Category Archives: PASS

How do you change something that can’t be changed?

As many of you know, Steve Jones was cut by the Nomination Committee and won’t be on the ballot this year. He made the announcement in a short blog post.

In the comments Andy Warren said “I’m disappointed as well. I think the NomCom tried hard to apply the process we gave them, so the fault – in my personal view – is with the process, just not rich enough. I’ll write more when I’ve had a chance to reflect some.

I would be disappointed – again, speaking just as me – if anyone elects to walk away from PASS because of this. Don’t agree with PASS on this or any other issue? Fight the fight to change it!”

I agree, if you walk away just because of this issue that would be a mistake. If this is last in a long list of mistakes that is a different matter all together.

From the Bylaws:
”These Bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed, and new bylaws may be adopted by a two‐thirds vote of the Board of Directors, provided that at least thirty (30) days’ written notice is given of intention to alter, amend, or repeal these Bylaws and to adopt new Bylaws prior to the specified date of the vote.”

Thirty days, that’s all it takes to make a fundamental change to how PASS operates. Oh, and a two-thirds vote from the BoD. So, my question is how do I change something about PASS without running for the BoD? Did you know the qualifications for the BoD haven’t changed once since 1999? You have to be more qualified to run for the BoD than you do the President Of The United States. People govern our society with less qualifications and more success.

Not wanting to walk away from an organization I have been involved with for several years I choose to fight for change. My first little fight was attend meetings at the Summit voice my opinion and push for change. Next, to vote for people like Andy Warren and Tom LaRock. I think both are agents for change. Andy has been very vocal and has been as transparent as possible during his tenor on the BoD. I can’t say that for everyone else. The anemic amount of information coming from PASS and the BoD in general is just embarrassing. You don’t see much unless there is a firestorm going on. I also got evolved in the program committee this year. Again, I was a little surprised by how little information is fed back to submitters and the general lack of transparency in choosing speakers. I couldn’t run for the BoD this year but I was planning to run next year and getting my ducks in a row for that. Lastly, I talk a lot. I talk to leaders in the community, people involved in PASS and folks on the board.

I’ve also spent a lot of my time at the local level running the Austin, TX UG for several years and starting the San Antonio, TX UG. I speak regularly at my UG and more recently, at SQL Saturday events. Local community building is a passion for me. When Andy, Steve and Brian got SQL Saturday going I was just in awe how quickly it took off and how well local chapters handled these events. The thing that blew me away was the cost to the attendees. The quality of the training is on par with the Summit in most cases. In some cases it can be a little better as Baton Rouge showed me that you can include the .net folks as well and still have an awesome SQL Server event. We are also in the planning stages for our own SQL Saturday in Austin. Have I put in as much work as say Patrick LeBlanc? Maybe not yet but I have put in more than your “average” PASS member.

With all of that said, I can can tell you honestly, I don’t know most of the BoD very well at all. When people run for the BoD there is a good chance I probably haven’t heard of some them and have to dig to find out who they are. The BoD is elected by “Members in good standing”, a group that probably doesn’t know them ether. If you say there are around 200 chapters* and at least one chapter leader per group, some have committees and such but we are keeping this simple, that gives us 200~ or so “Leaders in the community” I bet most of them don’t know the whole BoD. 51%* of UG leaders knew who their regional mentor was, you know the person designated to liaison between chapters and the parent organization. Almost half of the UG’s have no real interaction with PASS. So how do these folks get voted in? They may be a known speaker or did some campaigning to raise awareness, honestly I think it comes down to the limited number of “qualified” candidates and the number of slots available. A coin toss in most cases. The few people that may be truly informed, say around 100, may have some influence as well. That is out of the roughly 40,000 possible PASS membership (if each UG averages 200 members). Fundamentally, 15 people decide what PASS is, not the 40,000 they represent.

Lets be honest, PASS isn’t a community organization, it is the Summit.  Everything that PASS does is to get people to go to the Summit. I don’t see much in the way of UG support, other than the “comp” to the Summit. PASS is a marketing machine period. They use the UG to funnel people to the summit and “give back” by giving the UG leadership one summit pass, and they are looking to restrict that*. Douglas McDowell said* “There is always some misunderstanding that this is not an easy or free benefit for PASS to offer, the actual cost for a Summit comp is high since all the event facilities and food and beverage are all charged per-attendee plus incremental consumption – it adds up quick and requires a lot of allocated budget.” It is a marketing expense, and a fair one at that. How many people do the UG’s reach out to? I spend quite a bit of time cheerleading trying to get people to go to the Summit. It takes a lot of money to do the Summit. At the end of the day it touches around 3,000 people. Less than one tenth of the voting PASS membership. What has PASS done to reach out to the other 37,000? We got SQL Saturday! Oh, that was built by people outside PASS, then handed to PASS. How many people has SQL Saturday help train? With 40+ events done if each event had 200 people show that is 8,800 people, since 2007 no less. We got the UG’s! Again, local people do all the leg work they find their own funding, speakers and meeting space. The 24 hours of PASS is the only thing of true value outside the Summit that has come from inside PASS. PASS, as a parent organization isn’t relevant to 90% of my UG membership, we could be a chapter of the local funeral directors association for all they care. After 6 years I’ve all I have received are slide decks, comps and enough money to run the UG for about 6 months. In return I spend 11 months out of the year getting as many people as I can to attend the Summit.

Is the BoD all setting around like Snidely Whiplash and twirling their collective mustaches? I don’t think so. Did the NomCom receive secret orders to stand in the way of people like Tim, Steve and Brent? Nope, I’m sure they didn’t. Instead they have built up a system that feeds itself. The machine is self sustaining and there aren’t enough people at this point to make the changes at the top that need to happen. The focus is so tight on the Summit that everything else is just sparklers and window dressing. I say kill the Summit, focus on the local and regional events. You won’t need a three million dollar budget to reach out to the vast majority of the membership. The community will benefit as a whole. Have open elections, not just for the BoD but other key jobs inside the organization. Open it up, all the way. I have worked with other non-profits before, everything was open to the public, there were no closed BoD sessions or hiding from the community we supported, and I tell you that community needed a hell of a lot more than training, we were effecting peoples lives.

I’m begging you, the BoD, to fix this. Not just the duly elected members but the members from Microsoft and CA as well. As for my fellow chapter leaders, speakers and event organizers SPEAK UP! We are still a small group inside the electorate but we represent a much wider range of it than the BoD. Lastly, you the person who comes to the UG’s, attends the Summit or goes to a SQL Saturday let as many people know that you would like to see change, you are providing something in exchange for the education whether you pay the 1,500 bucks for the Summit or show up for free to the other events. You have the ultimate power as a consumer, the all mighty dollar. Demand more for your investment.

My issues with PASS as an organization didn’t start today. It has finally come to a boil though. I’m not exactly sure what I’m going to do in the future with PASS. I plan on staying involved with SQL Saturday events and building local community as much as possible. As for my ability to fight for change, I think I’ve reached the end of that road. There were UG’s before PASS and there will be UG’s after PASS has faded away. I for one look forward to joining ASSP, the Association of SQL Server Professionals, if they understand what caused PASS to loose the backing of the SQL Server community in the first place.

*(taken from http://www.sqlpass.org/Community/PASSBlog/entryid/156/Q2-Chapter-Survey-Shows-Strong-Community-Reach.aspx)

The PASS Session Selection Process, My Experience Part 3

In my last two posts I talked specifically about the process. This round I’m going to discuss the tools of the trade. Note: These are my views and opinions and not that of PASS in any way shape or form.

This was my first year on the program committee. From talking to other people on the committee, there have been several tools and methods used in the past to do the work of selecting abstracts. I can’t speak to the previous tools just to this years. And it will change again next year. PASS is a dynamic, volunteer, organization things can change pretty quickly when they need to. I also have to say that Elena Sebastiano and Jeremiah Peschka were both very helpful and responsive to questions. Lance Harra was also on the Professional Development track team and was easy to work with. This isn’t Lance’s first time doing this and for that I was grateful. He helped me stay focused and really helped guide the selection process. In all, the final selection process was pretty smooth in that regard.

The Tool
At first blush the web based tool we were to use seemed pretty simple. Jeremiah did a training session and I felt like I could use it without much fuss. The tool is integrated into the main PASS website, which is based on DotNetNuke. Since they have to work inside the DNN framework there are some limitations. It has a limited amount of space to display a lot of information. In the inner panel you could have to scroll down and to the right.

The main page has all the sessions listed, but on multiple pages. I actually missed this my first night going through the first page of submissions. I thought there were only 20~ submissions because I couldn’t see the page counter until I scrolled the frame all the way to the bottom.

The detail page was laid out pretty well the first thing I would change if possible would be the column names. They looked just like that, camel case column names. Secondly, the section to enter notes and set ratings was a little slow to use. You had to click on a rate button fill out the form and submit. This requires a server round trip every time. It does keep you from losing anything you have put into the form so far though.

When you are done with the detail ratings you are back to the main page for your final ratings. Again every button push was a server call and got tiring at times. This is just your final ratings and reason for rejection or to approve an abstract. You also have to set a final reason that ultimately is used by the heads of the program committee to pick the session list.

This brings me to the selection of reasons an abstract was rejected. I have to say it was limited and was difficult to choose. There isn’t a “You were awesome but not enough slots” in the drop down. We have to put in a reason so I tried to pick the most appropriate one I could.

In all, the tool was functional and allowed us to do the work. Again, this is the first year for this tool and I’m sure it will undergo some changes.

Odds and Ends

One of the things I thought was odd was the lack of knowledge sharing. I could see my partners totals for each submission but not any of the notes. Since we aren’t in the same room let alone in the same state it pretty much means out of band emails or phone calls to talk about abstracts. Also, as my first time doing this it would have been nice to see why Lance had rated an abstract the way he did.

After talking with some of the submitters, it appears that they don’t get any feedback on why they were chosen or not, just what we picked in the reasons drop down. I took notes on pretty much every abstract with the assumption that it would be fed back to the submitter, so if they chose to submit again next year they wouldn’t make some of the same mistakes.

Lastly, a speaker is limited to the number of sessions they can present. This guarantees that you don’t see the same three people the whole summit. The problem is we don’t know if they have been chosen more than the allotted times. If we pick them then they get pulled for another track they have to depend on our alternate selection to fill a slot. We did some second guessing on some folks with the assumption they would be gobbled up by other tracks. In hind sight I it would have been helpful if we knew the person had put in say five submissions to and what tracks to make our choices a little better. Possibly prioritize the tracks and publish to the tracks down stream who is off the table. Maybe even allow the submitter to put a preference on their submissions so we have just that little bit more information on what they would like to speak on as well.

The PASS Session Selection Process, My Experience Part 2

In part one I talked about the abstracts. While important, abstracts are only one part of a complicated selection dance. Since there are so many submissions and so few slots even the best abstracts may not be chosen.

The Selection Criteria

We were given a set of instructions and categories to rate things. There weren’t too many of them and they were subjective in nature. We rated abstracts, topics and the presenter with a final subjective rating to act as a catch all.

Abstracts
Covered in part one.

Topics
This was a little odd to me. The topic and abstract are clearly dependent on each other. I wouldn’t approve an abstract if the topic wasn’t something appropriate. Conversely, I wouldn’t approve a topic if the abstract was weak. Also, don’t confuse the title of the abstract with the topic. The abstract could be the best written one in the world and not get approved if the topic was say how to knit doilies.

Presenter
This was probably the one thing that soaked most of my time. It involved lots of footwork on my end. If I don’t know you, haven’t seen you present or don’t have enough information how do I rank you? This is where filling in your Bio on the abstract submission is important. If you had spoken at a previous PASS Summit there is a possibility I could see your past rankings. They range from 1 to 5. If you are in the high 3’s or 4’s that works out well enough for me. If you haven’t spoken at the Summit I would look at your online presence. Do you blog, tweet or do other things to show you can communicate with the community? Also, I look to see if you have presented at a regional or local level and try to contact people I do know to ask how they thought you did. If you have spoken and I can find your slide decks that also helped me out. Luckily, I have been involved with the community for a long time and have attended every PASS since 2003.

Subjective Rating
I really don’t know how to deal with this one. I used it mostly to sum up my thoughts put a final rating on the submission. To me, all of it is subjective. It’s my opinion if the submission should move forward. This is like saying “I love the abstract, topic and speaker but the sky is blue today so I’m giving it a 1”.

Final Thoughts

Personally, I’d like to see clear breakouts with instructions on how to use them. There are several fundamental criteria that would keep a session out right off the top, you answer them and if they don’t tally up you move on to the next submission. There are exceptions to every rule, but in most cases I think it would work well.

My next, and probably last, post will cover the tools and processes that PASS makes available to do this job.

The PASS Session Selection Process, My Experience Part 1

Well, I have just finished up my part in the abstract selection process for the PASS Summit. This was my first year as a volunteer in this process so I don’t have any specific previous experience to draw on. I have some experiences that are similar. Some of you may know that I was actually a double major Mass Communications and Theatre in college. I have experience in putting together competitions and also as a judge at several events. So, while I might not have PASS experience I have had to judge others on their abstract writing and presentation skills. This process isn’t an easy one. It also is getting more difficult every year just due to the volume of submissions. To put into perspective, there were 7 regular session professional development slots with 4 alternates and 47 submitters. We had more seasoned speakers than slots for sure. I won’t know if the sessions I promoted will be selected or not. Unlike Steve, I didn’t get the impression my word was the final one. I understand why Steve isn’t happy about the selection process, I just assumed that my recommendations were just that, recommendations and someone else would have the final say. There are other factors I have no control over. If a speaker is chosen by other tracts there is no guarantee that the speaker will be available for the PD track.

Abstracts

Quite a number of the abstracts were well written with clear goals. A number of them though needed some revisions or additions. I went to the PASS website and looked at the abstract submittal guidelines and found them incomplete. If these had been submitted without some additional information or not by a known speaker and leader in the community I saw them as incomplete. Lets break it down.

The Title:
Being witty is fun, but if I don’t know what are actually talking about the people seeing it in the program guide won’t ether and may skip you over.

The Bio:
Even if you are well known, a Bio just helps set that in stone. It also keeps me from doing two things, digging around the internet to see what you have done or relying on my less than perfect memory about you. Without a Bio you are trusting me to gather the information and set you apart from the other 40+ people wanting a slot.

The Abstract:
You don’t have to write War and Peace. You do need to be descriptive and clear. If you can do that in the space of a Tweet great, you have 1000 words don’t be shy. Focus your topic. Don’t mix and match several things that may not even be related in the same presentation. If the first third applies to me but the other two thirds don’t I probably won’t go to the presentation at all. Again, funny is great but if you don’t cut to the chase I don’t know what your topic is really about.

Session Prerequisites:
Unless this is a 100 level session you will have to detail some prerequisites that your audience should have. Since of humor or personality flaws aren’t prerequisites. One year of analysis services is.

Session Goals:
Right now we have three slots on the form. Most folks didn’t take full advantage of listing the learning points.  The goals should be tangible and something you can repeat on your own after sitting through the session. Feeling better about yourself is something you get from therapy. Learning how to prioritize tasks is a goal. If there aren’t enough slots then use your abstract space for that as well.

Level:
This seems to be one of the more difficult areas. It can be subjective. I would use your prerequisites and goals guide you. If there are a few specific prerequisites that generally indicates something higher than novice. If it requires specific knowledge about a specific feature that may be advanced or higher. If your goals are very specific about a feature or technique that may also raise the session level.

Next post I’ll talk about the process and tools that we used to make these difficult decisions.