The last quarter of the year is usually my busiest due to the fantastic PASS Summit and SQLBits events. The fall looks a little different … BECAUSE IT WILL BE EVEN BUSIER! Here’s a rundown of where I’ll be this fall through mid-October:
BASTA! SQLCON.NET
September 26 to 29; Mainz, Germany
This big developer and admin conference runs from September 26 to 29 in Mainz, Germany. I’ll be delivering at least one session and hobnobbing with Quest customers, friends, and in a very weird twist, my oldest daughter Emily, who will be in the Rhineland at the exact same time on a graduation present I’d been planning for her since graduation in June.
SQLBits – Query Across the Mercy
September 29 to October 1; Liverpool, United Kingdom
One of my favorite conferences of the year! The organizers are great. The speakers are great! The attendees are great!! The venues are great!!! The lunches are … um … adequate. I’m doing all an new session on SQL Injection attack, this time with LOTS of demos kindly written by an attendee at one of my sessions in Cologne. He like the session so much, he decided to build demos to go along with it. (Thanks again, Volker!)
And if you’ve attended before, you know how much fun our now traditional IT Horror Stories and IT Bingo Trivia sessions are. Make plans to attend these standing-room only sessions, before the fire marshal kicks us all out of the room for overfilling it.
The PASS Summit
Seriously. This is the one. If you can attend only one SQL Server training and community event in a given year, this is the one. Over 150 sessions and pre-conference seminars. Most everyone who is on the list of “who’s who” in the world of SQL Server and Microsoft-related data management and development will be in attendance. And a large number of the Microsoft R&D team that builds, documents, and supports SQL Server will also be there.
I read the PASS Officer Election announcement from June 15th with a bit of trepidation. There was something about the announcement which made me uncomfortable, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.
As a bit of background, the PASS “officers” are also known as the Executive Committee (ExeCo), as described in the PASS Bylaws in section VIII.10. The ExeCo was added to the governance of PASS back in 2004-2005 as a check-and-balance against the extremely powerful office of president as described in the version of the bylaws PASS currently had in place at that time. Prior to the ExeCo, the president could do pretty much anything they wanted at that point – sign contracts, make binding pronouncements, etc. – while the overall duty of the board of directors was to manage specific portfolios and to set strategy. The ExeCo verbiage was added to PASS governance to ensure that there was a reasonable balance of power by requiring a 3 out of 4 vote to enact major initiatives before they were brought before the board of directors. (I should point out that my job as an employee of a major vendor was directly responsible for bringing the ExeCo into being. When I was first elected by the board of directors to serve as president, the PASS board also wanted to ensure that a president working for a vendor would not show his employer undue favor with perks like better spots on the exhibit hall floor, mentioning them by name in presidential communiques, and so forth. So the bylaws were changed to establish the ExeCo so that the president, any president, could not govern by decree). OK – so the ExeCo makes executive decisions, comprendo?
So in looking at the the slate put forward for the 2012 officers, I noticed that two members of said ExeCo will now be working for the same company and this is deeply troubling to me. (As an aside, those persons are Rushabh Mehta with Solid Quality Mentors India practice and Douglas McDowell with Solid Quality Mentors USA practice).
Now don’t get me wrong, this is not a personal attack in any way. I know both Rushabh and Douglas personally and consider them both friends. I have endorsed them for ExeCo leadership roles in the past, as individuals. However, I have a deep conviction that the Executive Committee should not have any two members from the same company, even when they represent different business units. Again, my feelings in this area transcend the current persons on the slate. I simply feel like it’s a dangerous precedent to set because we cannot know or control the character and ethics of future PASS leaders.
Consider that the ExeCo can govern with a 3 out of 4 vote. That means that two members of the ExeCo, with either an implicit or explicit alliance, could block any initiative each and every time it came up. Furthermore, they could pass any initiative they wanted by winning one other vote.
I also feel that the ExeCo and the wider board is responsible for securing the future of PASS, one of which includes reasonable checks and balances on executive leadership. We cannot know and should be somewhat skeptical that all future board members will be as ethical and upstanding as those currently on the board. By allowing a single company to hold multiple seats on the ExeCo, PASS would set a dangerous precedent for future boards.
The press release makes no mention of Rushabh’s future plans. It’s possible that he intends to resign at the end of this year and not assume the role of Immediate Past President, thereby avoiding the possibility of two ExeCo members from the same organization. There are probably some other ways to remedy this situation. But with only the information of the press release, I’m sorry to say that I cannot endorse the 2012 ExeCo slate.
I’ve had enough time off from traveling after my surgery to finally travel again. First on the circuit , set for August 27th, is Omaha, Nebraska and SQL Saturday #91. As a former Crimson Tide alum, I was stoked about going to the University of Nebraska, our once and future rivals on the Grid Iron. But after a moment’s confusion, I remembered that the Huskers are over in Lincoln, not Omaha. (May Bear have mercy on my soul.)
Almost all of the speakers are friends. Many are Microsoft MVPs. So it’ll be great to catch up with these fine folks and, I hope, get a chance to meet many attendees. I’ll be doing three of my favorite presentations: SQL Server Internals & Architecture, End-to-End Troubleshooting for Microsoft SQL Server, and Top Ten Most Crucial DBA Mistakes. As I write this, I realize that I’ve got to get busy and post those other slide decks in the slides section of my website!
I’ll also be visiting a few customers for the two days before hand, signing a few books, and otherwise trying to be productive. In the parlance of my employer, that means helping with sales.
Next month, on September 17th, I’ll be speaking at the Atlanta SQL Saturday #89. I’m presenting just one session at the event itself, though I’ll be hanging out at the Quest booth much of the time. If possible, I’m also going to spend as much time as I can in Bob Ward’s sessions.
In addition, I’ll be presenting a full day pre-conference seminar on Friday, September 16th covering all sorts of SQL Server performance tuning and optimization content. There are only a few seats left, so if you’re so inclined REGISTER HERE ASAP. All attendees will be getting a big goodie bag with posters, a signed copy of one of my books, and a T-Shirt.
Atlanta is an easy 4-hour drive from Nashville. And the weather is usually great in September. So this should be a fun event in every way!
I’ve always appreciated how Andy Warren (blog| twitter) operates in the most transparent manner, especially as it relates to his role as a director for the Professional Association for SQL Server. For example, Andy’s latest blog post about prepping for the SQLRally, to kick off in less than 30 days, is insightful and gives you a good idea of the sort of work a strong director for PASS needs to put in. I also enjoy how Andy more or less thinks out loud and offers you the chance to provide your input. In that latest blog post, he was mulling different after hours entertainment options, giving you a chance to pipe up with your opinion if you had one.
Learn from My Mistakes
Times running out for the early registration discount. Save $50 by registering before the end of the week! And while you’re at it, register for my full day, pre-conference seminar on learning leadership and management skills especially tailored for the IT professional. Here’s a quick run-down of the topics we’ll cover in my pre-con:
Earning the respect of your team
A deep understand of effectively motivating technology professionals
Specific skills to lead database professionals competently that broadly fall into the categories of:
Coaching team members to effectively meet goals and deadlines
Facilitating change and navigating organizational disruptions
Promoting communication within the team and with management
Keeping teams and projects on task and within scope
Dealing with difficult team members
Practicing good team time management techniques
Read all about the goals of the session here. If you’re coming to my session, I’d love to hear your thoughts ahead of time about challenges you’re facing!
Personal Experience, Personnel Experience
Also, just a word about my bona fides. I’ve had a lot of leadership and management training over the years, but like many professionals I consider my on-the-job experiences to be the most valuable.
On the education side of the equation, I received a bachelor’s degree in the school of management back in the 1980′s. I’ve also gone through the Center for Creative Leadership‘s leadership training curriculum, the Blessing and White Management Training curriculum, and SmithBucklin’s not-for-profit governance and organizational strategy training curriculum. On the experience side of the equation, I led small dev and admin teams of 3-7 people starting way back in the early 1990′s. In the late 1990′s, I started taking a more strategic direction with my skills as the manager of information architecture at the firm where I worked as well as taking a role as one of the founding directors of PASS. In the early 2000′s, I joined Quest Software as our initial SQL Server product architect and spent several years leading the team to a over 50 individuals in a half dozen teams in as many disparate locations around the world.
A Few Words About Community from SQLBits8
The more I go, the more reasons I find to go back to the SQLBits conferences held around the UK. The starting image isn’t very flattering, but here’s a fun little interview put together by Andrew Fryer of Microsoft:
The 2011 PASS SQLRally is just about one month away and it’s high time I highlighted some of the important things you’ll be hearing about in my precon seminar Leadership and Team Management Skills for the IT Professional. Just to set the context, many of us IT people got to our lofty career positions because of our keen use of technology. It takes a lot of smarts to get where we’ve gotten, but they are a very specific set of smarts that can’t always be used in every business setting. And, since so many of us have topped out in our potential salary as long as we stay in the trenches and the only do technology work, a lot of us are starting to eye those middle manager positions so that we can continue to see our career grow. The only problem is that all of those skills that enabled us to become top tier technologists don’t transfer into the management arena.
I’ll be teaching a wide variety of soft skills and specific management checklists to help you survive those early transitional days. And if you’re not a manager? You’ll still want to attend because the wide variety of communication skills we’ll cover will help you stay on top of many other real life situations, from leading the local Girl Scout troop to taking a role on the local PTA organization.
You can read the full and pedantic session description at the link I provided up above. But here’s a list of Five Funny Things You’ll Hear in the Precon:
“Here’s where we get out the whips and chains…”
“In this section, we’re going to learn how to manage our managers…”
“And then I was, like, OMG. And she was, like, LOL. And her cousin was, like, ROFL. But then I was, like, meh…”
“Darth Vader would be proud…”
“The beatings will continue until morale improves!”
And one bonus:
“That’s what she said…”
Did I put these in context, heck no! But it’s a fun session, with some practice labs and LOTS of content to help you make that transition from full time technologist to part- or even full-time leader!
The last few weeks we’ve watched the drama unfold in regards to the PASS BOD elections. We’ve seen people attack criticize the NomCom, the board, PASS itself, the process and the decision of feeding of Gremlins after midnight. Thankfully the fireworks have died down and we can take a look at everything that has happened and make strides to move forward in a positive (and more importantly) constructive manner. Given that, I’ve been asked by my good friend Kevin Kline (Blog | Twitter) to respond to the following:
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’m not going to recap the entire reality series-type drama that unfolded regarding the final slate of candidates but you’re more than welcome to read it yourself here. While I could rail on about how I believe Steve was slighted, unfortunately there’s nothing more to be done about it now so let’s look forward, shall we? The issue here is that the NomCom chose (and rightly so from my perspective) to follow the processes set in place for them and acted accordingly. Okay, fair enough. What we need to ask ourselves now is: “Is this process still appropriate for our organization?”
All together now…IT DEPENDS! Just kidding. Seriously though, up until now the entire (or at least much of) the process involved in electing someone to the board was hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Thankfully after last year’s elections issues the folks at PASS (and yes this includes both the board AND headquarters) worked extremely hard to change things for the better. This year we now have the PASS Elections Portal which offers much more transparency into the whole process than we ever had before. I think this move was a huge step in the right direction however much like Uncle Ben warned young Peter Parker, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Now that we have this transparency it introduces a new issue that wasn’t prevalent before: accountability. Prior to this year’s elections we, the community at large, didn’t have easy access to things such as the NomCom scores, process documentation, direct/easy/clear communication lines to those involved. That being the case this year you’re seeing the results of a very PASSionate community demanding answers to outcomes that quite simply don’t make sense to the masses. I think the one of the best posts/discussions to show this fact was Stuart Ainsworth’s (Blog | Twitter) post addressing issues raised directly. As a small aside, HUGE kudos to Stu for meeting the community head-on and not being afraid to answer questions. I think we all owe him a big ‘thank you’ along with the other NomCom folks who openly communicated and helped clear up what they could.
While Stu’s post somewhat answered lingering questions the problem remains that there were things with those scores that simply “didn’t add up” when viewed publicly. This is where the danger in transparency comes in. People are going to question your methods and motives. Now that I’ve rambled on for a couple of paragraphs though we need to come back to the question of the process. The official process can be found from the elections site (pdf) so you can read the wording yourself. Ok finished reading it? Good, we’re all on the same page now. So far we’ve heard NomCom folks state that they had a very specific procedure to follow. Ok…well I’m looking at the procedure wording and it still doesn’t explain what happened this year. Unfortunately this is where the arguments start breaking down due to the only answer starts becoming “can’t talk about it due to privacy”. Again the veil impedes the view. So how can we improve “the process”?
The process currently states that the NomCom is as such:
Finally, the NomCom meets to pick the interviewees on the list they think should be the candidates. This is the slate. The NomCom must always strive to put a minimum of (n+1) candidates on the slate, where “n” = the number of available slots – that means the slate should contain at least 4 (3+1) candidates. However, if the NomCom is in strong agreement that n or <n (“n” or “less than n”) candidates are of sufficient quality to go on the slate, it has the right to present n or <n candidates to the Board of Directors. (e.g. If the NomCom has good reason to believe that only 2 candidates are good enough to serve as Directors – where 2 is clearly less than 3 – it has the right to put only 2 candidates on the slate.) The responsibility for this decision falls on the Chair of the NomCom. This situation is less than ideal and the NomCom will strive to avoid at all costs.
Ok well what I’m reading here is that the NomCom still has the power to submit more or less people to the slate than is needed/asked. That being the case this reads more like Pirate Code from Pirates of the Caribbean wherein Captain Barbossa explains, “the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .” Maybe we should follow Captain Barbossa’s sage advice and realize that some of the wording we try to stick to are more guidelines. Perhaps we need to just really re-word the official documentation rather than the process as the process itself makes sense in the grand scheme (for the most part). Are there tweaks we can make? Absolutely!
I believe Andy “The SQL Godfather” Warren (Blog | Twitter) wrote in a recent PASS update post about his view and how things could change for the better. In there he states that the NomCom followed procedure and anything less than that would open things up to a new world of trouble and I agree with him. So again, is it the process or the WAY the process is worded that is causing issues here? There are things that could definitely stand to be reworded for clarification. For instance, in the ranking for interview we’ve got Steve Jones being ranked in the average of 2 for Leadership. Really? Okay, I’ll bite. We need a CLEAR definition of what exactly they mean by “leadership experience candidate has demonstrated”. In my eyes being the community leader for the largest SQL Server community website on the planet tends to hold weight. I’d like to know what it is about this category that would cause members to vote so low (or so high in other cases). To be fair and balanced let’s look at another category and candidate. Under education Douglas McDowell comes in at perfect 4.0. What exactly are they looking for in terms of “education”? Does Douglas hold a PhD and everyone else is lower? Does this relate strictly to academia or other areas?
Earlier I mentioned this process isn’t broken and works for the most part and I feel I need to explain that a bit further. As of now the process is that we have a NomCom that sifts through all of the potential candidates and weeds out the weaker applications and comes up with a batch of candidates they feel (again based on given criteria worded in existing process documentation) are strong enough to move forward with. From there they take that batch and interview them with another ranking formula. After the interviews the applicants are ranked, sorted and based on those rankings another smaller batch emerges as those up for candidacy. Now this is where breakdowns occur, in my opinion. Here the NomCom is able to modify the batch of candidates to be either more or less than is stated in documentation (again we should defer to the Pirate Code on this). Here is where NomCom could say “numbers don’t add up, let’s talk” and fix this. Where this year’s rancor is coming from is that we seem to be missing the piece of the puzzle where (or if) this occured. Now we have a final slate presented to the board. Again, here, the board can look at the slate and say “good, good…errr this doesn’t seem right, you sure?”. Once more we haven’t seen anything from the black box of the board on this, all we know is that they approved the submitted slate. This final slate is what will be presented to the community and from there a general election will be held.
Now the process itself makes sense and potentials are vetted multiple times before we finally get our final candidates but something kind of seems “off”. Maybe it’s me but maybe there needs to be a more balanced check system. As it stands you only have two bodies that ping-pong a decision back and forth. Would adding a third body like our government system be a better way to check this? Perhaps that third body can get results scrubbed of personal data (e.g. name, employer, location) and only be presented with answers and they do rankings based on those. This blind ranking system can then be matched up with what NomCom finds and the board can make decisions based on aggregation of those results? This third branch could be made up of purely community folks so there is no percieved bias of board influence. Barring that we COULD have a board member on in that group but with no voting rights and their role is simply to moderate. Again, just bouncing ideas. Would this be too much to deal with? Do we really need to go to these lengths to please the masses? Only time will tell.
Outside of the election process itself I’d also like to take this time on my digital soapbox to encourage the board members as well as HQ to please PLEASE don’t be afraid of communicating with the community. Blog, Tweet, interpretive dance. Take a note from Andy Warren and see that it’s OKAY to publicly state your thoughts and opinions. Even if you feel your ideas may be “less than popular” at least you’re doing something more than the percieved nothing. In this age of transparency and numerous communication avenues (blogs, twitter, forums, mailers) there really is no excuse for not reaching out.
After all of this ranting and word vomitting, I’d like to 1) commend you if you’ve actually gotten this far and 2) Invite you to voice your own thoughts. If you’d like comment here on this blog or take the talk to the elections portal forum. It’s a new day in PASS and with the right people in place and the support of this amazing community I think we could transform this organization into something truly wonderous (as if it’s not already awesome enough). Thanks for your time, I’m going to go ice my fingers down now from writing this mess…
I’d asked my friend and a form ED of PASS to add her thoughts about the governance process for not-for-profit organizations. Carol is one of the industry’s top professionals, serving as the chief operating officer for many years at some of the largest IT and non-IT professional associations. I always look forward to her insight. She writes…
As an Executive Director for another user group community, I can offer up a few thoughts as it relates to Nominating Committee best practices. I’ve been working with technology and various vendors for over 20 years, and I’ve seen the community “popular” vote vs. a vetted, nominating committee driven process. Both can work and in the “day” most organizations had open elections. In my opinion as technology and business evolved, so did the business of user groups. These aren’t clubs, they are multi-millionaire dollar businesses with the difference being no profits are returned to individual directors but reinvested in the community. A slated election based on the recommendations of peers from the community is in my opinion (and pretty much everyone who leads governance or knows about governance for any kind of association) the best practice.
Here are some thoughts from an excerpt of an article written by a governance expert, Mark Thorsby regarding nomcom process:
Today, successful associations are devoting increasing attention to ensuring that their governing boards comprise a diverse – yet unified in mission – group of talented volunteers. For the sake of their associations, it is vital that these committees be constituted and operated in ways that epitomize their chances for success.
Make-up of the NomCom: The committee should be composed primarily, if not exclusively, of current or recently retired board members because they are the only ones who really know what the board needs in terms of talent, governance culture and personal style. Some committees involve non-board members, but they often need to be taught what is required for board service, which can consume precious time. There’s a trade-off, of course, among “fresh air,” transparency and efficiency. The chief staff officer plays an integral role in advising the committee on such issues, as he or she often is the most knowledgeable about candidates.
The nominating committee establishes its criteria for the officers and/or directors it is seeking to nominate based on the “charge” – a defined, desired outcome – it receives from the board of directors. This charge usually defines the desired characteristics, perspectives, styles, values and experience of nominees, sometimes with an eye toward achieving a better balance according to certain factors involving age, geography, style, etc. It is not unusual for each candidate to be asked to complete a simple candidacy form that collects information for the nominating committee to use in vetting.
The object of the vetting process is to select nominees for an officer or director position who best suit the leadership needs of the association. The nominees are not always the best speakers from the community, or the most highly technical, but are the best team members given the leadership needs of the group. This can be a very difficult process because the nominating committee has multiple factors to consider. The best advice is to take time and get it right.
It is important that each nominee understands what is expected of him or her and why the nominating committee believes they are the right fit.
Past experience is not a predictor of future performance – particularly if that experience has been service on committees. Governance is very different from management.
Name recognition, professional status and reputation do not always make for a good governing board member.
Diversity and balance are key attributes of a successful governing board. Achieving both is the responsibility of the nominating committee.
It is a myth that a position on the governing board is something that is earned. It is the association that is honored by the member who is willing to serve.
In a nutshell, the role of the nomcom is not an easy one. I have seen it be met under fire before. In the end, I think trusting your fellow members who gave of their time and effort, and followed a well constructed procedure of selecting a critical set of thought leaders for your association is the most important. Remember – these individuals are also offering their personal time – no bonus check heading their way…..I would echo comments made that the community respect their opinions and the process that PASS has put forward is a solid one that not only is fair, but ensures that PASS board selection is not just about “popularity.”
As a way of recognizing and thanking it’s contributors, SQLServerPedia is holding annual awards for the best blog posts syndicated on the site from November 2009 – October 2010.
Editors Iain Kick (blog | twitter), Jeremiah Peschka (blog | twitter), and myself have scoured SQLServerPedia.com to find the most informative and useful posts across a wide range of categories that were posted over the last year.
Voting opens today (November 1st) and closes November 8th. Winners will be announced by e-mail, on the site and at the Quest hosted cocktail party at The Tap House Grill, Tuesday, Nov. 9, at 8 p.m. PT. If you are attending PASS, please come along and enjoy a drink. It will be a great opportunity for me to meet you in person. Winners will receive a badge to place on their blog site and a statue award for your desk/car/top of your house!
Cheers!
-Kev
I won it myself!
P.S. Current or former Quest and ISV employees are exempt from the contest.
If you haven’t paid attention to the new social media, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Just as email was a game-changer in the 1980s and the internet revolutionized society in the 1990s, social media is making a huge impact on the way people work and interact today. Personally, I was skeptical about social networking until some good friends persuaded me to give it a trial run. It seemed like a great way to dither away some valuable time, but I didn’t see the business value in the whole proposition until I tried it. [READ MORE]
