What can FIRST do to increase FRC team sustainability?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by marshall

I'm not convinced putting out all of the documentation in a single place will make teams more sustainable but it will help with the headache of constant searching and data collection.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Not really what I'm saying at all. For instance, we use mailchimp for unifying our team communication. Our team emails go out via email, Facebook, Twitter, and on the web all at once.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

...
An interesting aspect to point out about the community is that FIRST doesn't have a decent wikia (which I find hilarious). With a community this large you think someone would have thrown together a wikia for FIRST. Most video game communities come together and get a solid reference point and factual database done for a video game in like a year. Yet somehow nobody has spearheaded a top level FIRST wikia where we centralize useful information taking some of the burden off of FIRST to distribute said information...

LOLz about game communities doing the game developers' work for them.

Folks my age find it hilarious that game vendors have trained their players to document how to play their games instead of those vendors paying their own staffs to write and distribute decent manuals with the games.

I know the typical wikia can contain discussions, strategies, hints, and other info that might not go into a vendor's game manual, but what current players let vendors get away with is sometimes just absurd.

Maybe writing the wikia info is part of the fun???

Regardless, back to FIRST, two thoughts come to mind.

1) You said communities create/write wikias. So, shouldn't the part of the community that wants one (you?) (I don't think I need one, so don't look at me) be beavering away at developing one? Does HQ maybe need to kick things off by renting a server computer and moderating what gets put into it?

2) What info do you want to see in this wikia, that isn't already in the annual game manual, or in CD, or in the TBA site, or in ...? Will all of those voluntarily merge into the wikia, or will large sections of the wikia mostly contain lots of links to outside sources?

Remember that FIRST's games and other activities are messy real-world things with unpredictable, chaotic influences, evolution, and outcomes. That is very different from the closed, highly-constrained worlds of computer games. Beyond the game manual info, and a limited amount of info about standard parts, and red tape, you move from facts to highly-subjective opinions very fast in FRC, FVC, and the FLLs.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by gblake

LOLz about game communities doing the game developers' work for them.

Folks my age find it hilarious that game vendors have trained their players to document how to play their games instead of those vendors paying their own staffs to write and distribute decent manuals with the games.

I know the typical wikia can contain discussions, strategies, hints, and other info that might not go into a vendor's game manual, but what current players let vendors get away with is sometimes just absurd.

Maybe writing the wikia info is part of the fun???

Regardless, back to FIRST, two thoughts come to mind.

1) You said communities create/write wikias. So, shouldn't the part of the community that wants one (you?) (I don't think I need one, so don't look at me) be beavering away at developing one? Does HQ maybe need to kick things off by renting a server computer and moderating what gets put into it?

2) What info do you want to see in this wikia, that isn't already in the annual game manual, or in CD, or in the TBA site, or in ...? Will all of those voluntarily merge into the wikia, or will large sections of the wikia mostly contain lots of links to outside sources?

Remember that FIRST's games and other activities are messy real-world things with unpredictable, chaotic influences, evolution, and outcomes. That is very different from the closed, highly-constrained worlds of computer games. Beyond the game manual info, and a limited amount of info about standard parts, and red tape, you move from facts to highly-subjective opinions very fast in FRC, FVC, and the FLLs.

1.While I cannot say at all this is a hard "need" it would have to have the end goal of being a quality of life improvement for those who need information otherwise it would be pointless. With something of this caliber if done correctly it would be helpful for everyone. No flak against CD but the white paper section of the site, is a little gross to wade through. There is in my opinion just too much information and it isn't constrained in a meaningful way. Think of how many times you have seen someone post a question on chief delphi and someone responds with "that was already talked about in this thread." That's dumb and its a waste of time, if that information was easier to access instead of creating more empty threads people would get the answers they need and move on and thats just on chief delphi I don't delve into the FRC reddit or whatever other third party sites exist. I do agree that having a manger for this project is important, with something of this scope you need someone on point. However I would hope all parties who are interested in contributing to this would be mature enough that they wouldn't doof up a website with bad info. Moderation wouldn't be as necessary because all those involved in content writing would want to do it for the right reason. In all honesty I'd be happy to help with content management for a wikia if I had the time. I also know though that this scale of a job most people wouldn't take without a paycheck regardless of if they had the time to do so or not.
I'd love to look at how wikias get up and running so quickly because it is an interesting phenomenon to me (a bunch of nerds go into unpaid hive mind mode and all of a sudden they create the community standard for information distribution in the form of a wiki and yet I see businesses open up where they can't get a website with a decent color scheme in a year).

2. I used a wikia as an example because of how they often provide only factual information, and a center for "official" information distribution. All while not necessarily being a part of the games developers. A wikia is a great way to aggregate a lot of information in a clean way. As opposed to chief delphi or the reddit where its a lot of digging. The point isn't to create helpful information (I mean don't get me wrong helpful information is good) its just to make all the information easier to access or even just accessible to begin with. If someone gets frustrated trying to find information before they find it they are less likely to find it. Currently I find it frustrating that I find myself digging through a 3rd party forum (chief delphi) to find information about FIRST, and I'm sure yet other people find it frustrating when they ask a question on Q&A because they want official feedback and they get a bounce back. If there was a website out there with the hard standards of a wikia where the information was unbiased, and factual, as well as endorsed partially by FIRST it would be a help a lot of teams more then a weekly blog.


"Remember that FIRST's games and other activities are messy real-world things with unpredictable, chaotic influences, evolution, and outcomes. That is very different from the closed, highly-constrained worlds of computer games."

I would disagree that it differs from computer games when they have games where while they don't release a new one every year they patch the game and change game play every other week. A lot of games out there are just kinda sitting in an endless "build season" where players are learning how to master the game. While developers push out new updates and then gamers have to adapt to that.

[snorthey]

Have a curriculum for schools to offer a class....

I know that some of you may do this already from years of experience or other programs like PLTW that often are feeder groups for the robotics program...

Currently I find myself at both a small project based school and a student population that cannot stay after school, so for my proposed rookie team to be sustainable and building.

I need training for the students in the form of a curriculum of standards based units that link the skills needed to build a robot successfully and thus would allow me to offer it at a science elective in my situation. The STEM/ STEAM groups are out there pushing ideas why not link the competition to a class.

Thoughts...

Is there a curriculum out there for FRC already?

Is there anyone with an FRC class they are willing to share?

Please contact me at snorthey@sageacademy.org

Thank you

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

An interesting aspect to point out about the community is that FIRST doesn't have a decent wikia (which I find hilarious). With a community this large you think someone would have thrown together a wikia for FIRST. Most video game communities come together and get a solid reference point and factual database done for a video game in like a year. Yet somehow nobody has spearheaded a top level FIRST wikia where we centralize useful information taking some of the burden off of FIRST to distribute said information...

There was FIRSTwiki that was hosted here at CD (though through a different domain) but it was shutdown a few years back (it had been overrun with spambots, and had woefully out of date software). There is somewhat of a push to create a new FIRSTwiki (current attempts are based out of GitHub, which I personally have mixed feelings about), but honestly it needs someone to setup a good backed (domain, formatting, database, captcha, etc). I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to be editors (myself included), they just need something to edit.

[techhelpbb]

There is not a single post I can derive this from so I will touch on a few things that cover a wide range of points from various posters:

Organized funding of an education goal is the reason for public schools to exist. The fact that FRC is so vital is specifically because organized funding of the schools can often fund goals and set achievements that various elements of the communities the school serve do not agree are priorities. So long as FRC is a patch for the educational system it is extremely likely to have a 'rogue' funding model where: mentors, sponsors and families essentially go beyond their required contribution (usually in property taxes) to pursue an education goal that often the school system has either failed at or has decided is not a suitable common goal. This 'rogue' funding model is 'disruptive' to the education industry in it's very nature and one could argue that there is value in teaching students how to fund being disruptive to an industry because it is increasing required to be innovators when you are an adult. Lets face it - common currency and a lack of barter very likely mean that fund raising is a vital skill.

The idea of building a simple robot before build season is actually something FRC11/FRC193 has tried with MORT-U before competition season starting in September for some time. I believe it is not enough. The core issue is that FRC is a driving a set of skills into the educational system not well serviced for a wide variety of reasons. We actually got better at addressing this by creating FRC193 as junior varsity where the students have up to 2 years to acquire the skills for varsity FRC11 and even then the learning curve for the more advanced manufacturing has not entirely been satisfied. FRC would just be a contest to a vocational schools that already have goals set into the design and manufacture of machines. Those same schools would have their shops ready and have a clear set of: standards, goals and tests to insure they achieve their foundation education goals and as a result can present evidence to back that achievement up when required. FRC does not make this requirement. FRC participation is just close enough to the skills still out in the community that even in an area where manufacturing is nearly dead you can usually find some people that have a good idea how to get this done. The issue becomes: between the funding for this activity and trying to be a proper educational program, which so many FRC teams are actually doing without possibly understanding, we are actually fighting a battle so much bigger than it appears.

From my experience FRC teams need to realize that they are effectively educational and apprentice opportunities. If the schools that often support these FRC teams fail to grasp that large FRC teams signal a need in the community for something they are not doing, then these schools are going to make it much harder on the community element in that team because those people are all paying their mandated share (usually through property taxes) and whatever it takes to continue to fix what is not getting done. I know a few people that actually hoped to 'win' shutting down FRC teams by hoping that refusing support for an educational goal under-served was going to make it painful enough these FRC teams they would just go away. This led to a lot of stress and pain for those teams. To put this in perspective most years I double my mandated share of education cost to the community with my contributions to FIRST so that's $10,000+ that is lost in my: materials, time and money (one can say this is a choice but sitting idle 'getting mine' while others stumble is not my style).

I think if we acknowledge that this is a disruptive educational opportunity as a whole we can refocus our resources in much more effective ways. I know that some schools might view my statements here as a direct challenge to their authority but frankly: that authority is supported in part by my $11,000+ a year in property taxes that go to those schools.

I have always believed that the sort of people that thrive in FRC are the sort that would be just as happy to setup ad-hoc vocational schools of their own if public education was not there because the need exists and it should be served. The problem is you already have a system that doesn't always meet that need and you are addressing both the costs of that and the added cost you are accepting. So basically the schools need to get on board. Otherwise you realize you just need to build that vocational/incubating opportunity and call it a makerspace .

To this end: FRC is only somewhat sustainable as a whole, and it should be, based on exactly the situation it is in. If FRC were sustainable it might not even attract the kind of attention it gets. This is both the driver of heroic effort and a general failure that heros are often the folks that don't make it. If you think about it, FRC drives attention to specific people and the larger the accomplishment of those people the more likely it is to do that. If the barriers fell and everyone worked together the challenge would be less. It's the paradox that, I think, leads to mavericks giving way to strategists. Mavericks drive people hard but eventually when the pasture is greener people want to slow down so they start to ignore the mavericks and the strategists start to figure out ways to pick up where sheer force of will and a battle cry leaves off.

Basically if the goal of FRC is to make heros: we got that. If the goal of FRC is to make it stable and sustainable you might find what made you a hero today makes you a bit of a crank tomorrow. To this end I think you need the maverick to found a team (odds are long and obstacles many) but the strategist (understanding the limits, finding motivation, planning for good and bad, planning season over season) to sustain a team.

That's not a just FIRST issue BTW. I just finished with a job that had a maverick CTO. Worked everyone to the edge but actually made progress against insurmountable odds. Then when the pastures got green everyone started to gripe and started slowing down. Then I left because the charge against all odds was not followed by transition to a sustainable strategy between the top speed and no speed. I am glad I saw that, in part because of my FIRST experience, because I made out very well on my personal strategy to seek sustainable growth leveraging the aftermath of that charge when those around me were unable to hit that mark. Where I left will now seek out a position of much less growth which unfortunately is probably not very competitive in their market and will eventually result in attrition that will create the next maverick. Ever see an FRC that is hit or miss? That pattern exists into some of the most central industries on Earth.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Word.

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

This response is so late that I feel bad but roughly speaking yeah a teams resources should be going to growing themselves instead of advertising the benefits of FRC.
FRC has the ability to represent itself better then any group of students (come at me people who disagree) because the people in FRC have better points of contact in industries where if we got more support we would be better off. If we grow the relations between the real world and FRC then a team has a better platform and more support to stand on. If companies more actively came out and sponsored teams as opposed to teams going to companies that sends a pretty strong message. That says this company supports what we are doing, a business is investing actual time or money into these students (or both). That is some great evidence for a school board or a parent who goes "what have you been doing after school?". That would mean that the small team of 5 students and some crazy mentor have some real solid proponents and advocates that help when dealing with naysayers.

IMO...

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I understand your general rhetoric, but I'm still having trouble seeing how anything changes in reality. Are you saying you think FIRST HQ needs to attempt to recruit sponsors to help various individual teams?

What I interpret it as saying is: FIRST should have companies that would be willing to consider sponsoring FRC team(s) make it more obvious that they will consider it. When you are seeking out sponsors, it is usually easier to get a sponsorship from a place that you have a 'way in', or direct connection to (i.e. parent or mentor works there, etc.). But if the company is willing to consider sponsoring FRC team(s), then FIRST could help make it so that saying "I'm from FRC team ####" can be your 'way in'. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's my interpretation.

[mac]

1. Some how prevent main one mentor teams from burning out.
2. Teams having trouble in there school system, a escape route to any kind
of building. With money or without money given to secure building. Like 4
months rent, if not free.
3. 10 or more central locations having a full size field set up on day one of
build season. Minus electronics.
4. 10 or less equipment hubs open to any an all teams. Good for that snowy
week to bring your robot into.
5. Allow some events to in whole or in part keep same 3 teams on same
alliance side. Put these 3 teams together in pit area. If this would be to
big a can of worms for all my friends here. You tell them, that they can
do it for one season only. Then they must get a divorce. At a later time
they could get remarried. We would not want to create any more power
house alliances around the neighbor hood.
6. FIRST website you can navigate in 2.5 seconds.
7. Allow that 12 year old motors to pass inspection. Oh that's right it happen
to us on a Friday night after passing inspection. Lead Inspector comes
around. What you got there boys. I won't mention any names.
I could think of more later. Thomas (just give me crabcake) McCubbin

[Team34Guy]

As far as eliminating Bag day goes....I'm sure there are a few benefits that will allow some teams to perform better. Eliminating a hard deadline that the students/mentors have to adhere to would be extremely detrimental and would outweigh the aforementioned benefits. Part of the lessons we teach these students is that they will have to deal with deadlines and restrictions in the real world, eliminating bag and tag is counterproductive to that lesson. I've been with Team 34 for about six years now and we've had to re-vamp our team because one of our key mentors left to pursue other endeavors. So rookie teams (or teams with just 2-3 years) aren't the only ones vulnerable. Funding and mentor burnout has to be addressed by every team. I'm glad this thread was started, its good to know that others are thinking about the same issues that most of us are dealing with.
I don't know what FRC could do to alleviate some of these issues, but maybe trying to recruit more mentors nationwide... I know CD has helped me so much by being a sounding board for so many FRC issues, maybe if there were more networking possibilities between teams/mentors, help could be given to these struggling teams.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Team34Guy

Eliminating a hard deadline that the students/mentors have to adhere to would be extremely detrimental and would outweigh the aforementioned benefits. Part of the lessons we teach these students is that they will have to deal with deadlines and restrictions in the real world, eliminating bag and tag is counterproductive to that lesson.

You'd still have a hard deadline - your first regional event. Many teams don't have a functioning robot by that truly important deadline.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

You'd still have a hard deadline - your first regional event. Many teams don't have a functioning robot by that truly important deadline.

Those teams had plenty of calendar time to create a functioning robot.

What do you think was the problem?

• Time management?
• Not having the full range of tech skills needed?
• Not appreciating the number of hours required?
• No adult or student able to focus a core set of students on getting the basics accomplished?
• Being hesitant to get help (for one or more of several possible reasons)?
• Simply needing to start in a less complex program (FTC, VRC, FLL) in order to build up some general-purpose expertise before diving headfirst into FRC (walk before run)?
• Something else?

Does anyone have a long list of anecdotes about this subject that is dominated by examples of teams that were making 5-6 weeks of steady progress toward success, but who didn't get finished before the current build season deadline (They had a complete plan that included some margin for surprises; every week they were making consistent, substantial, progress executing that plan; and something out-of-their-control surprised them, and used up their margin and put them behind schedule)?

Blake

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

You'd still have a hard deadline - your first regional event. Many teams don't have a functioning robot by that truly important deadline.

Originally Posted by gblake

Those teams had plenty of calendar time to create a functioning robot.

What do you think was the problem?

• ...
  
• Something else?

After seeing the game played, it is easy to know how your team shoulda built their robot. It is much harder to figure that out beforehand. Many teams put insufficient time and thought into deciding what robot to build. This is not laziness -- it is failure to recognize soon enough that thinking is the hard part.

Jared said it well earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Many/most teams need the handicap of being able to change their robot after experiencing the game for the first time in order to have a rewarding season on the field.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by gblake

Those teams had plenty of calendar time to create a functioning robot.

We're trying to talk about how to keep FRC teams and make them sustainable, correct? How does bag & tag help in that goal? Blaming the teams 100% instead of thinking about maybe how we could make things a little easier on them isn't all that helpful.

After seeing hundreds of teams over the years field robot that struggle to move and don't play the game at all, I'd argue that they didn't have plenty of time.

Of course all of your points are a factor - time management being a huge one. We need to find a way to help teams to manage their time better.

If FIRST could do one thing that wouldn't impact them at all financially or logistically and would help a significant number of teams, it would be to end bag & tag.

From my team's standpoint, suddenly we don't have to meet every single night to field a competitive robot. Now we don't have to build two robots for practice and autonomous mode development. Mentors and students aren't getting burned out because we're able to manage our time better and still build the robot we know we're capable of building.

For teams that only meet a few times a week, now they get a few more meetings. They get more hands on time with their robots. How on Earth is that a bad thing? How would that detract from the mission of FIRST, the inspiration these students receive by working towards a common goal on a team?

I still haven't read one statement on how bag day enhances the FIRST experience. Bag Day is an archaic remnant of Ship Day and it doesn't make sense if we want to truly grow FIRST and make it sustainable for all teams.