Delete the CAW (CAW Reform Discussion)

[GeeTwo]

@GeeTwo

I’d like to see a CAW with a more reasonable set of exceptions/simplifications that don’t punish teams for using other-than-KoP items, doesn’t benefit veteran teams over rookies (or vice-versa except in an intentional fashion, for that matter) and which results in something a lot closer to the cost of building the robot which is fielded (excluding development/prototyping/labor and the practice robot), and which DOES provide some sort of realistic cap on the truly high-resource teams…

@AriMB

With all due respect, I think this is going in the wrong direction. If we are to reform the CAW, it should make it easier for teams to create and easier for inspectors to verify, not the other way around.

Agreed. Complex exceptions make it more difficult both to create the document and to verify it. This is why I also suggested a KoP template with prices of common items already included.

---

@AriMB

If we’re already getting rid of most of the KoP exceptions and raising the total price limit, why leave in the exceptions for this year’s KoP?

@GeeTwo

Even if the current year’s KoP is exempted for some historical consistency, …

I’m not advocating the continued exemption for the KoP, but suggesting a way to make it have a more properly scoped impact if it is kept.

---

@AriMB

For that matter, do we really need a total price limit at all? If the price limit goes up to $20k, is it really limiting anyone’s abilities? Is a $22k robot really that much more functional than a $20k robot if no part is more than $500?

My counter question is: If there is not a price limit, what is the point of a BOM/CAW being an inspection item? To me, this is a better argument for eliminating the BOM/CAW completely, or moving it to a separate prize than for reforming it.

---

@AriMB

I think the individual item price exception should be increased, not decreased. No robot is gaining a significant competitive advantage for having 30 VF gussets rather than 5 (especially if the price limit is $20k).

What are you talking about? I don’t recall advocating a reduced individual item cost, nor reading it. In any case, I don’t recall anyone saying that the per-part limit was cumulative. If you put four identical $399 items (perhaps swerve modules?), it’s $1596 on the CAW, but does not violate the $400 per-item limit. As far as I’m concerned, holding that dollar figure constant still means a steadily increasing functionality of item you can use, at least if it’s an electronic or other high-tech item rather than a mechanical one.

---

@AriMB

Also, I don’t understand why everyone seems to be against the donated labor exception. If a team can find a shop to donate their time to manufacture custom parts designed by team members, then I think that should be encouraged.

This is what I wrote:

@GeeTwo

Ditch the artificial “donated labor” from “labor performed by members of the team” distinction; allow any labor donated by a sponsor to be exempt

OBTW, labor donated by “team members” is already exempt. My suggestion is to BROADEN the donated labor exception, not eliminate it.

---

@Nate Laverdure

Gus, you’ve shared your thoughts on this issue in the past, and (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1691883&postcount=13).
Those two posts are here quoted:

[quote=GeeTwo;1691880]…Machining done by sponsors who are not members of the team (or non-sponsor machine shops) should be listed at fair market value of the labor. It’s really stretching things to consider someone who isn’t a student and isn’t mentoring students a member of the team. When we had some machining done by NASA (a sponsor), we did not count the labor if done by Les, who actually comes to some build sessions every year and works with the students, but we count the labor if done by one of the other machinists, whom we never see.

@Nate Laverdure

This perspective is baffling. These individuals were contributors of their time and talents. I don’t understand how they could be simultaneously recognized as sponsors and be excluded from belonging to the team.

And then you greaciously gave a better answer than I probably would:

@Nate Laverdure

Here’s what labeling contributors as a class of team members

means to me. Triple Helix sponsors are kept up to date on our news and progress, consulted as advisors, asked to be reviewers of big deliverables, asked to be volunteers at our events, etc. Some even sit on our board of directors. They are a part of our story. We participate in each other’s outreach events. We refer great personnel to one another (new mentors and students to the team, new employees and interns to the sponsor). They are members of our team.

If I decide to provide meaningful support for your team, it means I want to be a part of the awesome things you are doing. Don’t just put me in the “sponsor” box.

The point is that if the relationship is “I donated some dollars, parts, and/or labor, but it didn’t impact my life or the team’s beyond the dollar value of that donation”, this constitutes sponsorship. If the relationship is “I got involved in the team activities, it impacted my life and those of other team members in intangible ways”, this is team membership. I’m baffled as to why your agreement with me is so negatively charged.

---

@Lil' Lavery

A lot of people are hung up on the shortcomings of the current CAW system, and want to remove it entirely as a result. I would rather think about what the CAW could become

, given proper support and infrastructure. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I’d like to focus on how to make the CAW a more productive use of time and more powerful tool for the FIRST community.
…
We also don’t have any way to enforce that teams aren’t starting work before kickoff or that they aren’t falsifying when they bag their robots. Much of FRC is the honor system.

^^ What Sean said.[/quote]