I just submitted a couple of sessions to SQL Saturday #70; I feel like I’ve been way off my game in terms of service to the community lately, so hopefully this will provide me a bit of a kick-start. Even if I don’t get accepted (the list is growing longer each day), it’s at least a reminder that I need to get back out there and present.
Here’s the links to the sessions, btw:
Just finished the first night of PASS Summit, and it’s been a great day. Saw a lot of friends that I don’t get to spend enough time with, and it was a real blessing to talk about all of the changes that had happened in my life over the past year. It’s hard to believe that nearly a year ago, I was leaving Summit and headed toward a divorce. Life has changed in the last year, and I think for the better. I haven’t progressed as much professionally as I had hoped, but nonetheless, I think I’m doing OK. I’m happy, healthier, and the future looks bright.
I reflected on this a bit this weekend during Brent Ozar’s FreeCon, where I was lucky enough to sit in the room with some very brilliant people, and spend time about what it takes to be a better technical writer. I enjoyed the experience, and walked away with a lot of rough ideas for future blog posts, and one key thought burning in my brain: I’m not doing enough fun work.
Fun work? Let me try to explain. As a technical person, I enjoy challenges, and I especially enjoy learning new ways to solve problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in my career solving problems, but unfortunately (and I think it’s due in part to personal issues I’ve faced over the last year), I’ve lost my way a bit. I believe that a technical person should spend at least 10 hours out of a 40 hour work week learning something new (fun work); my balance isn’t there. I probably spend 38 hours out of the week doing work that needs to be done, but isn’t really fun anymore; my goal is to change that balance over the next year, and to find ways to enjoy my career again.
I’m still fleshing out what this means to me as a blogger, but I’m excited about the possibility of mastering my craft. Hopefully, I can use this blog as a vehicle to take me there.
Just got word that my XML session was moved from an alternate topic to a full-fledged presentation. The only problem? I already submitted a trimmed down version as a Chalk Talk, and it got accepted. Soooooo… here’s my plan: I’ve got the weekend to beef up the XML presentation and add some spiffy new material to it. It’s gonna be a busy couple of days.
BTW, I’ve enjoyed walking around Seattle the last couple of days; it’s a beautiful city. Can’t wait until the conference starts and I get to see some old friends and learn some new stuff.
Till I drive to the airport. I’m looking forward to this year’s Summit in a lot of ways, and I hope that it will energize me into blogging again. It’s been a rough few weeks, and I’m looking forward to getting excited about my craft again. I’m also looking forward to the few extra days ahead of the conference; taking some time to explore the city.
Anyway, if you’d like to meet me, I’ll be around. Here’s a snapshot of my itinerary so far:
SQLSaturday Networking Group
Welcome Reception
Expressor Community Dinner
Speaker\Volunteer AfterParty
I’m presenting, as well as going to other presentations. Looking forward to lots of networking in the hallways.
AD145CT
XML in SQL Server 2008: An Introduction to XQuery
Chalk Talk
Stuart Ainsworth
While most database professionals have had some exposure to XML, few have actually embraced the potential of using XML in their relational design. This presentation focuses on a basic introduction to XML. This session will cover the basic structure of XML (it’s more than text with tags), and the basic XQuery methods in SQL Server. In addition, specific use case scenarios will be introduced including how to shred an XML document, moving data as XML, and other tips and tricks. Driven from the persepctive of the average database professional, this talk is designed to "get your feet wet" in handling XML data within SQL Server 2008. While some advanced topics will be referenced (such as FLWOR queries), this talk is primarily designed to introduce the audience to basic concepts and tools; participants should expect to walk away with unanswered questions, as well as the motivation to learn more.
Expo Hall 4A
Tuesday, November 9
1:30 PM – 2:10 PM
LT100T
Lightning Talk – Tuesday
Regular session
Adam Machanic, Brent Ozar, Buck Woody, Craig Utley, Joe Webb, Michelle Ufford, Stuart Ainsworth
NEW to PASS this year – Lightning Talks.
A lightning talk is a short, prepared talk that is no more than 5 minutes in length-which keeps things moving quickly. One session everyday will be dedicated to lightning talks and 7 speakers will participate in each talk.
201
Tuesday, November 9
3:00 PM – 4:15 PM
Chapter Leader Luncheon
Of course, there’s lots of stuff I haven’t listed, but I’m sure you’ll see me around. Gotta run.
My dance card is filling up fast:
| 13 | AtlantaMDF: I’m not presenting, but I’m on the leadership team. We’re watching the PASS Summit 2009 keynote, and hoping to generate some additional interest in Summit 2010. |
| 21 | Columbus GA SSUG: Presenting on Red Gate’s SQL Source Control. This is a new presentation for me, and I’m still working out the kinks, but I’m excited about it. |
| 2 | SQLSaturday 48: I’ll be in Columbia, SC, presenting 3 different sessions (2 of my own, and 1 for Red Gate): |
| 8-12 | PASS Summit 2010: So far I haven’t been selected to present, but I did submit a Chalk Talk abstract. I do plan to spend a LOT of time drinking beer and rubbing elbows with some of the brightest and best minds in the industry; I hope to see you there as well. |
…
Of course, somewhere in the midst of all of this prep time, I’ve got to squeeze in my day job, my night job, my kids, and my girlfriend. Who needs sleep?
Obviously, the angst over the 2010 PASS elections still lives on for some, and some of you are probably ready to move on to more immediate concerns, but as for me, I’m stuck here trying to figure out what I should learn from all of this. I do think we as a community need to move forward, and to that end, I’ve agreed to participate in Kevin Kline’s series on the PASS elections process, and answer the following question:
“Many in the community seem to think that the PASS election process is badly broken. Do you think that PASS needs to implement fundamental and far-reaching changes to its election process, or does it only need some fine tuning? Please explain your thoughts?”
I don’t want to keep rehashing the past, because it’s been done (here, here, here, and here, to name a few; if you want a LOT more reading material, the elections site has a bunch of blog entries). While there are lots of lessons to be learned, and ideas to be discussed, I think there are two key points that are not stressed enough:
For the first point, I think we’ve been able to keep our disagreements civil; there have been some comments made from several key contributors to the discussion that have been more cutting than others, and I have said some things that I should have kept to myself, but all in all, I don’t think we’ve burned any bridges that can’t be rebuilt. The only lingering meme that continues to bother me is the occasional “community-vs.-PASS” theme that is implied in some of the discussions; I’ll talk more about why that bothers me in a bit, but I fear we too easily fall into the trap of needing to define an invisible “Them” to be an antithesis to our “We”. We is Them, and They are We.
The second point was driven home to me like a dagger to the heart in a response from Andy Warren to a dialogue in the comments section of Brent Ozar’s post on the issue:
Agreeing to disagree is seldom satisfying, but often necessary. I’m entirely biased about my views on this, but I think it’s easy to forget the pain that continues along with this discussion. Replace the name of SJ with yours, and imagine how it would feel to be left off the slate (fairly, unfairly or otherwise), and then have a conversation continue that seems to imply a great failure during the interview, but no details emerge. Do you defend yourself or lay low? What if you allow the inner details to be published, but they are not?
We don’t agree on the way things worked out. Ok. I think we should let things heal a little more, then have the values and process conversation that we should have had last year – one that I’ve admitted I should have helped to make happen. Yell at me. Yell at the process. But I think we’re at the point where we leave a good man to tend his wounds and we try to do better next year, or we have the entire conversation and let the chips fall where they way on each side. I vote for moving forward.
Not my place to tell you not to talk about it, and much of this has been good conversation. But please remember my friend is not an abstraction. Actually, I wish I could say that better. I know that you don’t he is an abstraction, but I’m not sure that this conversation, right now, helps any of us.
I’ve been so busy defending what I perceived to be attacks on the character of the Nom Com or the quality of my work that I’ve forgotten what it must be like to be in Steve’s place, and for that I’m truly sorry. I don’t regret my choice to point out what I think are inaccurate statements about the process, but I should have tempered my comments with more grace than I did. That being said, I think we all need to step back and realize that nobody was completely happy with this year’s election process; obviously, the controversy was not a desired outcome by anyone on the Nom Com, the Board, or the membership at large. So how do we fix the process moving forward?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I think if you look at any business that has an electable Board of Directors, the nominations process is similar; the Board appoints a committee to find qualified candidates, and then votes to approve or reject the slate. The elections process should be simple, but fair; I don’t think that a Board of an organization need be run like the federal government (with election cycles dictating workflow). That being said, I think there are lots of opportunities to tweak the process, and learn from our mistakes.
I think PASS made strides this year, but there should be very specific minimum requirements for a seat at the table. Andy Leonard and K. Brian Kelley both made excellent points about the inadequacy of using a ranking system to evaluate certain concrete measures like Education and References. If we must use a ranking system, then the criteria for the ranks need to be carefully defined, like so:
Applicant must have a Bachelor’s Degree (or equivalent University degree).
Add 1 point for a Master’s Degree in any subject.
Add 1 point for a Doctorate Degree in any subject.
Please note that the above example is merely intended to illustrate specific ranking criteria; the definition of Education itself warrants more discussion than I have time for in this post.
Experience with PASS is another great example of a objective measure that needs standard ranking; how long have you been a member? What volunteer roles have you performed? Is experience as a chapter leader more or less valuable than experience on the Program Committee? Whatever standards are chosen, they should be well-defined and applied evenly from year to year; if an applicant doesn’t change their behavior from year to year (i.e., an applicant with little PASS experience in year 1 doesn’t get involved in year 2), they should have the same score.
Applications should be made available to the public, as well as the ranking using the standardized questionnaire described above; the general members of PASS should feel confident that the scoring system used to evaluate an application reflects the applicant’s ability to meet the minimum requirements.
However, I think that discussions within the Nominations Committee, including interviews with the applicants, should remain opaque: a black box. I know others think that the Nom Com should be completely transparent, but I think that the job of the Nom Com is to probe areas beyond the minimum qualification, and in order to do so, the members of that group need the ability to ask questions that may not be appropriate for general consumption. I think this protects both the applicants and the volunteer interviewers (what if I, as a volunteer, were to ask a really stupid question? Should I be vilified on the Internet by the membership?). But here’s the rub: the interviews need to be recorded.
The interviews should NEVER be released to the general membership, but once the slate has been presented to the Board of Directors for approval or rejection, the interview tapes need to be included as part of the recommendation in order to give the Board full insight into why the Nom Com chose to recommend or deny certain candidates. The board should then accept or reject the slate, and if they choose to reject the slate, decide how they’re going to move forward; the discussions surrounding the slate should not be released, but the vote should. That way, if the general membership felt that the process was unfair, they could contact the Board members and move forward with resolving the issue.
I think one of the hardest problems to tackle in this discussion is the issue of member involvement; as I mentioned earlier, the theme of “community vs. PASS” is a difficult pill for me to swallow because I see every member of PASS (including the Board) as member of the community. I also realize (as a chapter leader) that there are many members of the community which are not PASS members, and members of both subsets that are not active in many of the social networks that were abuzz with concerns over the process.
Let me back up and clarify: I’m a chapter leader for AtlantaMDF, and at one point, we had nearly 1500 SQL Server Professionals on our private mailing list. These were people who at one point had registered for a meeting of ours; I’d consider them member of the community. Are they PASS members? Maybe. Are they active on twitter, or active bloggers? Dunno; my experience presenting on these topics leads me to believe that the vast majority of SQL Server Professionals are NOT involved in social networking. Kendra Little had a similar take on the problem of uninvolved membership (I stole the graph from her):
Voting stats from the last few elections would probably back up this idea; although I don’t remember the actual numbers, I do remember thinking that the voter turnout was abysmal compared to the number of people that PASS claims as members (remember that membership is free). Sort of like the same feeling I get when I think that AtlantaMDF invites 1500 people every month to come to a meeting, and 75 do; I’m grateful we got 75, but we’re missing a lot of interaction from 1425 other people.
So how do we involve the membership? I think that Chapter Leaders (including Virtual Chapter Leaders) should be randomly selected and asked to serve on the Nom Com every election cycle, and the number of Chapter Leaders should always outweigh the number of Board seats by at least 1. Why Chapter Leaders? To me, they represent the local faces of PASS, and are the most likely ones to understand the pulse of the community. Why not bloggers, tweeters, or columnists? Although I think that social networkers provide a great service to the community, they don’t necessarily have an official relationship with PASS. PASS serves the community, but I think the election process needs to be membership driven.
Involving the membership via Chapter Leaders on the Nom Com should (I hope) instill some trust in the process, even if the interview process yields an unpopular result. It’s a lot harder to accuse the Nom Com of predetermining the outcome of an interview because of their ties to the Board if the Nom Com consists of a majority of non-Board members.
I have several other ideas (such as the possibility of a Chapter Congress), but many of them require drastic overhauls of how PASS does business; that’s simply not feasible. I think many of the problems of the last two elections can be easily resolved with a few minor tweaks. However, the first step is the conversation, and that conversation needs to begin well before the election season. It’s easy to be upset about the outcome, but in order for real change to occur, we (the community) need to step up and participate in the conversations. I am eagerly awaiting the chance; are you?
It’s been over a week since my last post on this subject, and to be honest, I was hoping that I wasn’t going to have to write any more. I felt like I had stated my position that the Nominations Committee for the PASS elections of 2010 had been faced with an unpopular decision, and we chose to take the high road of following the process we established before picking the slate. Since then, I’ve had the peculiar experience of both being hailed as a hero (for making a public statement) and yet having my work deemed inferior (the decision we reached as a committee). I’m hoping that I can clarify some things, and publically answer some questions that have been asked of me online and face-to-face.
If you haven’t been following along, or (like me) have missed a couple of really good postings on the issue, you may want to check out the list of postings at the Discussion page on http://elections.sqlpass.org. I think it speaks volumes about our community that we worry about things like fairness and openness, and that the organization which is at the center of the controversy is hosting comments (both positive and negative).
I should note that I’m making this post as an individual, not as a sanctioned representative of the Nominating Committee or PASS. It’s all me, and these are my beliefs and my opinions. I like to think that I hold myself to the highest standard possible, so there are some things that I’m going to frame in terms of my beliefs, even those beliefs may be more restrictive than what is legally or professionally required.
First, I believe that the Nominations Committee should be a “black box”; you define the standard by which decisions should be reached, the applicants to whom those decisions apply, and the decision makers before putting that in the box. Whatever happens in the box, stays in the box. I had earlier alluded to protecting the privacy of the applicants, but to be honest, the Committee should also protect the privacy of the members (in my opinion). This was a volunteer gig, and even though many of the volunteers were sitting Board members, a few of us were not. I know I said some things in those meetings about applicants that I don’t necessarily want broadcast, and according to the election procedure, my comments should be kept in committee; I believe that volunteers should have the right to express ideas in discussion that are unpopular, and those comments should not be used in a court of public opinion. If I thought that Jack Corbett was an evil genius intent on destroying the world, I should have the right to use that to spark a discussion in committee without ruining my relationship with him (by the way, I don’t believe that; Jack is one of the sweetest guys I know).
Second, I believe that no matter how unpopular the decision, groups that are composed of volunteers shouldn’t throw the committee under the bus when the work is done. I SUPPORT THE RESULTS OF THE NOM COM. Period. This is not “circling the wagons” or “hiding behind the process”; this is a fundamental precept of my understanding of civilized discourse. Seven people had an opportunity to discuss all of the applicants, and seven people reached a majority decision to promote five applicants to the slate. I respect the work of my colleagues on the Nom Com, and I hope they feel the same way about me.
Third, we’ve all got to work together tomorrow. The SQL Server community is large, but it’s still a small village in some ways, and I want to be careful in what I say because I want to engage in productive dialogue, and not destructive. It was funny to see some of the tweets about the perceived “us-vs-them” (and I know those tweets were in jest), but the truth is, I respect a lot of people that I don’t always agree with. Andy Leonard and I had some great discussions over the weekend at SQL Saturday 51, as did Andy Warren and I. Lynda Rab hugged me. Steve Jones and I have exchanged DM’s, and I’m hoping to sit down over a beer with him at some point. I’ve also had several emails and phone calls from others with whom I disagree; I’m friends with people, and I hope that at the end of the day, we can walk away respecting each other even though we may have different ideas about how to solve the problem. There’s no “them” in this discussion; we’re all us.
Andy Leonard recently posted a great wrap-up about the process as he understands it; he does make some conjectures about the process which I think are incorrect, but for the most part, I think his analysis is insightful and a great read for people who can only observe from the outside.
Andy makes a great argument about process failures versus execution failures, and I can see his point.
I left Farmville Virginia at 4:00 AM EDT Friday morning heading to SQL Saturday #51 in Nashville Tennessee. I thought about where I was going the night before, printed some basic instructions, pre-programmed a few addresses into my Garmin, and then drove roughly 550 miles in about 9 hours… this was my process. If I’d ended up in New York City instead of Nashville I could offer the excuse that I followed a process, but you would see right through that excuse, wouldn’t you? You’d say things like "That’s weak Andy". If you had a vested interest in meeting me in Nashville and I
calledemailed you from New York City to tell you I wasn’t in Nashville and that I was, in fact, even further from Nashville than I was at the beginning of following my process, you would be understandably put out.
It’s a great analogy, but it’s hinged on one troublesome precept: the Nom Com and the Board of Directors failed. I don’t think we failed (and I know that statement’s about to open up a heap of trouble). Did we (the Nom Com) arrive at an unpopular decision? Yep. Did the Board of Directors support that unpopular decision and ratify the slate? Yep. Is that a failure? No. If you’re assuming that Steve Jones deserves to be a candidate, then I can see how you want to blame somebody or something for reaching a different outcome than you desire. But that’s not a failure; it was an unplanned outcome <G>.
Here’s my take on it: We (the Nom Com) had an agreement with PASS to find qualified candidates for the 2010 Board of Directors; to fulfill that agreement, we developed a process that we published and had explicitly approved by the BOD, and implicitly approved by the PASS membership (I don’t remember getting any feedback at all from the membership after making this post). We used a template to evaluate written applications, and then interviews (more about the template below). After all was said and down, it came down to an Yes/No/Abstain vote from each of the Nom Com members (as explained by Tom LaRock); Steve and Jack didn’t get enough votes to go on. Did the Nom Com deliver a slate of qualified candidates? Damn skippy; I believe that each and every one of the five individuals of the slate deserves an opportunity to be a Director. Did we leave off candidates that were qualified according to public opinion? Obviously so. Is that a failure? I wouldn’t call it one; to rephrase Andy’s analogy, I think we made it to Nashville, but we left behind part of the slide deck. Can we still go on?
Both Andy Leonard and K. Brian Kelley provide some insight into the numbers from the templates used to rank the candidates. Again, very well written and thoughtful posts that certainly raise some questions about why Steve (and to some degree, Jack, who is getting a very short shrift in this controversy) didn’t make the slate. It’s understandable, because those templates are comfortable to look at for data-oriented geeks. We like numbers, and we like it when numbers make sense. It would be great if we had some sort of objective measurement by which to determine the qualifications of an applicant; unfortunately, the template ain’t it.
Brian’s analysis shows the holes in the theory that we had an objective measure by questioning how we (the Nom Com) arrived at those ratings; granted, his rankings are based on his personal knowledge of Steve Jones, and he’s a sample of 1, but it shows the subjectivity inherent in a ranking system. Granted, the averages were supposed to ease some of the subjectivity (by reducing the emphasis on outliers), but 7 is still a small sample, so extreme differences among Nom Com members could have definitely impacted the outcome. Furthermore, the Nom Com was privy to information that was not public (the complete application and interview); our rankings were based on our perception of how well the candidate met the criteria using all information available to us, and most of that information came from the application and the interview. Did I know about Steve’s black belt? No. Did I know his son was on the Eagle Scouts? Wasn’t on the application form.
Ultimately, the numbers were used as a guide to facilitate discussion; there was no cut-off point, and 7 interviewees were well within the maximum number of candidates for the Board (as defined by the bylaws; see the election process for more details). It came down to a majority vote, and the majority of the committee felt that Steve and Jack were not ready at this time to be on the slate (for Jack, it was 0 yea’s, 6 no’s, and an abstention; for Steve, it was 1 yea, 5 no’s, and an abstention).
Here’s a quote from Andy Leonard:
I know Steve. I believe he would be disruptive. I think he would challenge the status quo and defend the SQL Server Community with every ounce of his being. I believe he would start his two years of service on the Board more stubborn and obstinate than he would end it. Like every Board of Director member that’s taken time to share their experience, Steve would evolve. For some, that’s a problem. They cannot tolerate the disruptive-ness. I believe Steve was deemed "unFit" for the Board for this reason.
I may be misreading this, but Andy seems to be accusing some members of the Nom Com and the Board of Directors of bias against disruption or discussion, and to that end I ask: Have you met Rick Bolesta? Andy Warren? Lynda Rab? None of these folks would I consider to be peacekeepers; they’re all opinionated, strong-willed, intelligent, and fair people (and I can name others on the BoD). To assume that we (the Nom Com) deliberately excluded an applicant because they met the same characteristics of many of the sitting BoD is illogical.
To be fair, I can see how Andy got there; Steve is not known for pulling punches when it comes to PASS, and I can see how it looks like “Steve was a bully, so I’m not going to let him play on my team”. But, to linger on that assumes that the we (the Nom Com) are incapable of being professional when it comes handling criticism. To pull another quote from Andy regarding the Nom Com:
You could argue that they did their job with the same zeal as the people who shrink-wrap CDs and DVDs. But understand they were told to protect us from another marketing executive. This isn’t a complaint about the NomCom – it’s constructive criticism. I believe members of the NomCom know the difference.
I, too, believe the Nom Com knows when criticism is constructive, and I think we factored that in to the definition of Fit. But one’s ability to deliver constructive criticism is NOT the only component of that measure; we examined all nominee’s skills, experiences, and strength to derive that measure. Granted, it was a subjective measure masked as objectivity, but it should not have been used as a bias against Steve (or any other candidate) because he’s a rabble-rouser.
After all of that is said is done, there’s still some lingering questions to be answered. I’d been meaning to write a post about this, but obviously the controversy is outweighing the need to understand what happened in committee. Let me briefly summarize some of the main points:
Yes. I think that the Nom Com qualification process needs to be standardized and used every year; that would alleviate some of the concerns as to why the quality of candidates differentiated so wildly from last year to now. I think the template is a great idea, but the Board needs to define (in conjunction with the membership at large; stole that idea from Andy Warren) what constitutes a qualified candidate. Those qualifications need to be simple and easy to understand, and allow for a broad range of candidates to qualify.
I also think the board needs to have more community members sitting on it, like others have suggested (I couldn’t find the reference, so if you were first to post this, sorry). I do believe that a Nom Com is necessary for PASS, and I’m open to discussions about the role of that committee.
There have been times over the last week that I have wanted to haul a few posters aside and have a discussion out in the parking lot (despite the fact that the last fight I was in was in 7th grade, and I lost because my lip got stapled to my braces). I’ve gotten very good at relieving stress via Wii Boxing. I think the criticism that hurt most was from people whom I respect and they posted something without thinking about the people involved in the process; most I have forgiven (and talked it out). Others will take a while before they gain my trust back.
I also HATE that 5 talented individuals that did make the slate (and 1 who did not) are being marginalized because of the outcry over Steve. We’ve got to move on, and soon, or we’re going to miss out an opportunity to understand the next set of Directors.
Hell, yes. I plan to serve until I get the chance to deny Paul Randall a seat on the board (j/k). To be honest, I’m very proud of my service, and I hope to do again. I realize it’s not the easiest job in the world, but nothing important is.
If you Tweet or follow Steve Jones’ blog, you’ve already gotten the news that Steve will not be on the slate for the Board of Directors this year. It was a tough decision for the Nominations Committee to make, but I wanted to address some of the controversy before it boils over. I do, however, have a few caveats:
So, how do I talk about this without talking about it? I guess I’ll start with what my intent for this post it; I can’t discuss how or why we reached a decision about Steve (that’s not fair to him), but I do want to defend the professionalism and integrity of the Nominations Committee.
Just to restate the process for those of you playing at home:
Steve obviously made the first cut on his application because we interviewed him. Since he didn’t make the slate, you can probably surmise that something happened during the interview phase for a significant portion of the NomCom to not recommend him. What’s being overlooked in the current controversy is that several other interviewees DID make the slate.
That’s important; we applied the same rigor and professionalism in interviewing all of the candidates that we did to Steve, In fact, I can honestly say that we discussed Steve Jones MORE than any other candidate because we were all a little surprised at our own decision. We knew it was going to be unpopular with the community, and we knew that there were going to be questions about how we could exclude such a great guy like Steve (and to be clear, I do think Steve is a great guy; he’s a great asset to the community and to PASS).
What could we have done? Should we have proposed a candidate simply because he’s a popular choice? Should we have given him a do-over in the interview? Neither of those choices seemed professional or appropriate, and so I stand behind the decision to be consistent with all candidates, and I hope that most of you would have to come to the same decision if you were in my seat. If not, I’d hope that you understand that it was my desire to be professional and to have integrity that led me to this decision.
Not much new to report on the PASS 2010 Nominations process this week (http://elections.sqlpass.org). We’ve interviewed 5 of the 7 remaining applicants, and overall, it looks like we’re going to have a great slate for selecting candidates this year. Unfortunately, I had to miss a couple of the interviews due to a faulty merge-and-purge process at work, but the ones I did sit in on were very impressive.
I promise that I’ll write a more in-depth post after the interviews are done, but I don’t want to skew the remaining interviews. Hang in there.
Just a quick note about some upcoming presentations:
I’ll be presenting “The Social DBA: Resources for Career Building” at SQL Saturday 51 in Nashville, TN on August 21. Also, on September 21, I’ll be presenting on Red Gate’s SQL Source Control at the Columbus, GA SQL Server Users Group.