Notice the bluetooth ear piece fashion faux pas? Yes, she's truly a geek.
I’m happy to report that Barbie is now a cognizeti, a digerati, … yes even an IT Professional! This year’s new Barbie is Computer Engineer Barbie.
Several months back, I encouraged all my friends and followers on Twitter to vote for the IT job for Barbie in Mattel’s recent public job selection for the eponymous doll. That encouragement was founded in an experience I’d had years earlier – becoming a dad to a very beautiful baby girl. When I was growing up as a kid, I clearly recall how odd it was for a woman to have a career outside of a handful of “traditional feminine jobs” like teacher, nurse, telephone operator or secretary. It wasn’t until years later, as a new dad, that I realized how asinine this preconceived notion really was (and, in fact, still is in many cultures around the world). I even wrote about this a few years ago in my personal blog, where I mentioned how I’d love to see my daughters grow up and take on an IT career.
Sadly, many IT professional societies report dramatic imbalances in gender demographics. For example, the IEEE Computer Society reports that their membership is only 7% female. Similarly, universities in the USA shows about a 10% representation of female faculty and 14% of their students in computer-related majors.
One of the things I’d always found to be rather amazing about PASS was it’s strong emphasis on Women in Technology (WIT). In fact, as far as database professional societies go, PASS was the first to work hard to make WIT prominent within its culture (although I believe that the International Sybase User Group had a WIT group before PASS). I’d like to also give credit to the women within PASS who made this happen. I can’t even begin to list them all here, but without them, WIT at PASS would not have been possible. A few women who immediately come to mind include Rebecca Laszlo, , Kalen Delaney, Denise McInerny, Kathi Kellenberger, Stefanie Higgins, Lynda Rabb, Kimberly Tripp, and many many more.
All of these outstanding women deserve accolades for making PASS a welcoming place for women. Don’t think that it’s a big deal? You should attend an IT conference without a strong WIT community – you’ll see the difference in 30 seconds flat. (I’m not going to name any names here. But attend the top conferences for certain IT companies headquartered in Redwood City, California or Armonk, NY and you’ll see what I mean).
So, thank you ladies, for making PASS in particular and the overall Microsoft SQL Server community much better for everyone by making it better for women. I hope to see this trend continue and for your contributions to continue to improve our community.
David Straithairn as the great Edward R. Murrow in the 2005 film "Good Night and Good Luck"
Journalists are important. In my opinion, they’re very important. The best journalists, like Old Testament prophets, speak truth to power and reveal the ugly dirt behind the pretty and public veneer of society. Their very presence foils corruption or, at least, helps reveal it, punish it, and make it dive for deeper waters else go extinct. It was for this reason that Thomas Jefferson famously wrote:
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
(I’m red-green color blind, so forgive me if that quote is purple or some weird color like that. I just meant for it to be navy blue. But I digress…)
Sadly, the last couple decades have seen the blurring of journalism and entertainment. So much so that shock jocks now get byline billing as journalists and real journalists, in the search for better ratings and higher SEO rank, debase themselves and their content by injecting shock appeal. (This trend isn’t a new thing, btw. Historically, journalism has had other nadirs in the past, the most prominent being the era of yellow journalism spanning the 1880’s to the early 1900’s.) Of course, we see this every day on our television and hear it all the time on the radio – have any radio stations on your car tuner that you always skip? But I’d hardly expect this sort of thing to insinuate itself into an industry news niche like IT journalism. I mean, c’mon! IT is about information after all, and any distortion should surely become apparent in due time.
(Full disclosure: I’ve never been a journalist, but I do write a couple magazine columns – one, a technical column, for SQL Server Magazine and one, an opinion column, for Database Trends & Applications.)
The News Team the Revealed the Evils of McCarthyism in the 2005 film "Good Night and Good Luck"
So I can only begin to explain how jolted I was by this news story released by ZDNet.
The team at ZDNet has done some crackerjack investigative reporting to reveal that an often quoted “Windows Performance Expert” and CTO of a performance management and monitoring products company, Craig Barth, is in fact a fabrication by a well-known reporter and blogger, Randall Kennedy. Both personalities frequently disparaged Microsoft (not that Microsoft isn’t an easy target, they made BOB after all) and, in some cases, evidently created their own aggregate data, which was then used to identify individuals and broach privacy standards. Kennedy goes on to say that he did this with full endorsement of the companies he wrote for, and I quote “They didn’t want to lose 2+ million page views per year, which is what the shock jock persona they developed for me delivered.”
Journalists, and the managers of journalists, should take this as a wake up call. When you’re a trusted person, that trust is often your most valuable asset. I know that the entire media industry is under assault and its revenues are shrinking. But I hope that this has the positive side-effect of reminding everyone involved that quality and credibility are invaluable. Said another way, it’s impossible to place a real dollar value on strong ethics, credibility and trustworthiness, except to know that it’s worth a lot. (Someone remind Toyota and the Wall Street bankers of that too, while we’re at it.)
I’ve always been intrigued by our process for allowing creative content, such as songs or movies, to become public domain. A common usage for public domain might be to create a short family video and, seeking a peppy and familiar piece of background music, you settle on “The Entertainer”, by Scott Joplin. (If you’ve never heard of it, listen here. You’ll recognize it.) Since the music is past the 75 year limit of copyright protection, it is now public domain – meaning that you don’t have to pay or seek permission to use it for your family home video.
Now, it seems that many old media companies are deliberately destroying great old celluloid video footage rather than allow it to become public domain. Of course, there’s plenty of old TV programming that don’t have a single living fan, but we’re talkin’ about classics here like Jack Benny and the BBC’s Dr Who. Read this news story and this one for an example.
So, what do you think? Is this a misuse of private ownership of aging IP? Is this just another example of old media putting their finger in the dike of digital entertainment for the sake of a dying business model?
I find this to be particularly ironic since old media companies are the first to exploit public domain material for their own uses. Case in point, what’s the last Disney animated film you’ve seen (no, not Pixar – Disney) that wasn’t adapted from an age old story?
You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself, any direction you choose.
Dr. Seuss
Dr Seuss makes a great point. Only you can determine where you go in life and where those you lead in life (your significant other, your kids, your family, your business associates) will follow. What happens when you don’t have your feet in your shoes? What if you’re not wearing shoes? Or what if your shoes are sandals? Which direction do you steer? Do you head to the beach or to the snowy mountains? What if you’re not only steering yourself, but an entire professional association?
I’ve watched the blog posts and comments pile up throughout the community with eyes wide and mouth hanging open in consternation. In a way, I’m thrilled to see all of the discussion. After all, prior election were rather placid affairs. An election with a lot of discussion should be a good thing, right? Normally, I’d say “Absolutely!” However, the rancor and negativity have been impossible to ignore. In response, please allow me to walk you through PASS’ history relating to elections, as well as the entire nomination and election process to give you a better understanding for this situation in its entirety.
Before I go further, I want to thank the members of the Nominations Committee (NomCom) for their steadfast dedication and self-sacrifice. NomCom members include uber-volunteer Allen Kinsel (twitter), former board member and co-founder of SQLServerCentral Brian Knight (blog), PASS EVP Rushabh Mehta (blog), PASS executive director Judy Christianson. PASS president Wayne Snyder also sat in the sessions (since he’ll be leading this effort next year) but did not vote. The committee spent many hours of time on the entire process, frequently, at the cost of family and personal time.
The Context
Historically, PASS nominations were entirely committee-driven. In many years, there were only as many candidates, good or bad, as slots. As the years advanced, the board directed that the NomCom alter the nomination vetting process in several ways. For example, for many years, the NomCom simply rubber-stamped existing board members if they wanted another term on the board. After experiencing a handful of board members that were unproductive or even counterproductive, the board wanted to make sure that returning board members were subjected to the same rigors as a newcomer. The NomCom was instructed by the board to develop a set of interview questions to assess the candidates and also to analyze the candidates’ performance as a board member or a high-level volunteer for the organization. (An unintended consequence of this change was that some candidates without much experience within the organization didn’t pass the vetting.)
As time passed and the board seated many top technical talents, the board began to see a definite pattern of technologists who couldn’t focus on the big picture, couldn’t formulate strategies, and would derail board meetings with unending discussions of deep technical details. Using a hypothetical example, if the board was considering a strategy around collecting information and feedback from chapters (to better advocate to our founders and vendors about the reach of the organization), some board members loved to spend huge amounts of board time building data models and noodling over what sort of client- and server-side code should be written to support the application, when in fact the board hadn’t even settled on what strategy to pursue. That’s like spending all your time writing an application without requirements – worse practice!
After all, these other board members had all been great technologists and had willing spirits and giving hearts, but they actually obstructed PASS’ advancement rather than helping it. There wasn’t anything intrinsically wrong with what they were doing. They were simply playing to the skills that had made them such successful technologists and key players throughout their careers. However, it was simply counterproductive. PASS simply needed more business and leadership skills and less, yes LESS, technical skills in the board room. Consequently, the board further instructed the NomCom to begin assessing incoming candidates for strategic and leadership skills. And because strategic and leadership skills were shown through many years of experience to be at least as important as SQL Server-related skills, the NomCom was also encouraged to entertain nominations from candidates outside of the traditional applicant pool in search of those business skills.
The Process Today
As the chair for 2009’s PASS Nominations Committee, it’s my job to ensure that the candidates presented to the PASS membership for the general election meet the standards and objectives set by the board, the bylaws, and the processes and procedures currently in place. The NomCom had very clear directives and processes (at least internally):
From Here to There, Funny things are Everywhere
Collect all of the “paper” applications that come in through the Call for Nominations. (We received only 11 this season.)
Each member of the NomCom then ranks each “paper” application on a variety of criteria, including criteria like leadership experience, volunteer experience, educational experience, performance, and much more. Based on those scores, we looked for a clustered scores among the candidates. There is usually a clear break of a full point or more between the top scoring candidates and the lower scoring candidates, and this year was no different.
Candidates who scored strongly on the “paper” ranking then advanced to phone interviews with the entire NomCom. (Only seven of this season’s candidates had scores strong enough to advance.)
With leadership skills now as important as other overall skills and experiences, candidates needed to provide the NomCom with a vision statement for what they’d like to accomplish while on the PASS board. Then, the candidate had to answer questions like “Describe a situation where you were able to use persuasion to convince someone with an opposing view to see things your way” and “Tell us about a time when you had to much on your plate and had to reprioritize all of your projects” and “Tell us about your biggest successes in your volunteer/board work this last year”. (It is at this stage that a candidate can establish their leadership credentials. It’s also worth noting that those leadership experiences and examples could come from any aspect of the candidates’ life – not just PASS, or professional work, but examples such as the local PTA, the Girl/Boy Scouts, athletic teams, civic groups, and church activities were all acceptable and encouraged.) Each candidate was then reranked by the NomCom members with all new scores.
Since the candidate’s volunteer track records was given equal weight to their interview and discussion with the NomCom, a candidate who was strong in both areas would definitely advance to the elections while a candidate who was weak in one area or the other might land on the fence or, in a couple situations, performed so poorly during the interview that they didn’t advance. (Once again, there was a strong clustering of scores with a top four and a bottom three by a wide margin.)
While the NomCom wanted to put forward a slate large enough to have two (or more candidates) per open slot, the simple fact is that the NomCom only felt a strong confidence in four candidates. In other words, the NomCom felt that anyone of the four would perform admirably as board members and by advancing the candidate to elections it, in effect, endorsed them. One of the candidates, Tim Ford, who went through the tough interview process commented on it here. Once all the candidates were notified, they were allowed to begin campaigning according to the rules set up early this year.
The Fallout
I want to point out that a lot of the criticisms of this year’s elections are, in some form or another, a declaration of what people think the elections should be rather than what they actually are. This is a lot like assessing a family sedan for racing performance, and then criticizing it when the quarter mile and zero-to-sixty numbers aren’t too strong. The fact is, you’ll always come away disappointed. (Of course, I’m TOTALLY aware that PASS is too veiled about all of these processes. To extend the analogy, it’s like a family sedan that you can’t tell is a sedan until you get inside of it.)
Much of the turmoil seemed to start with Brent Ozar’s blog post and interview with candidate Matt Morollo. Be sure to read the comments! (I’m not going to speak to the specifics of any individual candidate, btw.) In our case, the nomination process was designed in pre-collaboration days before Web2.0 capabilities were ever conceived. Transparency was not a strategic goal of the board or of the NomCom, vetting the best candidates was the main strategic goal of the NomCom. Examples of this sort of criticism, and I’m not saying that the criticisms are wrong only that they target an ideal situation rather than what is currently in place, are illustrated when Geoff Hiten declares a PASS Fail, when Chuck Boyce says It’s the Transparency, Stupid, or when Andy Leonard says that only database professionals should be board members. Again – these are not wrong per se, they’re simply personally held views about the way things should be. Marlon Ribunal’s recent blog post seemed to reflect an awareness that NomCom policies are a reflection of directives coming from the board and attempting to help drive the board’s core strategic goals. Stuart Ainsworth, on his blog entry, pointed out that all candidates should experience a high degree of scrutiny and questioning. And Joe Webb pointed out that balance is extremely important for board candidates regarding not only their skills, but also who the candidates work for, what the candidate does in their day job, and much more in his post on the PASS Board of Director elections.
Times, They Are a Changin’
Would You Eat Them Here or There?
Web2.0 has definitely arrived on PASS’ doorstep. The board has, traditionally, not been motivated by transparency coupled with direct collaboration with the wider community. The gyre of Twitter conversations and blog posts with long trailing conversations are a new experience to many with a seat at the board table. While it’s important to one or two of the current board members, a transparent and collaborative approach hasn’t taken root with everyone on the board. Do you want that to change? Then I am directly calling you to action! Meet with like-minded individuals at the Summit in two short weeks. Identify a champion (or two) within the board who will spearhead the effort and then work cooperatively to build the proposal(s). But beware what you wish for. Governance changes are surprisingly draining on a board, especially if they’re expected to draft the new governance policies themselves. In effect, by retooling the governance of the organization, you’ll also be asking the board NOT to accomplish something else among the major goals for the year. Perhaps the very first proposal should be for the establishment of a Governance Committee that could discuss the issues openly and collaboratively, while taking the majority of the workload off of the board?
There have been so many ideas about what needs to change for the election process, many contradicting one another. Do you want to require a director to have attended one or more past PASS Summits? Or do you want to promote diversity between North American and other countries where Summit attendance is probably prohibitively expensive? Do you want to allow the board to prescribe a certain ratio of consultants versus corporate IT versus vendors? Or do you want the most experienced candidates, even if they’re all from one sort of career path? Or, as these multitudes of conversations have asked again and again, do you want someone who can sling some great Transact-SQL code or do you want someone who has a more diverse viewpoint with more of a general business orientation in their daily job? Do you want direct open elections without a NomCom or only a cursory check on qualifications? (Be prepared for a lot of candidates to come out of the woodwork from all over the globe!) Or do you want to have a strong quality-control process in place for nominees as a prerequisite for the elections? Would you feel good seeing a candidate conduct a train-wreck of interview in which that can’t clearly articulate why they should be a board member? That gives us transparency, but discourages a lot of people from considering putting their hat in the ring. Or would you rather shelter them from possible embarrassments? You get more candidates that way, though transparency declines. The trade-offs aren’t always so easy.
Let me be direct on a second point – not enough people are answering the Call for Nominations. If you want to see elections with multiple candidates for each open slot, PASS will need many more high-quality candidates each year.
Finally
I don’t mean to put any one on the spot or make anybody feel bad. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, after all. However, I hope that I’ve helped illuminate some of the dark corners of this process and why the NomCom put forward the slate of candidates that they have. Don’t like it? I’ve given you what you need to set about bringing change to your professional association. Let me know what you think!
There was a time when health information was merely a collection of facts about you. You visited a doctor on the 17th because of a sore throat. You had your appendix removed when you were a grade-schooler.
Now, in the 21st century, information is increasingly used to drive business value. In a sense, information is becoming an asset. And as many of us have seen with the antics on Wall Street, any asset can be abused for personal and possibly unethical gain. Legislative bodies around the globe have expended a lot of energy on regulating the use and access of health data, such as the well-known HIPAA legislation (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) here in the United States. But despite the existence of this law, we’re still facing some huge hurdles.
First, HIPAA doesn’t handle all problems related to health data. For example, new regulations need to be devised to fully protect individuals from exploitation of information stored their DNA sequences. Just a generation ago, no one could possibly know if you held a genetic predisposition to, just as an example, renal failure. Now, simple and quick tests exist to identify key genetic markers for such a predisposition. Could this data be used to deny or charge exorbitant rates for medical coverage? Life insurance? A job?
Second, health care (at least in the USA) is decidedly low-tech, despite much pushing and prodding from our government. Overall, the health care industry (and doctors in particular) has been reluctant to cultivate the power of the Internet to deliver information to anyone, anywhere. My wife was employed at one of the best hospitals in the southeast United States (Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital), where they needed large, redundant administrative staff to transcribe every thing about a patient’s visit into their medical systems. Doctors refused to do it themselves (though younger doctors were noticeably less reluctant to use computers) and many important computerized medical devices (think of MRIs, CAT scanners, electrocardiograms, etc.) offered no integration at all. Huge amounts of floor space are devoted to maintaining so much paper medical information that it could literally be measured in tons better than pages.
Whereas much of the recovery from recessions during the early years of both the Clinton and Bush II administrations were attributed to huge improvements in information technology, none of that has matured yet for the health care industry. In fact, almost every business ecosystem in the United States has been revolutionized by information technology except health care! The system is, in effect, still a sick care system rather than a real health care system. And efforts to computerize it are much the same as data processing activities of the 1960’s – taking easy, repeatable actions and having a machine do them at high speed. But the real promise of IT has yet to be realized in health care. Imagine a time when a data mining application could show the slow and steady development of a behaviorally-influenced disease, like Type 2 Diabetes or coronary disease or IBS, and provide plenty of early warning signs plus knowledge and support and tracking for convalescence and recovery. As SQL Server professionals, we know that good data mining can reveal that sort of issue and one thousand more. Conversely, consider the situation where an individual sees three different doctors for the same problem. How do you know that you’re getting personalized and relevant information instead of the latest prescription drug brought in by the pharmaceutical representative? I can tell you in my own experience with heart problems (first documented here) that I’d seen over a dozen doctors within five years time, and yet only the very latest doctor of the whole bunch pointed out the correlation between GERD, sleep apnea, and heart problems.
Add to this the fact that even those medical institutions that are using medical IT systems are firmly stuck in the 20th century. I’ve seen a lot of medical IT systems and even the very best of them are still clunky, lame client-server applications that are very ineffective at modeling the business. Many of them attempt to implement anachronistic and overweening standards like HL7, which is essentially analogous to commuting to your job in an 18-wheeler tractor-trailer.
I’ve decided to get ahead of this curve and I’m encouraging you to do the same. Maybe it’s just my time as a community organizer for PASS, but my first inclination is to look for like-minded individuals who support the same goals and aspirations I do. I suggest that you start with the Health Data Rights organization at http://www.healthdatarights.org/ – join the movement to own and control your own health data and make it work for your betterment. Other places to begin your activism include http://www.google.com/health/ and Tim O’Reilly’s wonderful blog about Gov2.0 at http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/08/what-does-government-20-mean-to-you.html.
