonably stay involved in FRC is volunteering. However, students who sign up to volunteer are repeatedly being assigned to more menial, untrained roles or just being told that they're not needed. A dear friend of mine (who already had previous experience volunteering as an inspector in New England), was assigned to the practice field. When she showed up to the regional, the volunteer desk was empty. After tracking one of the event staff down, she was told they had enough volunteers for that day, and she should come back tomorrow.

Honestly, the purpose of this document seems to be to deter any of these alumni from believing that they could make a real difference in the direction Minnesota is heading. The overall message seems to be this; "Play by our rules, listen to everything we say, and don't say anything about it."

Now this may sound cynical, but this is how I'm reading this document given the situation. Each number refers to the subsequent DO and DONT in the letter.

1. If you really care about FRC, you'll do whatever volunteer position we assign you to, regardless of what you aspire to be.

2. This seems to be specifically targeting the fact that college students will often have class on Wednesday and Thursday.

3. Do whatever the RPC and existing KVs tell you to do.

4. Don't talk about any of this publicly, no matter how discontent you are.

5. If you do volunteer, always do what your Key Volunteer superior says.

6. Don't expect to get a more important volunteering position anytime soon.

7. Re 6: Probably at least 6+ years before you're a key volunteer.

8. Now this is the real kicker. Many of these disgruntled alumni have been switching to volunteering for FLL and FTC events, and have been much happier since. A different nonprofit organization, High Tech Kids, is the FIRST partner for FLL and FTC in Minnesota. Many young alumni agree this group is more effectively run. There have been talks of HTH and MN FIRST merging, as MN FIRST does not have nonprofit status necessary for MN to switch to districts. However, there's rumors that this merger is halted due to conflicting opinions over who would actually be in charge after the merger. This paragraph is basically saying "Don't expect MN FIRST to be like High Tech Kids."

9. Most of the kids who want to continue supporting FRC are enthusiastic about the program. This is basically telling these kids that they need to tone down their enthusiasm if they want to volunteer?

10. So you screwed up...
This seems pretty clear to me. If you don't play by the rules, you're not getting any volunteer positions past field reset or practice field.


Yes, a lot of what is in this document is generally good advice for new volunteers. However, given the scenario, this basically seems like a letter from the dictatorship telling the people to not challenge their authority.

[rzoeller]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't see anything disturbing or off-putting about that document. It seems quite reasonable to me. It basically says not to think that you "deserve" a Key Volunteer position before you've demonstrated yourself, and suggests how you can go about doing that. Unless there's something else that people are being told beyond what it says, I do not understand why anyone would be upset by it.

I'd like to start by stating that these are my own thoughts and opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the views of any groups I am or have been a part of.

I was a student at the presentation at which this document was distributed. In my opinion, the document itself is not inherently negative and would not, on its own, make me feel unwelcome or uncomfortable volunteering as a part of Minnesota FIRST. That being said, the context in which the document was distributed made me feel uncomfortable and has discouraged me from seeking volunteer roles as an official regional volunteer.

As a student who attended the presentation, I was surprised for several reasons. The meeting at which the presentation occurred was part of a regular sequence of meetings in which university faculty and outside corporate employees give talks about their work. That particular meeting had been advertised as a "an inside look into life as an engineer and success after college from *speaker name redacted* who works at *company name redacted*", and was something I had genuinely looked forward to based on the extensive industry experience the speaker seemed to have and my interest in the company they work at. Unfortunately, once the meeting began it quickly changed focus to discussing FIRST volunteer feedback.

Overall, the demeanor of the meeting felt very negative towards volunteers, specifically college age students. Perhaps I misunderstood the speaker's intentions, but as someone who was on an MN FRC team in high school and was looking forward to potentially volunteering at a Minnesota regional, the impression that I left with was that the authors of the document felt college students were likely to screw up and should not be trusted with positions of responsibility. There was a strong emphasis (at least in my opinion) that we were unable to separate our volunteering from our past connections in FIRST, and that we shouldn't expect to be given any meaningful positions due to our age.

I hope to volunteer for FIRST in the future, but unless things change, I doubt it will be in Minnesota.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Maybe this thread is trolling, but I honestly do not see the document in a negative light. Basically, I see it as setting reasonable expectations for volunteers.

Face it: You're not going to be a LRI the first or second year you volunteer, particularly if you are under 21. But be an RI for 2 years, shadow the LRI one year, and then speak to your LRI and VC and see what they can do. If that's what you want, you can do it.

For all who are complaining: Tell us your experience volunteering and if you have volunteered in VIMS (for what/where/when?) and not been asked to attend.

I am not as twitchy about anonymous user accounts, but please understand that it is highly frowned upon, and not a sign of courage. You want change, stand up and name yourself.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't see anything disturbing or off-putting about that document. It seems quite reasonable to me. It basically says not to think that you "deserve" a Key Volunteer position before you've demonstrated yourself, and suggests how you can go about doing that. Unless there's something else that people are being told beyond what it says, I do not understand why anyone would be upset by it.

Are...are you guys serious?

Don and Alan, I respect you guys tremendously, but I fail to see how you don't think this document would leave a sour taste in the mouths of young mentors and COLLEGE GRADS.

This document explains so much about why mentors in MN are always telling me that the key issue in MN not going to districts is a lack of good volunteers. Even more experienced mentors have brought up this issue.

If you're going to call out someone because of their age, I can do the same thing and say that older mentors can't see as well, or maybe they can't hear as well. The age has nothing to do with the volunteer experience, but if we're going to use age, why not say ridiculous things?

It's like a 50 year old versus a 22 year old interviewing for the same job, neither of them have experience in it, but the 22 year old is told that they're just not going to be good at the job because of their age.

By the way - this is one of the few times I don't give a crap about a fake account. This document is real, that is literally all that matters. Stop giving the OP crap for not posting real names because clearly Minnesota is a little screwed up and they would probably be ripped apart within their community for raising this issue.

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

By the way - this is one of the few times I don't give a crap about a fake account. This document is real, that is literally all that matters. Stop giving the OP crap for not posting real names because clearly Minnesota is a little screwed up and they would probably be ripped apart within their community for raising this issue.

If anything i read about MN is true, I would also be using a fake account. Too much drama to associate myself with that could blow up in your face.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

OK,
Time for a little background to be added to this thread...
First, key volunteer roles require level headed, mature people with specific abilities and experience. Some of the wording in this document is directly lifted from my requirements for Lead robot Inspectors and for Inspectors. While Inspecting may look easy for the casual observer, it is not. We just make it look easy. The Inspection staff is tasked with insuring that robots are ready to take the field and compete. We regularly assist teams with robot and team issues and I depend on that staff at every event to be able to deliver bad news and get the team working towards a successful weekend. We train LRIs to recognize when a smile is turned into a frown and to correct it, immediately. In talking with other key volunteers, their desire and training are similar. My requirements for inspectors at a minimum is that they have actively worked on a team building a robot for at least two years. That means I want them to know how to read and interpret rules on the fly to assist teams. Inspectors must pass a test to be allowed to inspect. Even then, each inspector will be evaluated by the volunteer coordinator, the LRI and the regional committee for future volunteer assignment. In addition, any complaints lodged by teams will also be considered. In rare cases, a volunteer may not be the best fit for that role for a variety of reasons.
Any LRI is also expected to fulfill the role of Inspector for several years before being considered as an LRI candidate. During training, that individual will again be evaluated by the LRI and volunteer coordinator under which they train and shadow. It is only in this way can we insure that an event will be successful and the students each volunteer works with receive the highest possible experience.
As to maturity, that is also judged by how a volunteer presents themselves outside of FIRST events as well as when volunteering. While social media seems to be a benign entity, it is not and it is public. When a volunteer expecting a better role, complains in public, degrades staff or committee decisions and purports to know "the real reason" behind certain activities, that is never a secret. Volunteer coordinators need to know that they have the best person in each position because we are putting students at risk if we don't.
Some volunteer positions do not require the level of maturity or experience that other roles demand. We still need volunteers and I am sorry if you think you deserve a different role. My recommendation for everyone is to self evaluate their daily activities as a future employer. Would you hire someone who complains in social media (including CD) about their current employer, decisions made and activities for which they have no real knowledge? I would not.
While many posters, presenting themselves as knowledgeable students in Minnesota, are arguing that the Minnesota committee is preventing a move to districts, you are not in position to know what the committee is doing. You have no knowledge of what it takes to move to districts, the restrictions placed on the committee by FIRST, the state and local jurisdictions, the financial needs or the on the demands for volunteers, including local committees. If you think that the committee is doing a bad job, I would point to the explosive growth in Minnesota, now at 208 teams. I would point to four regional events serving well over 50 teams at each event. I would point to the high standards for volunteers, especially judging staff and inspections. I would point to the expectation that more events are needed and the work they are doing to assist Iowa and Wisconsin. I would point specifically to the great LRI and inspection staff I observe at MN events. I would point to the preparation of rookie teams that allow them to have a great first experience. I think that Minnesota is doing a spectacular job for FIRST and I hold them up as an example for others to emulate.
It is rare to find someone who is still in college or recently entering the workforce to be able to handle the stress and demands of any Key Volunteer position. It is actually hard to find that in someone who has been around for years.
Want a real test? How would you handle a team who shows up for your event at 142" frame perimeter, weighing 130 pounds, with no way to mount bumpers to the front of their robot and a pickup mechanism that extends outside of the frame by 2 feet? Think about how you would deliver the news, how to keep the team engaged, how to get the team working towards a compliant robot. How would you keep the smiles coming and allow the team to keep their pickup in a compliant fashion. That is what our LRIs and Inspectors are facing every week. Compared to Judges working with Chairman's teams or Engineering Inspiration or Rookie Allstar, our job is easy.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

My recommendation for everyone is to self evaluate their daily activities as a future employer. Would you hire someone who complains in social media (including CD) about their current employer, decisions made and activities for which they have no real knowledge? I would not.

Frankly, I think some of the most short sighted and unprofessional posts on this topic both on CD and social media have not been from the MN alumni and their supporters, rather from the established adults chastising this group. Al's point about the perils of social media is absolutely appropriate, however this is something that everyone should be considering, not just the group of alumni who are regularly being called out.

This reminds me a lot of how millennials are regularly called out for simply being younger and having different perspectives. In the end it's the ones who are calling them out in unprofessional in ways that end up embarrassing themselves and looking uninformed.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Frankly, I think some of the most short sighted and unprofessional posts on this topic both on CD and social media have not been from the MN alumni and their supporters, rather from the established adults chastising this group. Al's point about the perils of social media is absolutely appropriate, however this is something that everyone should be considering, not just the group of alumni who are regularly being called out.

This reminds me a lot of how millennials are regularly called out for simply being younger and having different perspectives. In the end it's the ones who are calling them out in unprofessional in ways that end up embarrassing themselves and looking uninformed.

That last part is what is really bothering me right now. When older mentors who don't inherently have more experience due to age are talking down to college aged volunteers and implying they are inherently immature, I have very little sympathy for any region craving volunteer growth.

As a mentor, I try my hardest to never pull the age card on my kids. Having been through it as a student, I know that it can feel like one of the most condescending things to hear.

Last post for me in this thread, it is really not worth it. PM to comment on my posts.

.

[PayneTrain]

As this thread approaches a point where it is best off locked up from the denizens of this corner of the internet, I just want to make sure that it's pretty clear it's now impossible to buy into the meme that Minnesota can't move to the district system because of a lack of a volunteer base.

Sure, my only experience with Minnesota comes from
a) flying up there to canoe one summer (it was great, thanks nature!)
b) the Saints beating the Vikings in the NFCCG (sorry Vikings fans)

but I live in a region that really seemed to hate the idea of moving to districts. Just couldn't seem to find x or y. New executive director for the state's 501c3 comes in and says "yo, we're doing this now" and people FREAK OUT. WE'RE NOT READY! HOW WILL THE EARTH CONTINUE TO SPIN WITHOUT HAVING A DEEP BENCH OF GAME ANNOUNCERS [or other KV position here]."

We're going into our last week of districts and hell yeah, there have been growing pains. We had to wait 3 hours to get inspected at our first event. But hey, my first thought was "wow, guess we need to get some of our to-be alums trained up to be RIs" not "wow, guess I need to tell the internet how much districts suck." We went to the first event to spectate and hoo boy, some stuff was rough. But hey, first district, a lot of KVs brand new to their positions, refereeing is hard this year and the barrel plugs on these radios are nightmare fuel. The only problem was the grotesque number of the infernal FRC parody videos everyone had to sit through.

The biggest victory of the district system? Coaches got an email a week before the district saying "hey, we NEED people for these positions." I ring up a couple alumni from the local college and they leap right into it. We had one alum get the opportunity to go from high school senior last season to Game Announcer this season. And he KILLED it. One of the clearest, most enthusiastic and confident GAs I have heard in a long time. Sure I'm biased because I know him, but also I know that he was very green but wanted to do the job well. He will be doing the job this weekend and I expect great things.

If he was a Golden Gopher instead of a Hokie, he would be told he wasn't even old enough to run FIELD RESET this year. How are you going to engage your alumni to further advance your program when you tell them to man safety glasses until someone almost quite literally dies? MN's RPC has triggered an aggressive expansion of teams but seems to balk at the idea of aggressively expanding their volunteer base. Why?