Two years ago I wrote about how screwed up the SQL PASS elections process was, mainly due to the small candidate to seat ratio. That post included a harsh comment comparing the election to a game of musical chairs. Last year several of my colleagues urged me to run for the board, putting my seat where my mouth is (hmm, that doesn’t sound quite right). That led to being involved with the most controversial election ever for PASS, although the controversy was not about me. We listened and created an Election Review Committee to improve the process.

My view is we had a process that focused on transparency (Good!) while still lacking key direction or vision. The PASS board, along with recommendations from our Election Review Committee, has come out with the latest revision to the Elections Process.  Bill Graziano has a post here with the announcement and the process. I am pleased to say this process is much stronger regarding direction, purpose, and vision.

I would like to highlight and discuss a few key points.

1)      PASS Experience Required: The board has explicitly made PASS experience at more than the speaker level a mandatory requirement. We are looking for PASS leadership. You have to know what it is we do and how we do it in order to be eligible.

2)      The Nominations Committee (Nom-Com) now has specific requirements for its members. Short version is if you were eligible for a leadership (non-speaker, non MVP) comp to Summit 2010, you are eligible for the Nom-Com.  The actual document has a more detailed list. Not only do the candidates for Nom-Com come from this pool, this is the same group that elects Nom-Com members. The criteria for inclusion may miss a few qualified members, but this is the best fit answer that does not require gleaning through the 70,000 members on the mailing list to decide who is qualified. I would rather see those resources put towards actual community support that micro-tweaking this process.

3)      The Nom-Com has two distinct roles. One is to make sure that Candidates’ written applications meet the minimum requirements for Directorship. The second is to stack-rank the applicants after conducting interviews. In addition, there is an “Unqualified” rank that requires a unanimous vote of the Nom-Com. We don’t expect to use this, but it is there “just in case”. This dual role was not clear last year, leading to a lot of noise and confusion about the process.

4)      All candidates, including current directors running for re-election, must go through the same process. (Yes, this means me too).

5)      Some parts of the process, specifically the interviews, are intentionally confidential. The process is very similar to a job interview for an executive position. People ask tough questions and need honest answers. There are a lot of things discussed that during an interview lsuch as these that could unnecessarily cause misunderstandings and community conflict, especially when taken out of context. Some things should stay confidential. Feel free to disagree. Please post the transcript of your last three job interviews along with your dissent.

Legacy Comments

Bill Graziano 2011-06-29	re: PASS Election Process 2011 I think we're interpreting eligible volunteers a little more broadly than you have in your post. We're including anyone that can make a reasonable claim to being a volunteer -- including speakers. My guess is that most MVPs will fall into one of the many categories of volunteer.
sqlcraftsman 2011-06-29	re: PASS Election Process 2011 I meant the short description to be inclusive, not exclusive. Again, the full document has a pretty large list of who is eligible.
Lori Edwards 2011-06-29	re: PASS Election Process 2011 One other clarification, Geoff. The PASS membership at large will vote on the NomCom - not just the members that are eligible for the NomCom. From page 4 of the recommendations: "The PASS community, through an election, will select the final three members on the NomCom." As a member of the ERC, I know that we discussed all of the decisions and their ramifications thoroughly before presenting the recommendations to the Board of Directors for approval. I guess that's why I want to ensure that it's communicated correctly.
sqlcraftsman 2011-06-29	re: PASS Election Process 2011 Lori, We went back and forth on the Nom-Com election. Looks like I missed the last "and forth" that put the election for Nom-Com back to the membership as a whole.