You, dear reader, have a real job that doesn’t afford you the ability to follow this kind of gossip, so lemme bring you up to speed.
Dec 28 – Board Election Results Announced
The Professional Association for SQL Server held their elections for Board of Directors, the people who shape the direction of the community, SQLSaturdays, and the annual PASS Summit. Here’s the final tally:
- Adam Jorgensen – 1,026
- Denise McInerney – 990
- Rob Farley – 958
- Sri Sridharan – 781
- Kendal Van Dyke – 762
- Geoff Hiten – 526
There were 3 spots open, so Adam, Denise, and Rob won spots on the Board of Directors. I didn’t bother blogging interviews or recommendations this year because the whole slate was fantastic. Any 3 of these folks could have won and I’d be giddy. We’re really getting great volunteers who want to help move the community forward, and they’re willing to go through a pretty ugly public process to be scrutinized. (Think back to the debacles involving Matt Morollo making the cut and Steve Jones being passed over.)
Jan 13 – Board Member Wins Without Running
Two Board positions were suddenly available because one Board member (Andy Warren) resigned, and another Board member escalated to the Executive Committee – Douglas McDowell became the Executive VP of Finance. I say “suddenly”, but that’s kind of cheesy – the Board knew both positions would be available, but due to the way the bylaws are structured, they couldn’t have just elected 5 people instead of 3.
It’s up to the Board to pick who they add (again, due to the bylaws, which they write). They could have picked the #4 and #5 spots (Sri and Kendal), but they passed over Sri, appointed Kendal, passed over the #6 finisher (Geoff) and appointed James Rowland-Jones.
Note that James wasn’t one of the election results above – that’s because he didn’t even run for the Board.
What disturbs me the most here is that now if you want to run for the Board, you’re not just running against other people who have publicly gone through the gauntlet. You’re going up against people you may never see coming, who don’t have to go through any public vetting process whatsoever. This sends a dangerous message: if you wanna be on the Board, just buddy up to them.
I’ve held off blogging about this because I’m torn. I think James Rowland-Jones is an amazing community organizer and a great guy. If he would have run for the Board, I would have supported him too, but only after he went through the public process. The community (including me) would ask a lot of questions about the people who would run our events. We were denied this chance.
Jan 13 – Steve Jones Reacts, Hints at Corruption
Steve let loose in a long post including:
“With the election so recent, with so many others declining to volunteer for the board, one would think that it would be easy to appoint the fourth and fifth highest vote recipients to the board…These were people approved by the nomination committee, validated by the community and voted for. Apparently the board felt that the nomination committee and the community must not have good judgment. Sri Sridharan, a friend, a volunteer, and an energetic worker on behalf of the Dallas community was not chosen. He has organized three SQL Saturdays, and was instrumental in bringing the SQL Rally to Dallas. He decided to run for the board of directors, something that few have done. Regardless of the qualifications of others, there is no argument that Sri is qualified for the board.”
I just couldn’t agree more, period. I’ve heard repeated hints that James didn’t ask for the post to begin with, either, which makes his appointment even more unusual. Someone wanted him in the PASS Board of Directors bad, and passed over community members that wanted in – and that the community had voted for. That’s more than a little disturbing.
Jan 14 – Andy Warren Says There’s a Problem
Andy Warren had just resigned from the PASS Board, saw the process, and blogged about the problems:
“Why not appoint Sri and Kendal to the two vacancies and convert James to a voting seat? Tradition satisfied, no net change to the number of seats on the Board (or to the budget), no chance of a public uproar. Why not do that? We don’t – and won’t – know, because it was covered in NDA session, and the public explanation doesn’t really explain. Members can take the decision at face value, or perhaps infer that Sri had some flaw that shouldn’t be discussed publicly. Transparency could damage, so does secrecy.”
Andy’s pointing out that the PASS Board is using the same excuse they used when denying Steve Jones a chance to run. “We could tell you why we did this, but it would hurt someone’s feelings.” That’s a bullshit excuse.
Jan 14 – Chris Webb Blames the Americans
Chris Webb says that US voters will only vote for US candidates:
“In my opinion the big problem with PASS is that on one hand it’s a self-described international organisation (number #3 on its list of current and future strategic objectives is to “Focus on International Growth and Consolidation”) but it is, in effect a North American user group with a North American focus, run by North Americans. As far as I know the vast majority the membership of PASS is in North America and therefore it’s not surprising that North Americans dominate the board: PASS members vote for candidates they know and can relate to, and who address their concerns.”
This is kind of insulting to me since I voted for Rob Farley, the only international candidate, and I wasn’t alone – he won. Chris goes on to say:
“Not every community is as lucky as Australia to have someone like Rob who is a native English speaker, has an impressive technical reputation and can spend the time and yes the money (those plane tickets to the PASS conference aren’t cheap) to become sufficiently well-known in the North American community to win a PASS election.”
Beep beep, back the truck up – he was the only international candidate who the NomCom put on the ballot. He was the only choice we had. You can’t condemn the US voters for not picking foreigners when there’s no other foreigners on the ballot. If the UK community needs a seat at the PASS Board table, then someone from the UK community should run. Full stop.
But as long as we’re complaining, how about women, then? Women are a big part of the SQL Server community as evidenced by every popular Women in Technology luncheon at the Summit, but the Board is a sausagefest. Why aren’t we appointing women to the Board? They’re underrepresented too. This argument just doesn’t hold water.
Jan 15 – Board Member Tom LaRock Responds
Tom’s recently taken on the Vice President of Marketing role in the Board, so the poor guy has to put on the asbestos suit and brave the flames. He writes:
“It is not the case – as some community members have stated in the last couple of days – that the next highest vote getter in the PASS election is automatically asked to serve for an appointed Board seat. I know this because in 2007 I fell 13 votes short of winning a seat in the general election and was not asked to serve a vacant seat for 2008. That honor went to Pat Wright.”
Both Tom and Pat ran – James Rowland-Jones didn’t even run for the Board.
Jan 16 – Aaron Bertrand Sides With The Board
Aaron’s a fantastic voice of reason, and he put a lot of thought into his post (along with the discussions in the comments). The problem I have, though, is that Aaron writes as if the Board didn’t see these two additional positions being open long before the election was held. These were not two shocks – Andy resigned and someone was going up to the Executive Committee. We saw these things coming in advance, and in good faith, the Board should have taken the two next highest vote-getters. Saying the additional two spots weren’t really up for election is obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit.
In the age of the Occupy movement, it’s tough for me to say, “It’s okay for the Board to follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit.”
Jan 16 – Simon Sabin Blames the SQL Community
I really respect Simon, but I lost my lid when I read his response to the issue.
“The community votes for the PASS board and so maybe that is the problem. The community doesn’t know what people are needed to run PASS. Just because you eat KFC each week doesn’t mean you can run KFC.”
I absolutely agree – but that’s the purpose of the Nomination Committee. They filter out the large number of people who want to run, and get to just a short list of people who are qualified to run. This means the problem isn’t actually the SQL Community – it’s the NomCom. In a way, the PASS Board of Directors agrees with him because they chose a Board member who didn’t even run through the public process. Even if there was a problem with the next-highest-vote-getter (Sri), they could have taken Geoff. They turned down not one, but two of the NomCom’s selections.
The Board gets to pick anybody they choose to run PASS. I sure wish the voters had that same luxury. If the Board believes the NomCom isn’t picking the right candidates, then the Board needs to fix that problem, too. As it is right now, though, I can’t tell whether it’s a Board problem, a NomCom problem, or both, but any which way, Simon can’t blame the community if the solution is picking a candidate who wasn’t even on the ballot.
Jan 18 – What I Think About This Mess
This is the third year in a row that I’ve smelled something bad about the elections. I gave up on PASS politics last year, and this year reminds me why. I’m just disappointed and let down by the closed-door, we-know-what’s-good-for-you, to-hell-with-the-public things that keep happening.
I love the result – James Rowland-Jones is a fantastic guy who will do a great job with the community. But I’m absolutely disgusted with the shady process.
What do you think? Does anything seem odd to you about how the politics works?
Jan 18 – James Rowland-Jones Explains Why He Accepted
I feel for JRJ because he’s in an awkward position (along with Kendal, Geoff, Sri, and everybody else impacted) but he put a lot of time into writing up his thoughts. I commented on that post directly, and I’ll include that here:
“I did not run for election because I simply would not have been able to do the process justice.”
OK, part of me just says we need to stop there. If you didn’t have enough time to do the election process justice, then you don’t get to serve as a Board member. That’s only fair to the people who did have the time to do the process justice. To me, the election process is a down payment on the work required to serve on the Board. If you don’t have enough time to do the election process justice next year, will the Board give you another pass next year and just re-appoint you rather than going through elections?
“PASS is investing in Global Growth. It’s a strategic bet. The interest in the SQL Server Community internationally has never been higher and PASS needs to make the most of this.” –
It sounds like this has been going on for quite a while – perhaps before the elections started. If that’s the case, why didn’t PASS promote this international agenda as part of the NomCom process and choose more than one international candidate? I know it’s not really your place to answer, but I just gotta ask because it’s a little odd to say PASS just now realized they needed someone from outside the US, they didn’t know this during the NomCom selection process, and they simply can’t afford to wait until the next election – especially since you’ve been working with them for a while now.
“My role to date has been to advise the Global Growth Portfolio and its sub-committees on what that future shape might be. As time has gone on it has become clear to me that my fellow international advisors and I are doing a lot more than advising.”
How would you compare or contrast this with the management company’s role or the marketing team’s role, for example? It would seem that they do a lot more than advise as well, but they don’t need voting seats at the Board in order to accomplish that, do they? Why is your role different?
Jan 18 – Wes Brown Calls Me Out
Wes responded directly to my post, including:
“I get it, you don’t like the way the bylaws are written. Run for the board and get them changed. You know and I know you would win by a landslide.”
If the restaurant down the street serves me a bad hamburger, the answer isn’t for me to apply for the cook job. Sometimes, the answer is for me to just find another restaurant.
“We need to strip the PASS board of the ability to appoint anyone to the board at all. If it isn’t voted on by the membership there shouldn’t be an appointment to the board PERIOD. I’m serious.”
The Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to appoint its own members when there’s a vacant position. Maybe only former PASS Board members (who have moved on from the current brouhaha) can appoint members, or maybe we just run elections over the web. Seriously, it’s not that hard to take a poll these days. The harder part is sifting through the qualified applicants to narrow the ballot down, but as we’ve seen with the recent mess, the Board doesn’t even trust the NomCom’s selection of potential candidates, because they passed over both Sri and Geoff.
Jan 19 – Watch JRJ’s Comments
As the discussion continues here and in the blog posts linked above, I’d like you to keep something in mind, dear reader. Look at James’ behavior in the blog post comments as he interacts with people. Watch their demeanor, and watch his. James’ actions speak volumes. He’s reacting in a way that makes me proud to know him, and he’s reinforcing exactly why I believe he’s a great addition to the PASS Board. The guy’s unflappably cool and collected until it’s time not to be cool and collected. I really respect him.
64 Comments. Leave new
I honestly thought the organisation had changed but obviously not. At least we’ve got two none-US folk on there now so its opening up from the US centric thing its been for the past decade.
Not good for the process about James, but James is indeed a great guy and works hard in the community; also, he’s from blighty so in that perspective its good for PASS that this has happened 🙂
Yours, Tony,
From Harpenden, Disappointed at PASS (again)
Brent, Tom is making Wikipedia jokes because there’s a blackout today. Go look at Wikipedia.org and you’ll get the joke. He’s not being a jackass, he’s referring to the anti-SOPA blackout.
(See MidnightDBA.com too, if you like.)
Jen – no, Tom’s making a reference to a long-standing disagreement between us. He believes Wikipedia can’t be trusted for anything, and anybody who cites Wikipedia is a moron. He believes if I don’t see it in Wikipedia, I don’t believe it to be true. (He also referred to it in an email to me today, and it was really clear that he wasn’t making a fun reference to SOPA.)
To be clear, I don’t necessarily think we have corruption, i.e. money involved or favors. I think we have an ethical failing, because of personal feelings.
The board has hidden behind NDA, and I can understand there is an argument here to not discuss everything, and we might hurt people’s feelings. That reminds me of the recent issues at Penn State University.
We don’t want to publicly discount anyone’s credentials, we don’t want to ruin anyone’s reputation as a candidate or a board member. Yet the board does just that with it’s apparently arbitrary decisions. They also want us to “trust” them.
We trusted Joe Paterno. He trusted the University. After all, no one would let something heinous, or even immoral occur while Joe Paterno was in charge.
Transparency and openness are values you either embrace, or you don’t. Community is a part of what you do or it isn’t. Accountability is important. If you don’t want to discuss things openly, then you need oversight of some sort, which I’m not sure is possible here.
I think you will find I never said anything about the “US community”.
DOH! I had both yours and Chris Webb’s post up at the same time, and I shouldn’t have put the US word in yours. Took that out. Thanks, and I apologize!
Brent, you’ve ignored large parts of my argument but I’ll let that pass. I’d just like to pick up on the last point you make about my post:
But as long as we’re complaining, how about women, then? Women are a big part of the SQL Server community as evidenced by every popular Women in Technology luncheon at the Summit, but the Board is a sausagefest. Why aren’t we appointing women to the Board? They’re underrepresented too. This argument just doesn’t hold water.
You’re tarring me with the ‘affirmative action’ brush, and yes, this is a question of affirmative action but for geographies not genders. Maybe for you and many of your readers affirmative action along the lines of race or gender is a discredited idea but as I point out in my blog it’s at the heart of the US constitution as far as geographies go. As I said, the UK needs a voice at the highest level of PASS for the same reason that Rhode Island has as many Senators as California.
I’ll let you win this argument if you come out and state that you believe that the constitution of the USA is fundamentally undemocratic and that the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President should be elected purely by proportional representation with no geographic influence at all.
Chris:
“Maybe for you and many of your readers affirmative action along the lines of race or gender is a discredited idea…”
Seriously dude?
I can’t see any possible way an honest reading of what Brent said can justify that inference.
What Brent is obviously saying is that there are MANY good and laudable goals to have in regards to the future diversity of the board, but NONE of them should happen outside of the process. Your own example supports what Brent is saying.
Senators in the US are ELECTED, not appointed by politicians. In the US, we don’t nullify the vote of citizens if diversity is not achieved. Yet, we don’t give up on diversity.
Chuck – yep, exactly. Thanks sir.
Chuck (and Brent),
When you say “but NONE of them should happen outside of the process” you’re getting back to one of the key points in the argument: as Tom and Aaron have already pointed out, the Board did follow
its own processes and bylaws to the letter. It was given the opportunity to make up its own mind on who to appoint and that happened “inside” the process whether you like it or not. Some people
have suggested it made that decision for unethical reasons, but we don’t know that for sure because the decision-making process is NDA and like Aaron I’m willing to give the board the benefit of
the doubt. The question then is whether it made the right, or the best decision – you say it didn’t, I say it did, but what we’re debating is a matter of policy rather than a breach of the rules.
So was the decision right or wrong?
At the heart of your argument is the belief that by appointing someone who hadn’t gone through the electoral process the Board made a decision that was fundamentally undemocratic in spirit, one
which shows the Board is not accountable to the SQL community that it is meant to represent. To reiterate and to clarify my position, I have the two following responses to that:
First of all, from my point of view PASS in its current form is totally unrepresentative of the international SQL community that it identifies itself with, both in terms of its structures and in
the makeup of its leadership. It therefore isn’t a functioning democracy from my point of view and desperately needs reform. To its credit the Board have realised this and the appointment of JRJ is
an explicit attempt to drive the international reform that is necessary, as JRJ himself states in his blog post. I don’t believe that this task could have been accomplished by someone whose only
experience was with the US SQL community, and while Rob Farley might have done a good job here the Board decided that it wanted JRJ to drive this. Until these reforms are put in place I don’t
accept that PASS has any international legitimacy whatsoever, and anything that works against the implementation of these goals sets back the cause of true democracy in PASS.
Secondly, I’d argue you have a very limited understanding of how democracy works in practice and one that doesn’t tally with the theory or practice of democracy, even in the USA. I know that
Senators in the US are ELECTED (or even just elected), and not appointed by politicians but you’re ignoring the fact that as far as elections to the Senate go the vote of someone who happens to
live in Rhode Island counts more than the vote of someone who lives in California. The vote isn’t nullified if diversity isn’t achieved, but the whole process of voting for the Senate is
deliberately skewed to achieve geographical diversity. And of course the justices of the Supreme Court, who also have significant power over the way the US is run, are themselves appointed and not
directly elected. So to say that anything other than the system of electing the first n people who get the most votes that we have in PASS today is undemocratic is ridiculous.
To address the point that Brent makes in his comment, I’m not saying that the appointment of JRJ to the Board addresses the problem of international representation on the Board in itself – what I
am saying is that the appointment of JRJ to the board is the necessary first step to reforms that will hopefully give us the “fantastic and well-thought-through” structures that we are clearly
lacking right now. I’d also like answers to the questions that Brent raises about how all the different SQL communities around the world should be represented, and that’s what JRJ is working on
right now. In my original blog post I hinted that I’d like to see a new, parallel body to the Board, something like the US Senate, where national communities are equally represented as in the US
Senate. Just because these are difficult problems doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to be solved – and Brent appears to be implying that they are too difficult to be solved. Assuming that these
reforms are completed by the next election I’m sure JRJ will have a place somewhere within the leadership of PASS after it has taken place because he remains immensely popular with the UK
electorate, even if by winning it the influence it deserves he’s less popular in the US.
Chris
Chris,
Sorry, it was 5am and I was only just working on my first cup of coffee. I apologize for being imprecise. I had a LOT of nuance in my head but my language choice was lazy.
“the process” I meant was that which Brent spoke to which would address the goals of geo diversity (or gender diversity, etc). No such process existed and to try to use the election after the fact to achieve an undefined and unplanned for process is not appropriate in my opinion.
As I have said, I think geo diversity is an issue and needs to be addressed. I just think that is apples and oranges when we discuss this deviation from the precedent by skipping over Sri and geoff – both of whome were vetted by the Nom Com that was painstakingly worked on after the Steve Jones slate rejection.
Chris – I believe that the Constitution’s combination of both the House of Representatives plus the Senate are very democratic. The House does have extra influence for larger populations (California gets more reps than Rhode Island) while in the Senate, every state gets two seats. This combination is fantastic and well-thought-through.
There’s nothing like that in the PASS bylaws, though, and an attempt to do that by simply appointing one person to the Board will backfire. Why appoint someone from the UK and not, say, India, Japan, Brazil, or Germany? How many seats at the Board should be tied to geo regions? Will those seats be required to be responsible for the global portfolio as JRJ is, or can they do anything they want at PASS independent of geo regions? If JRJ decides he’s better-equipped to manage, say, the 24HOP, do we appoint yet another UK resident to manage the global portfolio?
All of these are great questions and I’d love to hear your answers, but rather than simply getting someone appointed for a short-term seat (and believe me, JRJ’s going to have seriously hard work ahead of him at election time) then I’d like to see you change the bylaws. Appointing a one-time Board member isn’t going to fix it if you really believe geo is a problem.
Chris – sorry, had to reply uplevel.
When I say fixes shouldn’t happen outside the process, I’m referring the geo fixes you want. If you believe the Board needs more geo representation to be fair, no problem – change the bylaws. There’s nothing in the bylaws requiring geo separation right now. Don’t try to fix that with appointments because it simply doesn’t fix the real root problem – the symptoms can pop up at the very next election.
You and I agree much more than we disagree. We both agree that the current PASS configuration is too US-biased if it wants international credibility. We both believe in democracy.
We disagree on things like this: “the appointment of JRJ to the board is the necessary first step to reforms…” The key word here is “necessary”. I simply don’t believe that the only way for PASS to become international is to put JRJ on the board without an election. If the PASS electorate had refused any international candidates whatsoever, then I might be persuaded, but the only international candidate on the ballot this year won a spot on the Board, fair and square.
We also disagree here: “Just because these are difficult problems doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to be solved – and Brent appears to be implying that they are too difficult to be solved.” Not at all – I do believe they can be solved, but they can’t be solved by simply appointing our way into geographic diversity. If geo diversity is important on the Board, then the Board can send that message by putting the same thought into the bylaws that we put into our Constitution.
Just temporarily appointing a guy from out of town, however, doesn’t fix that problem – and I have a real hunch that you and I agree there.
Well, yes, there is a lot we agree on and as far as the things we don’t agree on, well – that’s democracy too, no-one agrees about everything. I’ll refer you to the point I made about Germany in my other comment in reply to the issue of whether it was necessary to appoint JRJ to the Board to effect reform.
One of the good things about a big bust-up like this is that it clears the air, and forces debate on issues that probably wouldn’t have been mentioned otherwise. So all this has been healthy in a way…
To Chris’s point about international candidates. Rob, as the only international candidate was voted in. There is also an argument that Sri, who has very strong international ties and is multi-lingual, is as good an international candidate as the others (especially if you want to make a strong push into non-english as a primary language markets).
I agree with Jen. You missed the cultural reference…there’s an important blackout today due to “real” politics.
It’s fine that you opted out of blacking out (I did, too.) but cherry picking that tweet out of context and attempting to imply that Tom is being evasive isn’t cool. It doesn’t support your position the way you think it does.
Out of interest, what do the PASS bylaws say about this? If they say that BoD can do whatever they please, perhaps it’s important to push for the bylaw change to happen.
If we want PASS to behave like a professional association, we should demand that PASS behave like one… or find a new organization that meets our standards (whatever they might be). I didn’t join the ACM because I like paying money 😉
Talk to Board members, check out the bylaws (http://www.sqlpass.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=inbos5j8Rec%3d&tabid=118&mid=792), and make sure you shape the organization the way you want it. Hell, volunteer to help the community make things better.
Clearly the board’s voting record on this issue indicates that they nearly unanimously thought what they did was The Right Thing.
It was near unanimous coz someone has an election year coming up. My guess would be Allen voted against it bcoz all his actions would be questioned in an election campaign and his vote on this would be no exception. Dirty politics. It just sucks.
Ryan,
Your guess would be correct about my vote on this issue but, to think my vote was in any way a political calculation would indicate that you believe I have decided to run again & continue serving on the PASS BOD in 2013.
Not a personal attack on you but I don’t know what and who to trust at PASS anymore.
Kendal did not deserve this more than Sri did. And JRJ did not deserve this at the cost of Sri or Geoff not getting it.
I seriously hope everyone signs the petition that Andy put out there.
http://www.change.org/petitions/board-of-directors-change-the-by-laws-regarding-appointments-to-vacant-seats
What I am shocked is how one by one ( Bill, Tom, now JRJ ) come out to justify it but not dare to admit the mistake and fix it.
FIX THE PROBLEM.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Seriously, though, this is why I don’t get involved in organizations very often – I can’t stand the BS of backroom politicking
[…] a guy that said he was done with PASS politics Brent has a lot to say. I get it, you don’t like the way the bylaws are written. Run for the […]
I have conflicting feelings about some of the points that have been raised -many of which I agree with and some of which I could provide alternative opinions.
One thing for sure is that *any* professional body (or Program) needs to be transparent and seen to be fair and hopefully PASS can make progress in that direction. Really feel sorry for Sri who is deserving of any board and in particular PASS.
BUT… I do think James will be a great addition to the team and hopefully will do his part to move things forward for the better.
Brent, what you did today (and what Steve and Andy did last week…) was very brave. You stood up and spoke your mind against powerful interests in the profession you earn a living in.
Today reminded me of why I love my profession and our community.
Thank you for speaking up for me and many others.
…and yes, I did rick roll #sqlpass…
🙂
Chuck
Is it wrong that I’m satisfied with the end result and see absolutely no violation of the by-laws? I don’t think so. While I am a supporter and friend of everyone involved in this situation I think it’s very obvious why the current BOD reached out to JRJ.
Is the process flawed? Perhaps the process could revision. Just as the United States is an evolving experiment in Democracy so is the organization that is PASS. There were still many flawed processes with our government when it was only 15 years old. There continue to be changes and tweaks with the election process and I’m sure we will see further changes in the years to come.
Can we cite an issue with the PASS Board being United States-centric? That depends on the pool of candidates that the Nomination Committee had to choose from and the qualifications of each of those potential candidates for the slate.
Concerning the accusation of jingoism – we the Membership elected the only candidate from outside of the United States offered to us by the Nomination Committee. Votes were cast by members in 66 separate countries of which (I suspect) North America only accounted for two. While PASS is primarily an English-speaking organization I think we’re making great strides – particularly in South America – to diversify. It’s certainly not for lack of effort. With JRJ and Rob Farley on the BOD I expect to see greater advancement in globalization.
The positive and constructive dialog in this thread is good, but I see hints of negativity at the edges. Please focus the positive energy on working towards changing the process; shelve the negativity because we’re collectively better than that.
Well-said, Tim. I’m getting nervous at the extreme negativity in the comments on the other blogs (not this one) saying Bill Graziano (the PASS President) or JRJ should resign. That’s kinda far – we need to fix the problem, and putting other people at the helm won’t necessarily fix the problem. We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are two issues here that I don’t see being addressed:
1. the history of PASS making decisions that seem to disregard the professionals PASS is empowered to represent (Matt Morollo, Steve Jones, and now Sri and Geoff).
2. precedent. (I spoke a bit to this on some comments on SQLblog under the handle “Racer_X”. I won’t get into why I used that handle, but it has nothing to do with my desire for anonymity.)
Was PASS permitted by its by-laws to appoint anyone they wanted to? of course, but who is taking issue with that? no one.
I’d like to see PASS speak to what people ARE taking issue with.
The whole “geo diversity” issue is distraction IMO and no one disputes the need for that – it simply has nothing to do with ignoring the votes cast for Sri and Geoff and the Nom Com’s vetting of them.
If we had an honest conversation about the real issues, I feel that would be productive.
Chuck / Racer_X : what is your point about precedent? As I replied to you on my blog, this isn’t the formal legal term, and just because a decision in the past looks to have been made based on certain factors does not make it so, and does not guarantee that only those factors will be used next time. You didn’t reply about my mention of the NomCom rankings (which are definitely a factor), discussions which everyone knows were NDA and should remain so, or the suggestion that it may have been a coincidence that in prior situations the popular vote just happened to agree with the other factors that were taken into consideration. For all we know, the exact same decision making process took place, it just didn’t happen to match the popular vote metric on its own, this time.
LOL.
Hi Aaron.
I have never been addressed as Chuck/Racer_X.
Andy said this on his blog (http://www.sqlandy.com/index.php/2012/01/pass-time-to-change-the-by-laws/):
“The current by-laws allow the Board to elect whoever they want to vacancies by a majority vote. Historically – going back at least to 2008 when I was elected and Tom LaRock was appointed, the Board has taken the person from the most recent election with the next highest votes. I’ve always felt that it was fair and transparent to do that. Those candidates expressed an interest in running for the Board, they were vetted by the Nominating Committee, and the community has ranked them by voting.”
I agree with that.
Is that sufficient to understand my position?
I understand why you think they should have done the same thing this time. But again you’re ignoring my arguments that maybe they *did* do the same thing. After all, they are not bound to even look at the previous election, never mind follow the same rule it appears they applied last time. And we don’t know all of the other factors that led to their decision. So yes, I understand where your position comes from, I just think you’re conveniently leaving out a lot of other data.
Aaron,
PASS can do whatever it wants.
So can SQL professionals for that matter.
If SQL professionals become disgusted over this and decide never to attend another PASS event ever again – they can do that.
We all understand these things.
People interact with organizations for a variety of reasons. A big one is trust.
Your speculation could be correct.
So could anyone else’s speculation be correct.
SQL professionals have no idea.
After Matt Morollow, Steve Jones, and now Sri and Geoff – it’s becoming more difficult to give PASS the benefit of the doubt.
You’re either ignoring my point intentionally or shoving your head in the sand. Whatever. I won’t argue with you about it: you either get what I’m saying or you don’t.
If you don’t believe the board can make decisions on your behalf when it is within the rules, then maybe you should reconsider your membership, or run for the board yourself.
Aaron,
Other possibilities exist.
I get your point: MAYBE there were extenuating circumstances that have not been made public that explain a decision to skip over Sri and skip over Geoff.
Maybe not.
If the former were the case, why were either vetted by the Nom Com?
I didn’t say didn’t believe the Board could not make decisions, in fact I affirmed this.
As Billy Joel sings “It’s a Matter of Trust”.
I think we all *want* to trust the BOD.
I think Steve, Andy, Brent, et al in this scenario are like Jerry MacGuire to the BOD “Help me help you.” PASS BOD, Help Brent help you.
Chuck, just consider that months had passed between the Nom Com process and the appointment of the vacant seats (Brent’s argument that they knew all along aside). It’s possible that the board had new information that wasn’t available months earlier, or they had specific information that wasn’t made known to the Nom Com for the same reason it wouldn’t be made known to the general public. If you “want to trust the BoD” part of that trust is not having to try to analyze every decision they make with a microscope.
Absolutely it’s possible, but for *both* Sri and Geoff (who has already been on the Board)?
Isn’t that begging credulity just a bit?
What I hear from the BOD is “geo diversity”, which is a fine thing in and of itself but it doesn’t justify skipping over *two* vetted Board candidates that were voted on by Association members.
Again, it is important to remember the context. This isn’t the first time the BOD has behaved in a way that surprised Association membership.
2009 – Matt Morollo was approved to run for the Board and Matt didn’t even know what PASS *was* (he publicly stated he thought PASS was a B2B media organization).
2009 – SQL MVP Tim Ford was rejected as a candidate
2010 – SQL MVP Steve Jones was rejected as a candidate
You still seem to be expecting that in this case the NomCom rankings (have you reviewed them?) and intangible / private details that haven’t been divulged should have no bearing on the board’s decision, only the community vote and the fact that they passed NomCom. So again I suggest that you’re simplifying the issue greatly so that it sounds better when you say “they’ve done wrong.”
I don’t know enough about the Matt case to comment. As for Tim and Steve, do you know why they were rejected as candidates? I don’t. Maybe they were good reasons, maybe they weren’t. Since we don’t know, why is the default going to be, “see, they’ve done wrong there, too.”?
Aaron,
If a candidate is vetted and approved to run, IMO the decision is out of the hands of the Nom Com at that point. The Association members now dictate with their votes.
How could someone have disqualifying issues and be vetted to run? Are you suggesting the Nom Com failed in the vetting but now we should allow the Nom Com to instruct us over the votes of the Association members? It doesn’t make sense?
I don’t think you’ve interpreted my words properly. The vetting happened long before the election, and long before the appointments took place. Is it not possible that *NEW* information came to light *AFTER* the NomCom process was complete? Perhaps during or after the election? How did the NomCom fail in that case? That’s like saying how could the people elect Richard Nixon, look at what he did after he became President!?
I find it very hard to believe that 11 out of 12 board members got in a room and said, “Screw Sri and Geoff, we don’t want them on the board, because we don’t like them / they smell / Geoff looked at me funny once.” I do believe that they had valid reasons to choose Kendal and JRJ over Sri and Geoff, and chose this way for the good of PASS over the good of Sri and Geoff (and the detriment of at least Kendal, given that JRJ didn’t run), even though they did not agree with the community vote. You don’t like their reasons because you don’t know them. You might not like them even if you did know them. But that doesn’t mean their decision was wrong. Once again, have you observed the NomCom *rankings*? Do you think the NomCom is stupid or wrong because they didn’t rank the candidates exactly how the community did?
Aaron,
At some point we have to look at the purpose of elections.
Why do we hold them?
Do we do so because they are a legal formality and we must hold them to satisfy a requirement?
Or do we allow elections to decide.
I would vote for the latter (pun intended, sorry).
It’s as simple as that.
After the Association has spoken with their vote, we don’t decide if we will allow it to instruct us. We implement the decision that’s been made (past tense).
I’m only going to counter with: Why have NomCom rankings? Why have a board if you intend to hold them to the decision that the public made (a public who did not consider the NomCom rankings or any of the information or discussions that took place within the board)? Should a board not be able to make any decisions on their own? How long should the previous election’s results be valid? 1 month, 6 months, through to the day of the next election? I bet if the election were the next day, or the next week, the results would not have been identical. Not every decision must be decided by a vote that happened at a different time. Sometimes the board should be allowed to act within the by-laws and make a decision, even if it is going to be unpopular to some. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my thoughts but I believe they are sound, and unless there is actual evidence of wrong-doing, I’m going to continue giving the board the benefit of the doubt, believing that this decision was for the good of the organization, and that they have absolutely no requirement to follow precedent in the face of information that does exist outside of the popular vote in the previous election.
Aaron – I totally agree with you about letting the Board make decisions like that after the election’s over, but…I just can’t ignore the fact that the Board knew about these vacancies before the election started (or even finished). These vacancies really weren’t surprises, and they didn’t happen after the voting stopped.
I agree, Tim. As far as I can see, the BoD didn’t break any by-laws, they just handled a decision in a manner that didn’t sit well with the community. Sure, Sri actually ran for the BoD, and had more votes than Kendal, but it isn’t as though JRJ is an unknown entity: he’d been working with the BoD as well.
If people are still unhappy at the end of the day, the energy needs to be focused on changing the by-laws or the process to make sure that these kinds of decisions can’t simply be handed down.
I just hope people can simmer down a bit, and stay focused on helping the community locally and at large. (Which, by the way, does not need to involve PASS in any way…)
Matt – what about Geoff, though? The Board bypassed not just one, but *two* candidates who ran for the Board.
Whether you like the by-laws or not, it is fairly common practice for not-for-profits to allow the BOD to appoint directors for vacated positions. That has been my experience.
Hi Brent,
In response to my post on the PASS blog you asked an excellent question that I needed to get clarification on before I could respond to it. I thought I’d answer it here.
Your question was as follows. “Why didn’t PASS promote this international agenda as part of the NomCom process and choose more than one international candidate?”
Your question is a two parter. Let me deal with them in reverse order.
Why didn’t the NomCom push through more international candidates?
The Board received 6 applications. The NomCom vetted all 6 and passed them all through. The community then voted. The only “international” candidate applied, was vetted and subsequently elected. The NomCom in this instance couldn’t have passed any more through as it was constrained by those that applied.
Why didn’t the board promote this international agenda further?
Fair point. I am sure as with most things more could have been done – especially with the 20/20 vision that is hindsight. However, the board had been fairly clear with its intentions and investment by appointing the international board advisors in the first place. I think that was a pretty clear statement of intent. We need to do a better job of getting international community members to put themselves up for election. The irony of me being the one to say that is not lost on me.
Cheers, JRJ
JRJ – bingo. If international people don’t even want to RUN for the Board, it’s pretty hard for me to accept that it’s a problem with the US SQL community as Chris Webb suggested. I would turn the problem right around and say that it’s a lack of Board applicants – not even qualified applicants, but just applicants period – from outside the US.
My thoughts would be that it would be nice to see more candidates generally. 6 candidates for 3 roles isn’t a great ratio. Therefore I wouldn’t divide it in quite the way you have. We need to make the organisation more relevant to the community so more people are encouraged to be part of it and want to influence it at all levels.
I do have a difference of opinion with your interpretation of Chris’ comments. I think Chris’ point was more along the lines of international people don’t feel that they have a great chance of success given the bias currently in the PASS membership. I don’t think that Chris was saying that there was something wrong with the fact that the US has a strong SQL community and therefore a significant PASS membership. I hope that actually Rob running and getting elected goes some way to altering that perception if that is the case.
I think relevance is the key issue here. PASS is perceived as being a US organisation by a great many people. Perhaps it is more difficult for people to show the same level of care for an organisation that operates thousands of miles away (as they see it). However, we should not forget that we have more events happening internationally under the PASS banner now than ever before and international chapters are coming online all the time. PASS as a result is becoming more relevant to the international community – which is great.
Moving forward I think that as we look to shape PASS into an organisation that is more relevant to people internationally that a number of these issues will begin to be addressed. It’s not going to change overnight but I think it will help enormously and will accelerate how people feel about the organisation. As people begin to learn more about the SQL community and the role PASS plays supporting that community then it would follow that they would want to take a more active role in it.
Just to back up what JRJ said about my point: I’m not anti-American and as you’ve probably guessed I think there’s a lot to admire in the US political system. I’m not blaming the US SQL Community, it’s doing what it *should* be doing: voting for people that represent its interests. The trouble is that while this means the interests of the US SQL community do get represented, it also means that the smaller non-US communities find it hard to make their voices heard.
When I hear the argument that greater international representation will happen in the future when the these communities get larger and engage more, I think of Germany: it’s 1/3 the size of the US in population, a very rich and developed economy, has a thriving SQL Server community with a very long history of involvement in PASS (unlike the UK community), but is completely unrepresented on the Board. Is this the fault of the German community to engage with PASS, or something to do with the nature of PASS itself that means it isn’t effectively engaging with the German community?
Chris – I haven’t made the argument that greater international representation will happen in the future.
When you say Germany is unrepresented on the Board, I have to ask – when was the last time someone from Germany ran for the Board? If nobody wants to run, whose fault is that? Saying that “smaller non-US communities find it hard to make their voices heard” is a really weak argument if they’re not using their voices.
I understand if you’d like to make it a quota system where the Board has to have X number of spots from various countries – but that needs to make it into the bylaws.
I, too, wrestle with this decision. My first reaction was to borrow a line from those kids sleeping in tents in cities and yell, “SHAME!!!” Then I thought more about it and realized that nothing illegal (by the by-laws) was done and that this potentially has happened before so I even wondered if it was unethical. At the same time I can see where this stings folks and makes folks question the integrity of the process – I actually like the ends PASS will benefit, I just don’t know if they justify the means. I like terrorists getting caught, but I don’t like my privacy and civil rights trampled on in the process, too.
If there is a fundamental issue with Sri and the board knows anything bad about him that would prevent him from being the one selected then that is a great decision for Sri and the organization in the long run to pass him over. But then that was pretty risky to have him make it to the ballot and only miss being on fair and square by less than 200 votes! If there is no problem with Sri, then it confuses me why he was skipped and the NDA discussions (which are critically important for boards and organizations to be able to have, by the way) almost imply there are issues and a reputation is hurt. Sri and Kendal have both helped with a SQL Rally, they’ve both been involved in User Groups, they’ve both carried PASS’ water in many ways, shapes and forms. So from a qualifications and experience point of view, I don’t see the difference. That’s what makes this tough to swallow for a lot of folks, I think. Same argument with Geoff, who was previously even on the board.
On the other hand – these kind of appointments are only one year terms and a board of people that we elected nearly unanimously agreed with the decision. We trust them, we vote for them (3 of them we just voted for!) and we like them. The analogue I see with our Senate/House is laws they pass – we may hate (or love – at the same time!) the laws they write and pass, but we have a representative Democracy (well republic.. but..)- we don’t get to vote on the laws directly we get to fire them every 2 or 6 years. Our sending them to Washington is our vote of confidence (or our “they are the lesser of two evils” statement) that we trust them to make those decisions.
The PASS Board works the same way. I personally know, like and trust the majority of the board. They should be a good cross section able to make decisions for us.
All that said – I don’t love how this was done and I don’t love the repercussions. I feel bad for Sri, I feel bad for JRJ and KVD because of the shadow this casts on them. I feel bad for the board members who thought they were acting in the best interests of PASS and have had some mean spirited comments lobbied at them – I don’t think this is some conspiracy, I firmly believe they did this because they thought it was best for PASS and bringing PASS more to the world. So, I signed the petition referenced above in the comments. Let’s ask the board to change the by-laws and let’s see what happens this next year and moving forward, we can go with the popular choice (which I like, that shows trust in the NomCom and trust in the process/voting)
Finally, I had my application ready, I had my references ready and at the last minute decided to not run for the BoD. There were a few reasons – part was the time commitment and fear I’d be able to do it while still in the starting stages of my own consultancy and second was a chat with Brent (who I asked for a reference from) – he asked some great questions but said something that stuck – “why do you have to be on the board to effect change?” That’s stuck out in my mind here –> Why will JRJ be more influential in bringing PASS to the rest of the world as a board member vs. an advisor? Also if the board unanimously agrees that we need a bigger international presence, why did we need to bring someone on to influence the board to be international? Seems to me we already have the international advisors and they just started this recently, doing it this way just feels rushed.
At any rate – I think maybe things are a bit more blown up/politicized than they could be and the board is governed by by-laws (and yeah they are the ones who change the by-laws, too) so if enough of us want those by-laws changed hopefully the board will take that into consideration. I’m confident they’ll be talking about it at their next meeting. At this point we are in a “what’s done is done” situation and I don’t see any way to make things better – maybe offer Sri and Geoff advisory roles – not as “prestigious” as a board position but it still allows them to help shape the direction of the organization they cared enough to put themselves out there for.
On second thought, though.. I’m not sure if I support the by-law change as a final say. To Aaron’s point, many organizations allow the board the power of interim appointments.
I think this case is odd because it was so close to the election and, frankly, the two vacancies weren’t surprises, as Brent says.
So maybe a real answer is something like
If within 1 month of an election, go by popular vote of those who ran, if none, then appoint.. If the board receives clear and convincing information that would now disqualify a candidate, the board shall review the candidate and the findings in non-public session, discuss with the nom com for agreement and vote to exclude a candidate.
If outside of the 1 month window, the board shall appoint a candidate. They are free to choose from the “also-ran” candidates who missed the vote, or not. If it is outside of the month a lot can change and the board should be freer to decide.
In either case the appointment would only be valid until the next general board election, at which point that seat is voted on by the public – all new candidates including the one appointed go through the nom-com process, unless previously approved.
The one bad thing about this approach – if the board discovers disqualifying information about a candidate and agrees to bypass in the non-public session the community will pretty much know “something’s rotten in the state of Denmark”.. That is unfortunate, but the board should NOT be forced to pick someone that is no longer qualified, and the board should NOT be forced to disclose why. Transparency works to a point but it’s important. The onus is on the person running. If you did something bad, have something bad in your past, have an undisclosed conflict of interest, were unethical during a campaign, etc. then you probably shouldn’t have run.
I think a by-law change like this allows us to see the popular vote honored in the moments after it was taken but it also gives our board the freedom they need to make the decisions that they feel are in the best interest of the community.
[…] decision for the board appointment (If you don’t know what I am talking about, Brent’s post is probably the one that summarizes all of the others the best, you may disagree with some of the […]
This whole thing has gotten ugly. The comments on James Rowland Jones post on the PASS site are out of line as are tweets coming out of the Executive Committe:
“i’ve clearly overused the word ‘douchebag’ these past two days, it’s lost all meaning at this point.”
(http://twitter.com/#!/SQLRockstar/status/160062459745538048).
I have not seen any real engagement of the concerns brought to issue initially by Andy and Steve. The new (unrelated) issue introduced by PASS – geo diversity – is a fine thing to consider moving forward but it ignores the concerns brought up in the first place: we had a precedent that was not followed this year and two vetted candidates who received votes were skipped without explanation.
Bringing up a new topic while ignoring the issue of concern seems less than respectful to me.
At this point, I’m giving up.
I don’t expect to hear discussion on the issues brought up by Steve and Andy that got my attention in the first place and that’s sad.
Ah, that’s good old passive-aggressive LaRock. If you question anything he says, you’re personally attacking him, and you’re dead to him. He doesn’t have to explain anything because it’s NDA, and it’s for your own good that you don’t know, and you’re a douchebag for even asking.
That used to bother me, but if questioning authority makes me a douchebag, then I’m guilty as charged.
That’s my friend, too. I wrestled with referencing that tweet and feel it must reflect the stress he is under PASS to get this “situation” under control. I know Tom loves PASS and SQL professionals, but the points Steve, Andy, you, etc are making are GOOD and valid and deserve the respect of a response. This whole “let’s change the subject” tactic by PASS is depressing in its predictableness.
PASS: we aren’t discussing this because we don’t think it has merit and throwing in a new topic for discussion is not a substitute for a response.
I want to apologize to Tom LaRock. After my comments, Tom reached out to my by email and extended a courtesy that I owed to him but failed to provide. Tom explained his remarks to me and I knew before I was even done reading his explanation that I was wrong and I had jumped to conclusions.
I know something about being unfairly mischaracterized in a very public way and now I am the person doing this very thing to Tom.
Tom is a good man, a friend, and a guy who offered me a job when I desperately needed one.
I gave in to the temptation of cynicism and I imagined Tom stuck between the Sith Lords of PASS and his jack as friends like me (e.g. https://twitter.com/#!/chuckboycejr/status/159690080791969792).
Tom – I shouldn’t have assumed I knew what you meant. I should have emailed you BEFORE assuming I did understand what you meant. I should have given you the courtesy you gave me (that I didn’t deserve by that point).
I’m sorry.
In Tom’s defense, Chuck, how are you convinced that his tweet must absolutely be related to this discussion? What I find out of line is how some people are so trigger-happy to forget about this whole “benefit of the doubt” thing. To assume and accuse publicly that an out-of-context tweet must absolutely be directed at a specific group of people? I guess I give up too. 🙁
I gotta agree with Aaron here. Chuck – how does one completely out of context tweet aimed at no one suddenly become a sign that Tom is being negative? Even if you somehow connect the dots in some 9/11 truth conspiracy fashion and you make the argument this was Tom’s way of secretly calling everyone out… How does that single tweet become “tweets coming out of the Executive Committee”??
That is unfair and dirty. It is the same thing that we see in politics in America right now. Out of context soundbites used to back up a position.
Further – Have you considered that the Board is meeting next week? Have you considered that 3 members of the board have blogged explaining what they can explain publicly and more will probably be coming out next week after their meeting?
You complain that you want constructive changes to happen. So be constructive and contribute to the solution. I seem to recall the last couple times issues arose in the voting process most of us just sort of jumped on a wave of rage, complained, said things like “I give up” and then faded into the background again. How does that help?
It’s funny but watching this go around in the PASS community is coming around the same time I’m really questioning where I’ve stood politically and what is wrong with politics and both parties in this nation. We seem to be showing that in a small example lately. Anyway I’ll stop blabbering here, I did enough of that on my blog post last night… Once the noise goes down and folks get back into their corners – then we can move forward and I have confidence that this board wants to as well.
You’re also right, Mike.
You’re right. I was wrong.
Since my name was brought into this… I have publicly stated on many occasions since 2009 that I absolutely BOMBED in my Nomination Committee interview in 2009. I would not have voted for me to be on the slate either. No Sith Lords, Shadowy Individuals, Blacklists, or Chupacabras were to blame. Just me.
In all of the commotion, I missed something.
In 2010, Steve Jones was not permitted to run for the PASS Board as he lacked a history of PASS involvement. That was it. In all other areas, everyone agreed he would have been a tremendous asset to the BOD.
In the comments of JRJ’s post on the sqlpass.org site, Jon Crawford writes the following:
——
My concerns are these lines from your response (thank you for responding, btw)
“My role in the community to date has not been related to PASS at all.”
“I believe that re-structuring PASS needs to start in 2012. I personally don’t believe it can wait for another election. The scale of the task before us is really quite significant. I have already invested over three months of time and energy into the international role.”
Not that this in any way indicates that you are not qualified to do a good job, simply that involvement with PASS has been somewhat of a requirement (*cough*) in the past, and that the other members who ran for the BOD had extensive experience with the organization.
The appointments were within the bylaws as written. Similar to past experiences I feel that they should be altered, but that’s my opinion, and would be a go-forward fix. I hope that you can bring progress to the organization and help to build the international focus of PASS.
Good luck.
——-
I missed that point entirely.
So, I have to ask:
If the PASS community wasn’t allowed to consider an admitted stellar candidate in 2010 because he had no history with PASS and the Nom Com has since formalized a minimum 2 yr PASS history as a requirement to serve (correct me if I’m wrong on that) why is the PASS BOD now appointing a stellar candidate who similarly had no history with PASS?
Am I missing something?
I love following the PASS elections every year; always full of political drama and intrigue. My personal opinion is that the community itself seems to want a democratic process, but the PASS board doesn’t, so there’s this weird hybrid as the board slowly becomes more transparent, or at least opaque.
[…] […]