The rules this year are clearer than ever, and that’s awesome.
But you’d better actually read them (warning: Word docx), because there’s a few doozies like this one:
“All campaigning must promote PASS in a positive manner. Campaigning that breaks the stated rules or brings PASS into disrepute may be challenged by any PASS member.”
Keep in mind that you’ll be running against PASS Board of Director members up for re-election. You can’t say anything negative about them or the choices the organization made while they were in office.
You probably think what you’re saying is fine, but remember that “any PASS member” – any one of the delicate flowers who scream that the community is dying – can say you’re bringing PASS into disrepute.
Now imagine running for your company’s DBA position, looking at a server that hasn’t been backed up, has security holes, and is running on 2007 hardware. Now before you start interviewing, you’re told:
“All interviewing must promote our existing SQL Server in a positive manner. Campaigning that brings the last DBA into disrepute may not be tolerated.”
Would you really want to go to work there?
Update: How This Rule Changed from 2013
Former Board of Directors member Allen Kinsel (Blog – @AllenKinsel) – found last year’s election docs in the Internet Wayback Machine. Here’s the relevant section:
“All campaigning must promote PASS in a positive manner. Campaigning that transgresses the stated rules or brings PASS into disrepute may be challenged by any Board members, Committee members, or Chapter leaders. Complaints may be reported to the Chair of the Nominations Committee or to Governance at HQ.”
Before, only a few folks could raise concerns, but now anybody in the community can blow the whistle and say you’re bringing PASS into disrepute. I wonder why that change was made? (Not being funny here, just seriously wondering.)
37 Comments. Leave new
Brent, I kind of get where you’re coming from here but at this point PASS is essentially “forced” to put in phrases like this because of all the BS whining in the past. They’re basically just saying “run a clean race”. Could they have perhaps worded it differently? Yes. But again, I wouldn’t try to create issues where there are none.
Jorge – forced to put it in by who?
And when you say you wouldn’t try to create issues, just think about me running for the Board for a minute. If I said anything I’ve said in the past about, say, the problems with 24HoP, any member of PASS could complain that I’m putting PASS in disrepute. How is that not an issue? We’re creating a culture where we’re telling the community, “You’re only welcome if you say nice things about us.”
You and I are ballsy enough to ignore that and keep going, but is that the standard we want to set in writing?
We (Community) tend to get feathers ruffled rather quick since we’re all so passionate. PASS seems to always play defense against those who get offended. Even when they make a change that moves the org towards what people have asked for they still take flak. Is that fair? Like I said earlier I think in this case they’re not trying to play morality police or anything here, I think they just want to avoid any potential mud-slinging during campaigning.
I totally get and respect your journalism take, and any organization should be held accountable for any actions that affect the body they’re governing. I just noticed your update. My guess there is that this might be a change due to the cries for more transparency. The people wanted more power to affect change and now they have it.
Brent,
Reading this I realize – again – how hard it is to communicate well without writing a book. Speaking only for me here, there are two parts to this. The intent is for not to become a red/blue mud slinging fest like we see in national politics. I have no issue with a candidate pointing out places where PASS needs to improve (or has failed event), or challenging an incumbent on work done or not done. The language is intended to warn that there is a limit, but the limit is – in my view – deliberately vague, because writing anything else would be close to impossible and would turn into a rules writing/parsing/going around exercise.
The second part, I voted and advocated for the language change this year. I thought that we should let anyone cry foul and not just the powers that be. In practice I don’t expect a lot of complaints, and I’m fairly comfortable that whoever is chairing the NomCom will be level headed and very cautious about applying any type of sanction.
Jorge, “clean race” is perhaps a better turn of phrase, and something I’ll note that we should talk about when we finish up our work post-election.
Brent, I take your point that the clause seems weighty, but shouldn’t it be? Are we arguing lack of finesse in the policy, or having rules at all?
I really wish you wouldn’t discourage people from running, for whatever reason. If something isn’t right, let’s fix it. Let’s elect people each year that will try to change the things they see that could be better.
I also think that a holistic review of the policy would be a fairer approach than just calling out one item. There are other changes that clarify and simplify, things that I think make for a better election.
I wish we had published something on the changes directly – a miss, but perhaps one that we can still address.
Regards,
Andy
Andy – I do too wish that politics was wooing voters with pictures of puppies and rainbows, but that’s not realistic. People who are running for change need to be able to communicate that change, and with vague rules about “you’re not allowed to say bad things” has the wrong effect.
Vague rules are worse than no rules: they let the people who enforce the rules pick where the line is drawn.
Brent, Im always open to writings things better and the goal is not (and has not) been to deter candidates from running a good and interesting campaign. If we just changed it to “Run a clean campaign” is that better? How would we enforce that? Or we do have rule 1, 1a 1a(2), etc, that goes into painful detail and probably still leaves loopholes?
I don’t want to deter candidates and the intent of our change this year was to do more for the members (as Jorge noted).
I’ll repeat that I see your point, but the change we made this year that you reference doesn’t – in my view – change the game from last year. I’d like to see the policy better and I’m on the NomCom to help do that.
You have a tremendous voice in the community. I think you’ve identified something that can be better, but we can’t change it mid election. We can look at changes for next year. I hope/wish you’ll use the same voice to encourage people to run, to do good in the community, even if things aren’t perfect right now.
Andy
Andy – you don’t want to say “run a clean campaign.” That’s not part of the law of running politics. The voters get to decide whether they want a clean campaign or not. Just because YOU want a clean campaign doesn’t mean you should regulate the campaign’s cleanliness. That’s a slippery slope.
“Run a clean campaign” usually translates into “you’re not allowed to say bad things about me, the incumbent,” and that’s not a good idea for democracy.
Thanks for the compliments about my voice in the community, but I gotta be honest. When someone tells me they want to run for the PASS Board of Directors, I ask them one set of questions, every time: what’s the change you want to make that can only be made from a Board of Directors seat? Have you tried bringing that change from your current seat first, and why has it failed? Why will your efforts be different when you’re on the BoD?
I’ve talked to a lot of BoD candidates, and very, very few people have had good answers to that question. Usually the answers are more like, “Well, I think I can help.” Great – start helping right now. You don’t need to be on the BoD to help, and of course you are a fantastic example of that.
Brent, running for the Board isn’t only about change. I’m an agent of change, you are too, but the truth is someone has to do the work to keep the lights on. That’s a reason to run too, so that all the good stuff that is working keeps working and maybe works a little better, or to try to make the stuff that isn’t working begin to work. Running for the Board is also a great life experience. There’s no doubt it allowed me to grow in ways I could not as a employee or a consultant. Personal growth is at least part of a good reason to run for the Board.
Maybe we have different definitions of clean? I think a good campaign can talk about negatives and differences in a clear and positive way.
I think it’s hard to get stuff done on the outside. Not impossible, but hard. It’s not exactly easy to get stuff done even on the Board! Absolutely I like to see that they are engaging and thinking before they run.
I guess what I come back to is I think you have a valid point on the possible perception, and I think we can help candidates understand the unwritten “intent” this year via NomCom guidance and then we fix it right after permanently. That’s what we can do.
More than that though, I hope you’ll encourage people to run, publicly and privately. Warts and all, PASS does some good and can do even more good if we get people to run with energy and ideas. They don’t have to be perfect candidates to run.
Andy
Andy – “Maybe we have different definitions of clean?” Bingo. And there’s the problem – especially now that anyone, ANYONE in the community can call what you’re doing unclean. You know the old saying in politics – you can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Brent, the intent is that someone can raise the issue to the Chair. In practice they could anyway, we just tried to make it clear that they could. Just because they raise an issue doesn’t mean the Chair will opt to warn and/or punish a candidate.
I really do struggle with why saying a voter can complain to the NomCom is a bad thing? I get Brian K’s point about workload, but beyond that, is is better if they CANT?
Andy – the problem is that having the rule means you’re damned either way. You’re damned if you act on complaints, and you’re damned if you don’t. It’s just like having rules about pornography – somebody’s going to ask you to enforce them, and there goes more work.
You can’t legislate clean campaigns. You might want them – but what you want is different than what someone else wants. Democracy means it’s open to the voters, not an elite few making a choice for everyone.
Brent, I hear you on being stuck in the middle, but I don’t see that alone as a reason to not try. Is it better to have no way for a member to complain? Is it really better to set no standard or to try to keep things in the middle of the road? Isn’t asking a candidate to run a “clean campaign” a fair thing to ask? Or have we reached the point where we will accept no boundary on behavior?
I’ve tried to say this, but maybe more direct will help – the reason for the vagueness is we’re expressing intent. That’s not to say in an extreme case we might not act, but short of that what we’re saying is “this is a nice neighborhood, don’t throw eggs”. I’d like to think people get that. Could an evil NomCom do evil? By definition it could, that’s why we let the community vote for part of the Nomcom!
I’ll say again that maybe I’m wrong, but finding language to encourage a solid, issue based campaign is worth having, and without a mild threat of a stick it’s just noise.
Andy – yes, it’s better to set no standard. I love red meat – that doesn’t give me the right to pass laws banning vegetarians. If you like a certain style of campaigning, great – vote for people who campaign that way. Having vague, threatening rules that suggest other styles will be penalized – that’s just not right. That’s not democracy.
Brent,
I strongly disagree that “the voters should decide” if they want a clean campaign or not. The voters don’t get a say until the campaign is all over, so they in no way decide how people run their campaign. They only determine the result of those campaigns, and recent elections show that people say they want clean campaigns but candidates still go dirty because it works.
I also disagree that vague rules are better than no rules. Sure, they leave human judgement as to how they will be enforced, but we champion human judgement every day in our role as DBAs. If you could simply write a set of rules and have it fit every scenario, powershell would have made DBAs obsolete by now. It’s the same with politicking for a board seat. It’s the difference between “I believe there were some missteps with the recent 24HoP, and I plan to correct them in this way…” and “That last 24HoP really sucked, whoever was behind it should be summarily dismissed, and {various character assassination}”
As a group, the negativity and attacks used in the second example discourage volunteerism and generally make PASS less attractive for anyone involved, while the first example shows a desire for positive change. I think allowing attack dog style campaigning would discourage more volunteers within the community than telling folks to run a clean campaign.
Joe – so who should candidates approach before they say anything in public?
Especially given that now *any* PASS member can call what you say offensive?
I don’t see a requirement that anything you say must be pre-approved. I’d use common sense, and if you are asked by the NomCom chair to tone it down, then you should.
Joe – the catch is that there’s nothing in the doc saying you’ll be asked to tone it down.
I don’t necessarily think the change this year is that big of a deal, but the overall message concerns me a bit. It reeks of “we only want yes men/women.”
(speaking for myself) the NomCom made this slight change this year in order to make the whole community more inclusive. ie ANYONE in the community can “officially” object to the way a campaign is being run instead of just a few leaders. It is then up to the NomCom to decide whether there is a real issue that warrants a response.
At the end of the day, I think its highly likely that the first people to point out a problem in a campaign would be on the list that was previously used but, allowing anyone to participate seems like a good idea.
Brent, the proper course if a candidate has a concern is to contact the Chair of the NomCom to get an opinion/ruling.
Randy, I hear you and it bothers me that we have language that would cause that perception, because that’s NOT the intent. The only thing that heartens me a little is that people that say NO tend to walk a little closer to the line than the YES people.
Brent,
Good points. I like the idea of allowing the Community to participate more in PASS leadership, but I think this is a can of worms waiting to pop.
Andy, you raise good points, too (as always). But in this case, I think this language adds more warts than it dissolves. The entire PASS Board of Directors elections and nominations processes smack of control already, and you’ve added another control knob.
I sincerely appreciate the attempt at listening to the Community more. I get that part, and (as I wrote above), I like it. But where’s the carrot? This is all stick.
How come the Community can whack candidates over the head and yet not get a write-in? Aren’t trust and transparency involved in both matters? I think so.
Andy
Hey Andy!
I guess I remain confused. The change we made this year was to allow anyone to notify the NomCom if they thought someone was not campaigning in good faith. How is that adding another knob? I argued for the change because I wanted to allow the members to have input – not be shut out. Would it be better to revert to the old way and NOT allow that?
Just to be clear, I agree we could use better language, and we’ll revisit it. I do not understand the fear or concerns about allowing a voter member to have a recognized voice back to the NomCom if they think someone has crossed the line. We’re not authorizing them to boot a candidate, just to raise the concern and let the NomCom chair review that concern. Why is that bad? Why is it worse than last year?
I hope you’ll appreciate my frustration with having tried to so something GOOD and having it interpreted to be just the opposite. I’m listening, I just don’t see that part.
Regards, always,
Andy
I think Brent’s concern is well-founded. I think that not so much because of what PASS has done, but what others have done.
For instance, a certain megalith corp who demanded session title changes for a conference because they didn’t want anyone to say anything negative about a product, not even in a title. It was severe enough to tick off some MVPs of said corporation, enough not to present at their conferences again.
Here’s a set of questions to consider:
– Who decides what is or is not a violation?
– Who deals out the punishment?
– What is the range of things that can be dealt out in punishment?
Thinking of the answers, if the folks that are currently in positions of power are the ones who also get to decide what is and isn’t acceptable, then you don’t have a disinterested third party. And you’ll likely have abuse. This is the argument against Goodell in the NFL. This has led to players getting suspended (Ray Rice), sometimes disproportionately (see Rice again versus some of the substance abuse violators) while owners (Irsay) see no consequences. If we’re saying this isn’t good for the NFL, why is it good for PASS?
That’s how I see the language.
Brian, that’s a procedural issue and I agree we should have guidance. My answers – unofficial and not published, are:
– Chair of the NomCom decides
– Same (though I’d expect consultation with the NomCom and potentially even the Board)
– A “caution” is one option, and in theory removal from the slate would be the worst.
I’m not opposed to advocating for having a policy, better to work on it before we have the problem. At the same time my hope is that we never need it. I don’t feel like we’ve had any major issue with a candidates campaign approach.
I’ll ask:
– Do you agree with the idea of having some rules/guidelines about what PASS considers acceptable campaigning?
– Do you agree with the idea that someone who violates those rules could be subject to some sort of punishment up to and including diqualification?
– Where are you on the concept of a member being able to raise a concern about a campaign to the Nomcom?
Appreciate the feedback Brian. I wish I had looked at this more, but – feeling mildly defensive – we had limited time and we weren’t after wholesale change, it just didn’t click as needing that much attention right then.
Andy – sorry I haven’t responded faster, been in & out of meetings today. Don’t feel defensive at all – I didn’t say WE GOTTA CHANGE ALL THIS NAO. I just wanted to point out to candidates that they need to read the rules because there’s serious gotchas in there.
I don’t agree. I don’t agree because PASS is a volunteer organization and we’ve discussed at length how hard the process already is on the NomCom. This puts potential additional responsibilities and time requirements on the NomCom. Those two things don’t go together in my mind.
Also, I think the voting membership will speak with their votes if that membership finds someone’s campaigning across the line. Let’s face it: if someone wants to smear an opponent, they will find a way. Case in point: “swift boat.” Bush didn’t say anything directly that was negative on Kerry’s military experience. Others did. There were obvious ties to those who were in charge of Bush’s re-election campaign. But since Bush didn’t directly do it, how could he be held accountable? If you hold him accountable, then someone could figure that’s a good strategy to eliminate an opponent.
Brent – thanks, I hear you.
Brian, I’m not eager to make it harder on the NomCom and I guess you could say I’m betting that by expressing intent up front we won’t spend much time other than clarifying questions from candidates. Maybe I’m wrong on that.
I agree voters are the final arbiter. yet, it feels wrong to do nothing to set the tone and expectations, or at least try to. It’ll never be perfect, I hope we’re self-policing, but isn’t there a way to do more than nothing without doing harm?
I don’t think so. Not at this point.
Case in point: “don’t waste my time.” That was obviously taken as bringing PASS into disrepute, although there was no public rebuke.
We know what happened there. And with that language, I think what has been done is that anything controversial, especially past mistakes or disagreements, have been rendered verboten. That means we don’t move forward.
Brian, I’d rather lose a finger than rehash that sorry episode. My take – I wasn’t on the NomCom then – was that it wasn’t about disrepute, but about working on a team. Not saying I agree, that’s just my read.
I don’t want mistakes and disagreements to be out of scope. We’ll work on fixing that, as I mentioned above somewhere.
Hi Andy!
I believe diversity of thought is a good thing. If I were campaigning for the Board of Directors and I made the statement that I think the current nominations and elections process is designed to promote intellectual incest and kill transparency, someone would likely complain. And then someone on the Board who believes intellectual incest is a good thing and transparency is bad could opt to disqualify me from the slate because I offended someone.
The other option is I speak like a good politician and make sweeping generalizations that are largely fluff-speak (“I want PASS to engage the SQL Server Community more” or “I believe PASS should facilitate more opportunities for database professionals to interact with each other” or “MOAR CLOUDZ!”), to avoid offending anyone – which is precisely the effect I predict for this rule. I doubt that was your intention, but rules have intended and unintended consequences and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
I think this rule leads to less diversity and more homogeneity of thought and speech. Maybe I’m worried about nothing, though. No one on the Board ever reminds people of things they said while campaigning, do they?
Andy
Andy L – bingo. While these are obviously edge case examples, that’s the problem with vague rules. There’s nobreason the edge case can’t happen, and even worse, people will see even conservative applications of the rule as edge cases.
Edge cases can always happen. The biggest protection we have against them is the elected Nomcom. It’s a long way from the way it used to be with an appointed NomCom. We get to elect 3 seats out of 5. That’s the biggest check in the check and balances we have.
Here’s why I’m frustrated:
– The “positive” language is a holdover from last year (or earlier). Where was the concern last year?
– I’m stating publicly I’m in favor of BETTER language, but not removal. I think we can encourage a substantive campaign while still saying that that we don’t want DC politics.
– I still do not understand why allowing a member to raise a concern instead of just a Board/NomCom/Chapter person is such a big deal. More work for the NomCom? Maybe, in the edge cases.
I want candidates to talk about ideas and problems, and I think the rest of the NomCom does too. We’ll find a way to make that language better. Candidates have the option to ask the NomCom if they have any concern and that can be done privately, before they do something, and then they can do or do not, as they decide.
I feel like this is the HOA argument. Some people love HOA’s that have tons of rules to prevent someone from decreasing the value of their home. Some refuse to buy if HOA is active. Strangely enough, I live in a neighborhood that has a mild and voluntary HOA. I’ve found it be a very good compromise and far better than no rules.
Frustration aside, you’re doing some good by raising the concern. I appreciate that! I’d ask you, and anyone following along, take a look at the entire document, and post/send me/NomCom your concerns. I hope you’ll see that the doc is better than last year and with some help, it can be better still next year.
Andy
Hi Andy,
Correction, we get to elect three people who “pass the NomCom test.” That’s not the same thing as an open election where those who wish to run get to run until the vote occurs or they choose to withdraw.
Regarding your concerns:
– Project manager often say “As soon as you realize the date is going to slip, let me know.” How do they respond when you say, “The date is going to slip”? “WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL ME SOONER?!?” So, defensive question – which doesn’t make it bad or wrong, but does make a diversion.
– It’s not the language. It’s the transparency. If PASS leadership did transparency right there would be few complaints about process and language. I predict a candidate will “simply go away” if someone complains. I find that unacceptable. I don’t need to know who made the complaint, but I want details. I want to know what a candidate did or said that someone found offensive. I want to know how many people complained. And I would like to know how the Board voted on it, roll-call style. I know that’s uncomfortable for PASS leadership. If transparency was comfortable for them, they’d be doing it already.
– See my previous answer.
I understand and support the desire for clean campaigns. If the language in this rule supported clean campaigns, I would not take issue with it.
I could be wrong about this but I think this language will not achieve the results you intend, and will instead dampen both the desires of some who would otherwise run for the PASS Board and the campaigns of those who do.
Time will tell.
Andy
Andy L – you nailed it when you said “If the language in this rule supported clean campaigns, I would not take issue with it.” The language talks about running a clean campaign about PASS, but says nothing about how you treat other candidates. The way this is worded, it’s about not putting the *association* in disrepute, not your fellow candidates. That’s something else entirely.
Andy W – regarding where the concern was last year, we can’t all digest everything that comes at us every year, and we can’t always blog about it every year. I do truly wish I had the time to sift through everything that everybody does, and dedicate my free time to giving back continuously, but that’s just not realistic.
For those reading this thread that don’t know, I’m the chair of the PASS NomCom this year. Allen Kinsel and Andy Warren are also serving on the committee.
This year we started the NomCom early and tried to do some streamlining around the election and application. Andy and Allen have already talked about the intent of this language and how it changed from last year.
We’re also going to have a series of NomCom meetings after the election and think about further changes after having been through the process. We’ll be watching what goes right and wrong and what people comment on. I think it’s safe to say this is one of the things that’s on the list to discuss.
Bill – thanks man, that’s great to hear! I already appreciated the clarity in this year’s doc – nice job already.