Category: PASS Community Summit
[cross-posted from Allen Kinsel's blog at allenkinsel.com]
I occasionally get into trouble for thinking that no one cares what I’m (we’re) doing for PASS. Frankly much of what I work on is BORING to a casual observer. Im still not convinced anyone really cares about the minutiae that we have to deal with week in and week out on the Program Committee but, I don’t know if that’s just myself becoming desensitized to the amount & importance of what I (we) do.
My friend Andy Warren (Blog|Twitter) mentioned something the other day about their being minutes posted on the PASS site (somewhere) from the meetings that are held in relation to the SQL Rally. In the Program Committee we’ve produced minutes for the meetings that we have for quite a long time (2+ years) and they were simply emailed about and stored on PASS’s intranet site, they’re mainly used for keeping track of deliverables.
Starting with our last meeting (first substantial meeting of 2011) Ive asked that we publish a copy of the minutes to the Program Committee webpage on the PASS site. http://www.sqlpass.org/Community/SpeakerResource.aspx Look near the bottom left of the page for the first meeting minutes. At some point, we may have to look at separating the Program committee info from the actual speaker info on that page but, for now this was easy and took basically no extra work from HQ or anyone on the team.
So, the question is (and I rarely get answers to questions in a blog post): Other than to be able to say, yes we publish those minutes, does anyone even care? Will anyone read them with any regularity? Ive personally never looked at the Rally minutes, so I’m thinking its not going to be that valuable.. I agree that in general transparency is a good thing but, to a point like this I wonder if anyone out there cares.
We will meet bi-weekly for the next 6 or so weeks but from that point on we usually meet weekly, and often a few times a week when crunch time hits. As you can imagine, that creates a huge amount of minutes. I hope that we dont wind up burying good information people might want to see simply because we meet so often.
[cross-posted from Allen Kinsel's blog at allenkinsel.com]
This year my portfolio within the PASS board is “Summit program and speaker management” Ive been involved with this portfolio for at least the last 4 years. This year, I’m going to be transitioning into yet a different roll within the committee. Ill still be heavily involved but, I’m turning the majority of the day to day decision making over to Lori Edwards (Blog|Twitter) She was hugely involved last year, and I have no doubt she will work her magic again this year!
Program Committee Changes
This year, there are going to be some changes to the processes in the program committee, Ill detail some of those in a later set of blog posts. For now, Ive decided to split up the groups of volunteers in the program committee to hopefully enable some of the future process changes.
For this year we’re going to need help in many areas
Abstract Review Teams (led by Lori Edwards)
Speaker Review Team (led by Tim Ford)
- This group will review speakers independently of their abstracts
Speaker Enhancement team (Wes Brown & Grant Fritchey)
- This will probably stay a small group and work on updating sample abstracts, selection info, generating info for new speakers etc.
PPT/Abstract Editing review/approval (Led by Tim Martin)
- This group will be working on sessions after they are accepted (lots of new ideas here)
Special Projects (Led by AJ Mendo & Lance Harra)
- This group will be working on finishing the Speaker Evaluation tool, coordinating changes to the Summit online tool as well as a few other projects that are envisioned.
Its been said that what we do in the Program committee is on the bleeding edge of what PASS does in organizing groups of volunteers at the national level. That is to say, we need lots of help but, sometimes things dont always work out quite how we (I) had expected. I say this only to set expectations that its not always a smooth ride but, rarely is it not interesting.
We developed an online survey to help us capture all of the relevant info about everyone who wants to volunteer. Don’t worry, its not a job app and it shouldn’t be resume quality, we’re primarily looking for general information
Please consider this a personal invitation from me to join us in making the content at the PASS Summit 2011 the best ever!
[cross-posted from Rick Heiges' blog at sqlblog.com]
Recently, there have been a number of blog posts about having the 2013 PASS Summit in Seattle or elsewhere. I had a post in November about the process and some of the major factors that were on my mind. You can read it here.
There is value in moving the Summit to another venue. There is value in having the Summit in the same location/venue year after year as well. Many of the posts that I read recently make excellent arguments for each. As time goes on and you hear another good argument for one or the other, I keep waiting for the definitive argument. You know that someone will make some obvious point that everyone overlooked, and the decision will be a no-brainer. Well, I'm not convinced that we will hear that definitive argument ever.
I believe that my post referenced earlier in this blog entry gives you a hint of which way I am leaning, but I emphasize that many factors must be considered in order to make an informed decision not only about the location of the Summit in 2013 but also how that may affect the budgeting aspects of our other support services and offerings.
[cross-posted from Bill Graziano's blog at sqlteam.com]
HQ recently posted a brief update on our search for a location for 2013. It includes links to posts by four Board members and two community members. I’d like to add my thoughts to the mix and ask you a question. But I can’t give you a real understanding without telling you some history first.
So far we’ve had the Summit in Chicago, San Francisco, Orlando, Dallas, Denver and Seattle. Each has a little different feel and distinct memories. I enjoyed getting drinks by the pool in Orlando after the sessions ended. I didn’t like that our location in Dallas was so far away from all the nightlife. Denver was in downtown but we had real challenges with hotels. I enjoyed the different locations. I always enjoyed the announcement during the third keynote with the location of the next Summit.
There are two big events that impacted my thinking on the Summit location. The first was our transition to the new management company in early 2007. The event that September in Denver was put on with a six month planning cycle by a brand new headquarters staff. It wasn’t perfect but came off much better than I had dared to hope. It also moved us out of the cookie cutter conferences that we used to do into a model where we have a lot more control. I think you’ll all agree that the production values of our last few Summits have been fantastic.
That Summit also led to our changing relationship with Microsoft. Microsoft holds two seats on the PASS Board. All the PASS Board members face the same challenge: we all have full-time jobs and PASS comes in second place professionally (or sometimes further back). Starting in 2008 we were assigned a liaison from Microsoft that had a much larger block of time to coordinate with us. That changed everything between PASS and Microsoft. Suddenly we were talking to product marketing, Microsoft PR, their event team, the Tech*Ed team, the education division, their user group team and their field sales team – locally and internationally. We strengthened our relationship with CSS, SQLCAT and the engineering teams. We had exposure at the executive level that we’d never had before. And their level of participation at the Summit changed from under 100 people to 400-500 people. I think those 400+ Microsoft employees have value at a conference on Microsoft SQL Server. For the first time, Seattle had a real competitive advantage over other cities.
I’m one that looked very hard at staying in Seattle for a long, long time. I think those Microsoft engineers have value to our attendees. I think the increased support that Microsoft can provide when we’re in Seattle has value to our attendees. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. There’s a significant (and vocal!) percentage of our membership that wants the Summit outside Seattle. Post-2007 PASS doesn’t know what it’s like to have a Summit outside of Seattle. I think until we have a Summit in another city we won’t really know the trade-offs.
I think a model where we move every third or every other year is interesting. But until we have another Summit outside Seattle and we can evaluate the logistics and how important it is to have depth and variety in our Microsoft participation we won’t really know.
Another benefit that comes with a move is variety or diversity. I learn more when I’m exposed to new things and new people. I believe that moving the Summit will give a different set of people an opportunity to attend.
Grant Fritchey writes “It seems that the board is leaning, extremely heavily, towards making it a permanent fixture in Seattle.” I don’t believe that’s true. I know there was discussion of that earlier but I don’t believe it’s true now.
And that brings me to my question. Do we announce the city now or do we wait until the 2012 Summit? I’m happy to announce Seattle vs. not-Seattle as soon as we sign the contract. But I’d like to leave the actual city announcement until the 2011 Summit. I like the drama and mystery of it. I also like that it doesn’t give you a reason to skip a Summit and wait for the next one if it’s closer or back in Seattle. The other side of the coin is that your planning is easier if you know where it is. What do you think?
[cross-posted from Allen Kinsel's blog at allenkinsel.com]
I thought after my last post on Summit location that I wouldn’t need to write anymore about it but, I got a couple of responses(questions) wondering what I thought was important in a location for the summit. What I’m guessing these people really want to know is where Ill vote for, not, what I already wrote about which is what I’m essentially voting against.
Well, I’m not going to go so far as to say exactly where I’d like to see the Summit. What I will do is list what I think are the top 3 most important things when looking at where to locate the summit.
- Accessibility – It needs to be as easy as possible to get to, as well as get around once you get there. Both the city as well as the Convention Center should be easily accessibilty
- Cost – The convention center needs to be reasonably priced, the hotels, food, etc should all be (somewhat) affordable
- Local Support – I would prefer a location with a very strong local support structure, whether Microsoft or the local SQL Community.
There are many additional variables that no doubt will be considered but, these are the things that make the top of my list.
[cross-posted from Allen Kinsel's blog at allenkinsel.com]
Oh no, not again!
Seems not a day goes by that I dont have a discussion somewhere with someone about the Summit Location in 2013 or 2014, or even occasionally about the location this year and next.
If you need background, a couple of my PASS BOD Cohorts have already weighed in on the various ways they are thinking about this decision Here, Here, or Here, additionally Grant Fritchey and Andy Leonard both weighed in as well. Much additional conversation seems to happen regularly on twitter as well…
Ive been a member of the PASS Board for exactly 35 days and so far I’ve really only been shocked by one thing. Its almost beyond baffling to me that the #1 issue the SQL community wants the Board (and PASS by proxy) to solve is the location of the 2013 Summit. Honestly, I can think of at least 10 things that are more important for PASS to be focusing energy on than where the Summit is going to be located. But, alas that clearly illustrates that it is a VERY important issue to many community members
I want to be perfectly clear
The location of the 2013 Summit has not been decided yet
The decision is expected to be made in the March BOD meeting.
This post wont go into all the 1000′s of ways a person could look at this issue, and trust me there’s more than 1000. Instead I’m going to tip my hand, and skip all the mumbo jumbo because I believe everyone on the Board already knows how I feel about this issue. So the only possible people who dont know are the 2 of you reading this.
I will vote to move the Summit out of Seattle in 2013
Now that the beans have been spilled (no big shocker there I hope) id like to at least outline how I’ve come to this decision so hopefully you can agree or disagree with me but, at least respect that the reasons are my own, and that I believe they represent whats best for the organization as a whole.
First a tiny caveat – yes I’m putting the fine print first, its important — If by some freakish accident there is no conference space available (within a reasonable $$ limit) in the finalist cities then I may be forced to do something different. — that fine print is merely the DBA in me practicing for every possible outcome in a disaster. Even though I dont plan for it, I cant ignore it might happen.
- A large portion of the community feels so strongly about this that many feel almost disenfranchised by the very group that they have been an integral part of.
- PASS’s #1 Mission is to serve the community, how better than to occasionally have THE SQL Server Event of the year in a location thats more accessible to different parts of the country
- Microsoft has pledged their Support for the conference no matter its location
- To the average “newish” DBA the difference between having 150 MS people at the Summit and 400 is nearly nonexistent
- We’ve moved The Summit before, this isn’t unprecedented, PASSHQ is easily able to do this, the procedures should already exist.
- My portfolio (Summit Program) would likely be the most effected by this change. Maybe marketing would have a large impact as well but, as far as BOD work, Program would likely take the brunt of a move.
- If the majority of the Microsoft presence is traveling, they wont have their homes to sneak off to at 5:00. so they would presumably be more likely to continue to interact after Summit session hours
- Selfish Reason — Moving the summit would force Microsoft to lock in their speaker lineup earlier which would make my job coordinating that easier
Now for the limits of my support
- I think the Summit should be in Seattle more often than not, say 2 out of every 3 years or 3 out of every 4. Based almost entirely on SQL release cycles
- Until it proves detrimental to the organization — I am a risk taker by nature, as evidenced by living on an island in the path of hurricanes (site of the worst US natural disaster ever) but, everyone has their limits
Id like to take a second and ask you Mr. or Mrs. SQL Community Member reading this to do me a personal favor. Find one of those “other” really important things you wish PASS was better at, something we should be focusing on, and leave a comment here or send me a message in email or twitter about it and sling out some ideas, or better yet solutions!! Approach that with the same level of enthusiasm as the Summit location and we should be able to get some real movement on other things that are important to the community. If I get any responses to those “other things” Ill build them all into a a future blog post and make sure they get some attention.
I wrote the above mainly so the community that elected me to lead would know that I’ve spent a long time listening and trying to come up with a decision on this. Now with this decision behind me, I can move on to worrying about other PASS (Community) business without the community wondering if I’ve been paying attention.
[cross-posted from Geoff Hiten's blog at sqlteam.com]
Both Tom LaRock and Andy Warren recently posted blogs on PASS Summit 2013 locations. As was announced at the 2010 Summit, we have a contract that keeps the Summit in Seattle for 2011 and 2012. 2013 is the next "unhomed" Summit.
One of the largest areas of contention during the recent PASS Board of Directors elections was the location of the Summit. I am surprised the keynote sessions didn't erupt into a Lite-beer-esque "More Locations" vs. "Seattle is Great" chant this year.
We had a similar issue in the Atlanta user group a few years back. We started moving the location around and taking straw polls on where we should meet. Not surprisingly, every location was the favorite, at least for the crowd AT that location. We also had issues with people finding the venue when we moved it. Finally, there were some venues that were just impossible to deal with from a business perspective. One particular place kept sending bills to the wrong sponsors based on old paperwork.
My Key Take-Aways:
- Moving venues is a risk, sometimes in ways you cannot see at first.
- Moving venues adds some new attendees and loses some attendees.
- Constantly moving venues gradually lowers attendance.
- Having a regular home for an event is important.
- Visiting away from home is important too.
What I would like to see is the Summit stay in Seattle most of the time. Ideally, the CTP through RTM years for a major SQL Server version release should stay in Seattle. Those are the years where the Microsoft presence will be most valuable. During the "quiet year" when Microsoft is heads-down focusing on the next release the Summit could be somewhere else. It is during that time that I see community contributors such as MVPs having the most valuable presentations. Microsoft may build SQL Server, but we have to earn a living using it.
Unfortunately, we do not have insight into Microsoft's future release schedule other than its published roadmaps. Certainly not enough to plan an event 2-3 years out. Maybe we get partnerships that deep? Maybe Microsoft doesn't have things firmed up that far out?
Meanwhile, we do the best we can in listening to the community and making decisions on where to have the Summit in the future. Tell me what is important to YOU regarding Summit location. This is definitely going to be an imperfect solution, but together we can make it less imperfect.
The PASS Board is currently debating the five remaining venue options for the 2013 PASS Community Summit. PASS Headquarters has done extensive research and provided detailed proposals for these potential host cities which the Board will review before making its decision, scheduled for March.
From the looks of things -- and not surprisingly -- this decision is an extremely important issue to the community-at-large. The PASS Twitter channels (including #sqlpass and #sqlrally) are abuzz with varying opinions. Prominent community members have also weighed in with their thoughts through various blogs.
I am collecting those thoughts in this post with the aim of keeping a record of the discussion on PASS Blog for public reference. Your input is valuable, so please voice your thoughts. You can contact Directors individually, leave them a note on Twitter, or simply post a comment on any of the blog posts listed below (including this one). I will aim to update this post weekly, so please check back regularly.
Thoughts from PASS Directors
Thoughts from the community-at-large
If you wrote an opinion piece but do not see it listed here, please contact me directly so I can add it to the list.
The PASS Summit is the world's premier SQL Server-focused conference, but it can only remain that with the blessing and support of the community to which it aims to appeal. Thank you in advance to all who choose to participate in the discussion -- your passion is critical to the continued success of the organization.
[last updated Monday, Feb. 21]
[cross-posted from Andy Warren's blog at sqlandy.com]
In November/December HQ requested that the Board to send in suggestions for possible sites for the 2013 PASS Summit. I sent in a few, and at the recent Board meeting we then reviewed the preliminary research by HQ to narrow it to a list of serious candidate cities. I was so excited at the start of this that we were beginning to consider a new site that I didn’t think it through, we don’t have a good set of criteria for selecting the site. The rest of this post is about what I think should go into that decision and where I stand on some of the issues.
Let’s start by looking at some of the criteria I think we should use in the decision:
- Ease, cost, and time of travel
- Cost of meeting space and nearby hotel rooms (and making sure there are enough rooms)
- Availability of after hours options, ideally with walking distance, or at least via low cost public transit
- Things for family to do in the area and family friendly (safe, secure, fun)
- Risk of natural disasters
- Layout of meeting space (we prefer that everything be clustered so that walking time between room is minimized)
- Microsoft presence
- Additional expense/risk required for HQ to manage an event at a new location
- Visiting various areas of the US to give our members who can’t afford the time and/or travel a chance to head our best event
None of these is simple. Is it always the cheapest location? Do we rule out anywhere on the Eastern seaboard (and New Orleans, etc) because there might be a hurricane? And that might not be all the criteria, just the ones that I think are at least worth getting into the discussion. In our Board discussion we covered some of these, but the problem is that even with the Board we weight these things differently. For some, any type of risk is unapproachable. For others any reduced Microsoft presence is a deal breaker. It is, to put it mildly, complicated. I think we erred in not having this conversation first, and fighting our way to better guidance that might have given us a different set of candidate cities, and then we would be re-applying that to the list as we narrow it down. It’s not quite too late for that, but we won’t meet again in person until May and that means it will just be a phone discussion, never as deep and never as satisfying, because we expect to decide in March. I’ll also say it’s not always as simple as a scorecard, though it’s worth the effort to score the options. Intangibles are hard to score.
I’ve talked to a lot of people about whether we should move the Summit. Some are on the East coast and won’t go because of the time/cost. Others don’t care about time/cost. Some like having it the same place, comfortable as old pair of shoes. Others don’t like that. Some people don’t care about after hours, or family, or ….whatever.
How do I, as a Board member, decide what to do? I’ve heard some on the Board suggest that it’s only a noisy few who want it moved, that we don’t hear from the many that are happy with the current location. Do I listen to the the squeaky wheel? Launch a poll? If I do that, who are the “right” people to respond? The ones that want change? Those that don’t? As an elected representative I try hard to understand the various views, but I can’t decide based on polls. I’ve got to decide based on what I think is fair and good for the members as well as a sound business decision for PASS. I think it’s possible to balance those.
Within the Board, and among those I talk to, most see it through a filter. Part of what I hope to get you to think about as you read this post is that we don’t all value the same things in the same amount. Just because you don’t mind the cost, the time, the weather, or whatever, others do. I may not agree with someone who cares about those things, but I can’t disregard it either.
It’s not a simple decision. Lots of reasons to do this, or do that. To change, or to not change. No way to know what is the right answer from a business perspective until after the event, and maybe not even then.
I’ve thought about it a lot, and then some more. My position is still that I support moving in 2013, preferably to the East coast but something in the Central time zone is also possible. I also support going back to Seattle in 2014, winding up with a strategy much like we had in earlier years, rotating from Seattle to one or two other cities. Maybe it should be the same one or two cities (easier, less risk), or maybe we should make it different ones, a good discussion to have in itself. I’m confident that we can move the event, maintain the quality, and grow attendance, in large part because of our HQ staff – I know they will get it done.
As it stands I hope we’ll move in 2013, but that is by no means a done deal. As I said earlier, I’m trying to decide based on what is far and good for our members and that is a sound business decision for PASS.
Finally, we listen to the people that care enough to engage. We may not decide the way you want, but we listen. Make your case for moving, or for a particular city. Blog it, or email any or all of us on the Board. Make a logical argument, tell us how you weight various factors, and before you hit send, ask yourself – are you considering what’s good for the one, or for the many?
[cross-posted from Andy Warren's blog at sqlandy.com]
This post is my thoughts on the Board meeting, and my views on related topics. I encourage you to read the minutes (not yet published) as the official documentation.
I flew into Dallas around noon on Wed, catching an early flight so I could get to The Joule hotel and spend a quiet few hours doing some prep for the meeting before the scheduled dinner with the Board. Cold when I arrived, maybe 45-50, enough to discourage me from much in the way of exploring beyond the Starbucks around the corner. Got a few things done, caught up on email and did some meeting preparation, and then back to the hotel to put stuff away prior to dinner. The hotel is one of those boutique type hotels, not the standard drywall and concrete, and with the one attribute I appreciate during travel, a great shower. Looking at lists prices it’s not cheap, but we ended up paying $169/night, a little higher than I’d like but in the range of acceptable for business travel.
Dinner was at the Iron Cactus immediately next door, fairly reasonably priced (my fajitas were $15) and where we had the strange experience of the waiter telling Tom LaRock to not to get the meatloaf. Good meal all in all. I spent some good time chatting with new Board members Allen Kinsel and Mark Ginnebaugh, and then Sri Sridharan from the North Dallas SQL Server User Group (NTSSUG) joined as the end as well.
We spent a good chunk of Thursday looking at our global strategy, thinking about how we will grow and support SQLSaturday and SQLRally so that we can do some early sizing on the FY 2012 budget. Global growth brings complexity. An example is the SQLSaturday site is set up to manage money in dollars. Another is that if we move money across borders there may be tax implications on both sides. The next step is to learn some lessons by doing one or two, with our next step a SQLSaturday in Portugal, and then potentially a SQLRally in Sweden by the end of the year. We’ve also identified what we would like to have in time and resources, HQ will take that back and start looking at how to re-slice our current resource allocation to see if we want to do is possible.
We also talked about site selection for 2013. As I ‘m sure you know we’ve been in Seattle for a while and will be through 2012. Typically we sign contracts for space 2-3 years in advance, it’s the only way to be sure the space will be available within the date range we use for the Summit. Several months ago we built a list of around a dozen candidate cities. HQ has since done some research to help us understand what is available and the rough prices. At this meeting our task was to narrow the list to 3-4 cities. HQ will then send a formal RFP to those and we’ll start into the bake-off that should end with a site and a contract in March/April this year.
The list of cities is something we don’t publish in the minutes, and while we will announce when we sign the contract, we most likely will follow our previous pattern of not announcing the location until the end of the 2012 Summit. The rationale for this is that if people thinking about attending 2012 see that 2013 will be closer or in a more interesting location that they will defer attending for a year. From a pure business perspective maybe that makes sense, but I think it serves our members poorly. I see nothing wrong with letting them know 1-2 years out our plans. If they prefer to wait a year to save on travel, or to travel to a city they would like to visit, that’s good for them and ultimately good for PASS. I think it evens out year over year. More on this in a post later this week.
At 4:45 we started the journey across town to the monthly meeting of NTSSUG at the Microsoft office. Tom LaRock and I rode with Mark Sousa, Mark driving an F-150 he rented (only in Texas, right?), I was the navigator and Tom did the color commentary. We were worried about traffic and being late, but we arrived early and had a chance to mingle with the chapter members. We did a quick introduction of the Board, and then settled in to watch Sean McCown do a very nice hour class (part 1 of 6) on backup and restore strategy. That opening class has become part of their strategy to draw people in and it’s been effective. That was followed by Tom doing his presentation on wait states and queues.
After that we went to Red, Hot, and Blue for some ok barbecue, with a good handful of the chapter members joining us for discussion. It was cold out, had me wishing for home! We finished dinner about 10 pm and I called it a day when we got back to the hotel.
Friday morning we worked on our business plan and a “who we are” document, both are things I expect to see published in the next 30 days. The business plan was something that was largely done a year ago, but it didn’t quite make it out the door. Who we are, you might think, is something we should already know. 2 years ago PASS was the Summit and Chapters, today it’s the Summit, Chapters, Virtual Chapters (though to be fair we had them as SIG’s, but not very successful in my view), 24 Hours of PASS, SQLSaturday, and SQLRally (a work in progress to be fair, but still a big growth item). That’s a lot of change to absorb, and we’ve done it unevenly in places. That’s not unexpected or bad, it just means that we need to step back from growth mode and make sure we’re doing a good job and allocating appropriate time and resources to each area (which could mean adding more, or reducing).
We also need to make sure that you know what we see as our mission and where we’re spending time and money. My view is that we’re on step two of three or four on the path to being a “true” professional association. I don’t say that to dismiss our accomplishments or the work of our staff or volunteers. We’ve grown and matured, perhaps in more ways that we communicate. Yet many wish for PASS to be more. The hard part is that a full shared vision of “more” hasn’t evolved yet. At the heart of it is what we might do for members directly. Right now we have a strategy that is largely indirect – we build events, we facilitate, we connect, but we don’t a lot in the way of things that you can point to and say “my PASS membership means this and from I receive this and this and this”. I like our current strategy, I think it’s realistic, it’s functional, but it’s not sexy, and it’s still hard to explain to what I call the DBA in the back of the room, who says “why should I join?”. We can do more, I think a lot more, but the first step is to consolidate and make sure we do the things we do well. While we’re doing that we can be talking about what that next phase looks like that we might start 12-18 months from now.
On the time and money, Bill Graziano will be publishing more on that soon. We publish our budget, which has both too much and too little detail at times. We want to do more to show you how we apply resources to our various goals, and we want to make very clear what we contribute to things outside the Summit. I’ll write more in the next couple months to dig into what I get for resources for SQLRally and SQLSaturday.
We’ve been working on some revisions to the by-laws for several months and those should be published for review in the next week or so. Some of it is clean up and clarifying, making it very clear on things like term limits. We’ve removed the officer nomination committee which in the past nominated a “slate” that the Board would vote up or down, and instead it will be direct selection by the Board. We debated extensively moving to one year terms for officers. Not a one year limit, but a one year term. This is something I really believe in, I think it allows our Directors to step into a role and apply max energy. We’ll be publishing them for comment shortly, and I may add additional comments when we do.
Friday night I was lucky enough to have Tim Mitchell and Ryan Adams join me for dinner. Tim and I go back to SQLSaturday #3 and we just didn’t get much time to talk on Thursday, so it was nice to find some time in the week to talk more. Allen Kinsel was there, along with Mark Ginnebaugh and Bill Graziano. I was a spectator for part of it, listening to Bill chat with Tim and Ryan about chapters, and not for the first time wished we all talked more and more often.
Saturday morning I was up at 5 am for the taxi ride to the airport and the morning flight to Orlando, glad to be home.