EP Summit Livestream is down

Any idea when it will be up?

The livestream will be up soon. We are experiencing technical difficulties. Sorry for the delay.

Hopefully the powerponta from the presentations will be uploaded somewhere. I am interested in the Raspberry Pi session, but can’t find the slides on roboticseducation like last year, nor on RECF Guidebook app.

NEVER MIND…look under schedule for each sesssion there is a presentation link… oops.

In the past the presentations were posted after the event. Not sure if RECF has different plans this year.

I did not dig deep enough… they did good! Presentations when available are there.

The webcast is live here:

We will be posting presentations after the event as well.

Apologies, the webcast had to be moved. This is the link:

Thanks Jay… but no sound?
… got it now

Just finished listening to the video from day 1; some highlights for those who don’t have time to listen to 6 hours of this:

  • vexu now has its own awards appendix
  • the number one job of EPs with regards to the judging room is to make sure there’s coffee
  • being blunt is evidence of poor social skills
  • the recf decided to use the word coding instead of programming in the industry certifications in order to attract more girls
  • skills ref is now its own official position
  • mc, scorekeeper/referee, and Tournament Manager operator are other official volunteer names
  • they want to emphasize student-centered teams
  • they want judging to take place in pits not in scheduled interviews in separate rooms
  • Design award is supposed to be about design process; amaze, build, and create are all about how good the robot is
  • the excellence rubric is for narrowing contenders; the winner doesn’t need to be the highest on the rubric
  • they only want one judged award per team “if at all possible”
  • you can’t win excellence at worlds more than once in three years (previously you couldn’t win more than once ever)
  • no more presubmission for excellence at worlds
  • design award at worlds requires winning design or excellence at state, regional, or national championship
  • there are 18,000 teams across all programs
    • There will be a free cross-platform (including mac, linux, browser, and mobile app) programming environment for V5 known as VEX Coding Studio which will be released at the same time as V5 * There will be no RobotC for Mac, ever
  • you cannot spray parents with water
  • *V5 was supposed to be ready for worlds when they made the schedule and promised the unveiling, but at the last minute they decided it wasn’t ready and couldn’t guarantee that it met their standards
  • the decision of what to say about V5 at worlds was made very last minute in light of the above change
  • Use of V5 will be somehow balanced in the rules next year so that it does not grant too big of an advantage*
  • Jason says we don’t need feedback on judged awards because we should be able to figure out what areas we need to improve in on our own
  • the biggest reason not to give teams feedback about judged awards appears to be fear of more complaints driven by the feedback teams receive
    • There will be a new sizing tool available for purchase that comes free with the event support kit that will expand to size 36" as well as 18". * It sounds like it will be the same shape as the current tool
  • alpha/beta models of v5 are currently being manufactured

if anyone has anything to add, please do. Or if they want to make one for one of the other days that would be great too. It was really boring for the most part

Haha I find the idea that RECF wants to encourage student centered teams is laughable. I have never gotten that impression.

Well I strongly prefer bluntness, because it cannot be misinterpreted and I can definitely handle it. All my friends know that. But, obviously I won’t be 100% blunt in all conversations with strangers. Tactfulness is often important.

Can you expand on the context for that one?

This isn’t a surprise, it’s also ridiculous. They emphasized that it is the Education and Competition Foundation, with Education first, this decision doesn’t follow that mantra at all. They have also specifically said at the bottom of the rubric now that they must be destroyed after use and not handed back to the teams.

A bit over-bearing in my opinion.

That’s the real reason, in my opinion.

It seems that RECF listened to input on other aspects, I hope they start to listen with respect to this.

It sounds like a lot of people at the summit were onboard with providing some feedback to teams, except for the people on the panel. It sounds like they are afraid of the transparency and don’t trust the maturity of the teams to handle feedback and actually seek to improve in specific areas. I wished someone had raised the idea of providing some details on why the winners of each award were chosen.

I don’t think feedback was the issue. From being in the room I got the impression that it is giving back confidential information such as the score sheets.

If it is given back to the team being judged, it’s not confidential, they were in the interviews. I don’t think anyone is asking that they be made publicly available, just returned to the teams for feedback.

This is absurd. Its like taking a course and knowing at the end if you passed or not without ever knowing your grade.

Governing Bodies only attempt to be less transparent when they have something to hide, so what gives?

This was the impression i got from our local summit as well.

Thank you! This is extremely helpful, and i hope you find time to do this with each day!

This has no effect on my teams.

That is pretty sad.

I disagree. Social skills require you to know when it is and is not appropriate and necessary to be blunt.

That’s sexist. Girls are every bit as capable of handling the word “programming” as the term “coding”. Our programmer is a girl and has had no issues with either terminology.

That is reasonable. I support this. I had already planned this into our event headcount.

Surely they have more important things to worry about than the official names of certain volunteer positions?

That’s good, but i am concerned what steps they might think appropriate to take in this regard. They have a bad knee-jerk reaction of “There is a potential problem, throw more rules at it!”.

That is really non of their concern. That should be entirely in the hands of the EPs based on their needs.

That’s fine. Still don’t care about judged awards.

This is nonsense and defeats the purpose of a rubric. Especially when combined with the later stated point of “Jason says we don’t need feedback on judged awards because we should be able to figure out what areas we need to improve in on our own”. How are teams supposed to know where they need to improve if we not only refuse to give feedback, but also don’t follow the rubric that we give them?

Generally fine. My definition of possible and theirs may differ.

I must have misread before, i thought that was what it said last year already. Still, reasonable. They might consider that for some online challenges too. One team won the website award many years in a row. I don’t know if they made any revolutionary changes to it, but if not then it is just a matter of no one toppling the reigning champion.

Can we get some detail on that? Does this mean notebooks do not need to be mailed in, or that interview slots do not need to be pre-scheduled?

On one hand, this is a good way to narrow down the number of interviews and notebook reads. On the other, this completely removes the incentive to work on the notebook between the last competition and worlds.

Is this based on registration, number of accounts, or survey data?

Neat. I’ll be interested to see it. Will that studio be usable to program the current Cortex, or will we have to maintain two softwares until we fully fase out the Cortex?

They need it, though.

That was poor planing. They lost a lot of good will for that.

Who made that decision, and do they still feel like they handled it appropriately?

I have a bad feeling about anything having to do with adding more rules.

Jason is wrong.

If you are afraid of the students complaining, you are a coward. If you are afraid of the parents complaining, you need to be reminded that this is meant to serve the students, not their parents.

I was hoping for a game of ring toss in the middle of a match whenever a robot expanded. Shame.

If they are only Alpha/Beta models, then do they STILL not meet their standards?

Not sure, but I would guess no. I’m honestly not super knowledgeable about how Excellence was done for VRC at worlds previously as I never went through it personally. I just know that you had to fill out an online application before.

IDK, Jason just said it in passing. Sounds like it is actually active teams though.

Sounds like V5 only. It will eventually support IQ too, though.

I’m guessing that does not meet their standards and that they couldn’t guarentee a quality product are their euphemisms for there being serious problems/setbacks or else why didn’t they at least show something. Then again, they are still claiming a 2018 release before next season (not sure if they specifically mentioned January again).

They are gonna have to make the announcement from a different building if they say they still have nothing to release at Worlds this year, to keep the angry mob from over-running the stage.