Today, PASS announced the lineup for the 2016 Summit. I like sharing the sessions I submitted, and the feedback my abstracts got, because it gives you a view inside what it’s like to be a speaker.
Before I share this, a word of thanks to the PASS Program Committee. Allen White and his team of volunteers bust their humps to review hundreds of abstracts, and he’s written about the incredible work that goes into it. They are charged with building a top quality lineup of sessions that will get great feedback, and it ain’t easy. Anytime there’s a decision, somebody’s gonna be pissed. They volunteer regardless, and kudos to them for that.
500-Level Guide to Career Internals (Accepted)
Length: Half-Day Session (3 hours)
Track: Professional Development
Topic: Consulting
Level: 500
Abstract:
This is not yet another career session that tells you to be friendly and network. Forget that – this is about using your IT skills to reinvent the way you get paid. Brent will explain how he went from DBA to MVP to MCM to business founder.
Brent will show you simple techniques to build a blog, a brand, and a business without that pesky personal networking stuff. He will explain why you have to give everything away for free, and why you cannot rely on the old methods to make money anymore.
It will not be easy – and that is why this session is level 500. This session is about radical methods that achieve radical results.
Prerequisites:
You are a geek who has found your calling, and you are willing to work after hours and weekends to take control of your career.
Goals:
- Learn why old-school networking techniques do not scale
- Understand what people are willing to pay for
- Discover how to get customers to line up in your email box
Reviewer Feedback:
- For a level 500 session, the abstract talks about the really basic stuff.
- Lack of focus, is it career internals or consulting? You can’t have both. Not a 500 level session. Too negative about networking.
- Dinking the abstract rating for identifying information. While this session will I am sure be very good I seriously question the 500 level rating? That would be a first for PD sessions. If chosen I would be very interested in attending from a personal level.
- Catchy title Nice provoking abstract (“”why you have to give everything away for free””), catches my curiosity
- Well written outline with clear goals and an outline that lets the attendee know exactly what will be achieved from the session. The topic is one that I think appeals to any data professional who has not really started the process of branding themselves (and there are many). Very catchy title and abstract, that sounds like something that would be very fun to attend.
My Thoughts:
If you’d have only shown me the feedback, I would have thought this session was declined. (It’s been turned down before.) Going in, I was 100% positive this session wouldn’t be picked, but this year I just decided to submit sessions I love to give, not sessions I thought would get accepted.
The level 500 comments reveal an insight: you, dear reader, are way more advanced than you give yourself credit for. Just by being here, you’ve already absorbed dozens of blog posts from me about why you need to blog, why marketing is important, and how to present. Now granted, you’re probably not actually doing that stuff, but you know my thoughts on the subject.
The vast majority of community folks out there don’t know that stuff. We’ve gotta reach them, get them up off the bench, and into community volunteer positions to connect, learn, and share.
Intro to Internals: How to Think Like the SQL Server Engine (Accepted)
Length: General Session (75 minutes)
Track: Application & Database Development
Topic: Indexing
Level: 100
Abstract:
When you pass in a query, how does SQL Server build the results? Time to role play: Brent will be an end user sending in queries, and you will play the part of the SQL Server engine. Using simple spreadsheets as your tables, you will learn how SQL Server builds execution plans, uses indexes, performs joins, and considers statistics. This session is for DBAs and developers who are comfortable writing queries, but not so comfortable when it comes to explaining nonclustered indexes, lookups, sargability, fill factor, and corruption detection.
Prerequisites:
You should be in your first 1-5 years of working with SQL Server, and never taken an internals class or read an internals book before.
Goals:
- Discover how SQL Server stores data and builds execution plans
- Learn why seek != awesome, and a scan may not be such a bad thing
- Understand how statistics influence execution plans
Reviewer Feedback:
- Catchy title. Good enough to capture attention and describe topic being discussed
- should be 200 level – the title sounds like a deep dive, not entry level. Need more details in goals. great topic and sounds like a wonderful session
- topic is interesting but not really “hot” or “latest”. The abstract seems like the session is taking a unique hands on approach and would keep the attendees engaged and interested. goals are somewhat generic and could benefit from being more tangible. demo % is decent.
- Great sounding session for an intro to how SQL Server works on the inside. Great job describing the type of audience that will get the most out of this session.
- Abstract: Fit for purpose, no issues found. Topic: Good title. Very useful topic and ever so current. Subjective: Was expecting more than 50% demo for this subject at level 100, honestly.
- Good solid way for a junior attendee to get to know how the optimizer thinks. I suspect the pre-req should say 1-2 years rather than 1-5. I would hope somebody with more than 2 years experience would be reasonably familiar with this material. Could be a good re-cap of existing material as well.
- The session pre-reqs are skewed. Interesting. I think I would want to come to this. Seems a little lighter than others. Should it be under optimizing or indexing?
My Thoughts:
This is one of my favorite sessions, and I’ve given it all over the world to great reviews. Whenever I think everyone must have seen it by now, I see reviewer feedback like this and go, “Yeah, I still need to keep giving it.”
The level discussion is really interesting. I think everyone should know this material – but it’s not taught to us as we get started with databases. You wouldn’t believe the furious, intensive note-taking I see from DBAs with a dozen years of experience who never really got this material until they had database pages in their hands. At the same time, I don’t want to write an abstract that sounds like it’s for everyone, so I restrict this to level 100. (Levels are BS anyway.)
Performance Tuning When You Can't Fix the Queries (Not Accepted)
Note: Yes, the ' is verbatim, because PASS’s web site apparently has problems with apostrophes. Just wait until you read the full abstract. Yes, this is the year 2016. Yes, they are still on DotNetNuke. The sp_Askxxx isn’t an error, though, because they strip names out of abstracts to review them independently.
Length: General Session (75 minutes)
Track: Enterprise Database Administration & Deployment
Topic: Performance Monitoring / Tuning / Extended Events / Waits
Level: 200
Abstract:
Your users are frustrated because the app is too slow, but you can't change the queries. Maybe it's a third party app, or maybe you're using generated code, or maybe you're just not allowed to change it. Take heart – there's still hope.
xxx does this every week, and he'll share a simple cheat sheet to his proven performance tuning methodologies and free tools.
You'll learn how to diagnose your server's bottleneck with sp_Askxxx, then how to find the bottleneck-causing queries with sp_BlitzCache, next figure out whether you can fix them with indexes using sp_BlitzIndex, and then finally, figure out whether hardware, Enterprise Edition, or configuration switches can help.
This session is for developers, DBAs, and consultants who have to make SQL Server go faster. You should be comfortable writing queries and creating tables, but not as confident about interpreting SQL Server's DMVs and diagnostic data.”
Goals:
- Learn how to diagnose your server's bottleneck with sp_Askxxx
- Discover how to find the bottleneck-causing queries with sp_BlitzCache
- Understand how to use sp_BlitzIndex to make improvements without changing queries
Reviewer Feedback:
- Goals need more specifics
- Abstract – Great detail in abstract. Topic – Nice topic and attendees will be interested Subjective – Should mention that I’ve seen this presentation and its good. Session Prerequisites and level match. The only thing I would improve is to detail the updates for new or improved processes. I didn’t take off for that in my rating. Should mention that these are not from a vendor and pure community script.
- Abstract: Goals align w/ abstract description. Demonstration of Brent Ozar tools is a must for all SQL Administrators. Topic: Interesting for attendees and would gain an audience. Title reflects content.Interesting session for those seeking performance solutions. Objective: Level and prerequisites match goals. Material matches subject and could be presented in 75 minutes.
- Graphical error in Title Can't and Goal 1 server's spelling error in Session Prerequisites — and creating ta. I am assuming the word ta is supposed to be table.
My Thoughts:
a;shkgahw;riuoghe;gh;eohg;eohg;ajw’aogj;
Watch “XXX” Tune Queries (Not Accepted)
Note: PASS anonymizes abstracts to review them independently of speakers. This title is obviously Watch Brent Tune Queries, and I take delight in being equated with XXX.
Length: General Session (75 minutes)
Track: Application & Database Development
Topic: Optimizing Queries / Execution Plans
Level: 200
Abstract:
Ever wonder how somebody else does it? Watch over the virtual shoulder of Microsoft Certified Master xxx as he walks you through the Stack Overflow public database export, shows you queries, and then tunes them to make them dramatically faster.
Prerequisites:
You should be comfortable running queries in SSMS, but wildly uncomfortable reading execution plans
Goals:
- Learn what metrics you should track for a query
- Understand how to approach an execution plan
- See how xxx’s BE CREEPY process helps you performance tune reliably and easily
Reviewer Feedback:
- A lot of personal advertising Will attract atendees Goals match experience level
- Abstract: Not enough detail in abstract.
- Abstract: could spell out a bit more what the session is about – not everyone knows the BOZAR yet, so a bit more detail might get more attendees that otherwise may overlook this. Topic: Fit for purpose and audience. Subjective: Good % of demos for this topic. Love the session Pre-Req text.
- XXX, do you really need this. Need more information in abstract. can you give an example of a query you are going to tune?
- topic of query tuning is interesting to most developers but this is a crowded space and this session doesn’t really stand out. abstract is short and “salesy”, seems to lack tangible details on session contents. goals are okay but somewhat short & generic. high demo % is a plus.
- Very bad to rely just on your name to sell this session, not the way that you should submit sessions. Level of detail is way too short for a 75 minute session, might work for a Lightning Talk, but not full sessions.
- Please, Please, Please get a more detailed abstract up – it’s only 4 lines long – 40ish words????? This will be popular but I’d really love to see more content in the abstract – give some examples. What am i going to learn. Sell your session better, don’t just rely on your name and status – it seems arrogant. People will go to this – I’m potentially not one.
- Good 200 session on query optimizing. Light on the abstract.
My Thoughts:
My abstract was too short, but reading this feedback, a longer one wouldn’t have saved it. PASS has long been anti-personal-branding – this year’s mess around the speaker contract is a great example – so I knew this session wouldn’t fly with the reviewers, but I had to try it.
It’s a shame, because it does phenomenally well at our training classes, SQL Intersections, and SQLSaturdays. This one usually has people crammed into the aisles and sitting on the floor in order to get space.
Recap
This year, I only submitted sessions I passionately love giving.
I would have been happy if one got accepted. Two did.
Now the next round of hard work starts: polishing the sessions more.
Update: want to read other speakers’ feedback?
17 Comments. Leave new
Interesting thoughts. I like seeing the comments, and we should see more. This shows how vastly different reviewers can see the same topic.
With regards to the website&39;s issues, reviewers should note this isn’t a submission issue, but a tech issue. Or they should realize this. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be reviewing anything technical. I know it’s a great session, and it’s sales-y. I think an example of tuning here, would be good, and the last session does need a few examples. Not sure that means it gets picked, but it does then look better and help guide the people that don’t know the BOZAR.
Steve – yeah, and I really like how honest the comments were along the lines of “I’d want to see this” or “I wouldn’t want to see this.” That’s really valuable to me – sorta, of course, because sessions can’t possibly appeal to everyone, but it’s still valuable.
Agree. I appreciate the honest, and I’m glad it’s more than 3 ppl now with the variety of notes.
Having submitted 3 sessions this year for a first time, I found the process and feedback amusing at best. The feedback was ALL over the place and littered with comments reflecting the wording and grammar of the abstracts. Even with no grammar errors…geez. The feedback on the actually topics were REALLY positive. So my personal take is that (no offense to you Brent) there are certain folks that if they submit their grocery list are going to get in. Other folks especially first time folks are going to have a hard time without wading through the “who you know” and politics of the committees. It won’t keep me from resubmitting next year, but does appear to be as a colleague put it a “Tire Fire”.
Stan – no offense taken. I’d ask you a few questions, though:
If the answer is no to all three questions, then here’s the tricky part: the reason some people can submit their grocery list is that they do this kind of work. The reason you know some names over others is that they craft their abstracts (and their sessions) with that level of work.
I agree, the process is pretty rough and wildly unpredictable, but hang in there. Do the work – start here: https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2013/05/questions-about-your-sqlpass-summit-submission/ And I promise it’ll pay off.
Stan,
A lot of first timers were selected this year. 20% of speakers were in fact first timers. That’s a super impressive figure and quite brave in the face of the Summit being the revenue engine for everything else PASS does.
The process is quite rigorous:. I’m not sure you read this post where they detailed the process and the stats? http://www.sqlpass.org/Community/PASSBlog/tabid/1476/entryid/803/Insights-into-the-PASS-Summit-Speaker-Selection-Process.aspx
Ultimately, there’s relatively little scope for partisan selections. Allen & two PASS employees do the final balancing of the agenda. I would argue that as the PASS employees aren’t prominent in the community, they can attain a level of impartiality that a lot of us would be hard pressed to achieve.
I’d love to see your sessions & feedback. Do you have a blog? Would you mind posting the feedback received?
I did one and two… Love the concept of point 3. I will do that next year and I will speak at Summit one day!
Interesting, BOZAR. I had similar feedback – basically “awesome” and “stinks” on the same topic by different reviewers. I agree with Steve: “This shows how vastly different reviewers can see the same topic.”
I appreciate that we get feedback. A big “thanks!” to PASS and the awesome volunteers who took the time to both select abstracts and to supply their feedback.
I have a concern and a pet peeve.
Concern: I worry that speaking at the PASS Summit is leaning (too far) towards becoming an Abstract Writing Contest.
Pet Peeve:
When it comes to selecting a Session Topic Level, I have more confidence in the judgment of someone who has trained thousands in a technology.
My suggestion for Session Levels: Ditch the dropdown and supplant it with a textbox. Allow Session Levels to be at the submitter’s discretion and don’t even expose it in the abstract-judging contes… er, I mean, process.
:{>
But then all the sessions would be Level 42… 😉
Ha! All mine would be 42, that’s for sure!
Seriously, though, the Level stuff is an engine of loss. Every session I deliver contains some basic information and some advanced, regardless of which Level checkbox I check. :{>
[…] about the session in the future. For now, after Brent Ozar and Steph Locke published they abstract review feedback, now it’s my […]
I received some grammar comments too, and my abstracts were heavily vetted by someone who has been a professional textbook editor for 15 years. So the wannabe grammar nazis can metaphorically suck it. 🙂
The part that made me laugh is that there were tons of grammar, capitalization, and spelling errors in the reviewer feedback. 😀
I get it, they’re busy volunteers, but it was just ironic.
[…] after the results were made public. Brent Ozar has added a list of these speakers to his own feedback post. I appreciate the transparency, I learn a lot from reading other people’s feedback, and I […]
[…] Brent Ozar […]
I know this is no longer the hot topic du jour, but now that it has cooled down a bit, I did want to pass on an observation I made that is slightly too long for a tweet, yet not important enough for a separate blog post.
I had multiple comments in my session feedback indicating we shouldn’t bother submitting 100-level sessions to PASS Summit. I don’t know if that’s just one specific reviewer’s bias, but I think at least one session had multiple comments to that effect.
I just found that odd, because in the June 2016 Town Hall, Lance Harra said they aim for 15-20% of the sessions to be in the 100 level. And in fact the selected session breakdown (at least on selection day; that may have changed now) over 110 total sessions was:
22 @ 100 (20%)
38 @ 200
41 @ 300
7 @ 400
2 @ 500
I didn’t bother calculating the other percentages, because you can math too, but my point is that the high end of Lance’s target was hit, which doesn’t seem to jive with comments like “no draw for 100-level sessions at a conference like the Summit.” Of course there are more 200/300 level sessions, but there is at least a portion of the abstract review team not on the same page as the rest.
Yep. I think there’s a bit of confusion around what the Summit wants to be. There’s a lot of mixed messages.
“We want well-polished sessions, but they have to be brand new.”
“We want to appeal to a wide audience, and we’ll do it with 400-level sessions.”
“We need a separate conference for analytics, but we’ll have 5 intro-to-R sessions at the database one.”