All aTwitter about PASS Nominations
Lots of interesting conversations about the PASS nominations happening on Twitter today; if you are not up to speed, youâ€™ve got a lot of reading to do. Iâ€™ll try to sum up as best I can:
- Some people applied to be nominated for board positions; a nominating committed approved 4 applications for 3 open positions.
- 3 of the 4 positions are well-established members of the SQL community; one is a bit more controversial.
- All 4 candidates have been invited to express their opinions on various forums, and all have been â€śinterviewedâ€ť by Brent Ozar on his blog. Links are below.
If you havenâ€™t read these interviews, you need to. For the most part, theyâ€™re pretty insightful, and they suggest what direction each of the candidates is moving in when it comes to PASS. Mattâ€™s candidacy raises some interesting questions about the nomination process, and the role of the Board in determining the direction of PASS. It also raises some definitional questions about what PASS is, and what it should be. I applaud him for his comments on Brentâ€™s blog, because it takes a lot of guts to stand up under fire (even though I disagree with some of his positions).
EDIT: I should have also stated that I applaud ALL of the candidates for their willingness to engage the members of PASS, including the first step of applying for the job.
Before I go too much further, let me say that this post is intended to be an indictment of myself; I did not apply to be on the Board, nor did I even express much interest in the nomination process before today. I also didnâ€™t even blink before I voted; I picked the three candidates that I felt comfortable with, and was going about my business until the conversations began on Twitter today. I will not be so lax in the future.
What bothers me most about Mattâ€™s candidacy is not his position, nor his background, nor the responses he gave to the questions asked of him; itâ€™s the fact that heâ€™s the only candidate that the community seems to have engaged in this fashion. Granted, many of the questions asked were for him to clarify how his professional expertise would make him a good fit for the Board, and those are legitimate questions. There were also other questions that were asked to help clarify his vision of direction for PASS which would have been suitable for the other candidates as well. All of thatâ€™s fair game, but why didnâ€™t we challenge the other candidates as well?
When I asked the question on Twitter, the general response I got was that â€śwe know the other candidates; we donâ€™t know Mattâ€ť. That may be true, but even though we know someone, that should give us the opportunity to engage them on a deeper level than the â€śdark horseâ€ť candidate. Instead, we as a community let 3 out of 4 candidates express themselves with little or no interaction from us, and instead focused on 1 controversial candidate. I am not suggesting that Matt should not have been questioned; I am suggesting that we should have taken more advantage of the opportunity to get to know the other candidates better.
EDIT: As pointed out in the comments below, Matt was not the only candidate to engage with questioners; I didnâ€™t mean to overlook the efforts of the candidates to make themselves approachable, but I did want to point out that many of us didnâ€™t take them up on that offer.
Again, Iâ€™m pointing the finger at myself as much as anyone else. I should have applied for the position; at the very least, I should have asked more questions before casting my vote.