I have a question regarding the "REC Foundation Enforcement" section of the newly released REC Foundation Student Centered Policy:
The goal of this guide is to communicate expectations to organizations and encourage an alignment of best practices within the community. The REC Foundation will evaluate concerns related to behaviors inconsistent with this policy per the Code of Conduct. Although it is never the desire to punish students for adult behaviors, it is imperative that organizations are held accountable to ensure fairness and increase the learning opportunities for students.
This section is vague regarding how organizations will be held accountable. Is my interpretation that this means that, under certain circumstances, teams may be disqualified from tournaments for actions falling under the "red" column of the policy?
Additionally, given the following excerpt:
If a student team member that has expertise on a specific portion of the robot design or programming cannot attend the VEX Worlds or an event that qualifies teams directly to VEX Worlds, the other attending team members should be prepared to share the knowledge and demonstrate functionality.
This is the first mention that I've seen anywhere of effectively requiring the students who built a robot to necessarily attend its events. How will the REC Foundation balance enforcement of this Policy with ensuring that teams are not unfairly penalized (in awards or via disqualification, etc as discussed above) for failing to have all team members understand the entirety of the robot? While this is obviously encouraged, it has never been required, and it has the potential to especially affect teams who take on the challenge of implementing more advanced mechanical and software concepts. Furthermore, how will unforeseeable absences (i.e. medical or other emergency)? While absences always have the potential of hurting a team's performance at events, I don't recall any previous policy having the potential to actively punish teams for it.
Thank you for your time.