October 18, 2007 at 11:57 am
Let's put the challenge here. If the cert were structured in such a way that it captured knowledge of Best Practices and practical experience, vs rote knowledge without any understanding or any ability to apply it "to the real world", it could have tremendous value, and yes - I would be on board fast as lightning. If it were to capture a little database theory, set processing theory, normalization INDEPENDENT of MS' spin on each, as well as the "applied" skills within the specific vendor product, then you have the beginning of a standard.
The usefulness of "years in Title" gets ugly too in that light - how do you measure that? I've been a de facto DBA (development DBA mostly) for 6-8 years, never once owning the title.
The current structure of the MS tests places too much value on memorizing facts, and not nearly enough on knowing the "right" way to think about a problem, let alone handle it. I long made a living directly fixing the fallout from "jack-in-the-box" DBA's and MCSE's. This one would need to be different.
I have no clue if PASS can pull it off, but if you do - you've got your first student.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
October 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm
SANS has done a good job of building a training / certification program that's considered an hands-on certification with GIAC. It might be useful to look at it as a model. Regional training, etc., has been addressed.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
October 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm
SANS does seem to have been successful. Certs are an interesting topic, but I think we'd all agree not the easiest out of my list. Can I get more discussion going on the rest of the list, or your thoughts on what PASS can do to help the profession?
October 18, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Jeff - let's give a PASS a chance to improve before go plotting the coup!
October 18, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I don't know - a coup d'etat sounds exciting:w00t:
Structure the new organization as a pure technocracy. Possible bylines/mottos:
- "Two DBA enter - one DBA leave" (as rendered by Tina Turner @ the Thunderdome)
- "There can be only one (DBA)..." (As rendered by Sean Connery @ Loch Shiel)
- "You keep what you KILL (Proceses of course)..." (as rendered by Corm Feore @ Helion Prime)....
Somebody stop me - I got more.......:D
(as rendered by Jim Carrey - sorry - couldn't help myself)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
October 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Matt Miller (10/18/2007)
I don't know - a coup d'etat sounds exciting:w00t:Structure the new organization as a pure technocracy. Possible bylines/mottos:
- "Two DBA enter - one DBA leave" (as rendered by Tina Turner @ the Thunderdome)
- "There can be only one (DBA)..." (As rendered by Sean Connery @ Loch Shiel)
- "You keep what you KILL (Proceses of course)..." (as rendered by Corm Feore @ Helion Prime)....
Somebody stop me - I got more.......:D
(as rendered by Jim Carrey - sorry - couldn't help myself)
That's hilarious!!!
* Noel
October 20, 2007 at 8:43 am
With all the suggestions put forth by Andy I am quite surprised that the wheels are digging into the turf under the concept of PASS Certification. To me that is high-hanging fruit, with little payoff over the other items Andy so thoughtfully presented
First, I too need to express that I am also a writer for Simple-Talk in case someone wants to declare a conflict of interest. Like Grant I am also a volunteer on the Editorial Committee. I've also been involved as a SIG Leader or SIG Committee Member since the inception of the SIGs in 2002 and have run the SIG Quizbowl since 2004. I've also served on the Program Committee for the last 3 summits. One could say that I've seen quite a bit of what is "under the hood" of PASS.
As Grant stated, the volunteers had a full day session prior to the summit where, among other things, we went through the results of the volunteer survey. We broke into focus groups and spitballed proposed solutions to the primary issues for which our members showed concern. I would tend to estimate that we discussed 50% of the items Andy raised in his article. We the volunteers voiced additional concerns that were not returned by the members-at-large. I can not assert that we're going to solve all issues at-hand within the next 13 months before the next summit, but I can tell you that the drive, skill, and determination is there to do so. After all, we are all unpaid volunteers, with jobs and families of our own - no matter what PASSion we have for PASS those two things will always come first. The more volunteers we have, the better chance we have of making PASS a better organization that what it is perceived to be today.
The conference is our (current) main outlet for marketing and revenue, no matter what we hope to turn sqlpass.org or the SQL Server Standard into, that will most likely never change. I would think that primary focus on the items Andy raised towards improving the annual summit makes more sense versus a proposed certification program (which was one of the topics discussed at our volunteer focus group meeting in September.) As a long term member of the Programming Committee that would be what I would like to address here.
The summit track content we present to our members is a direct result of the abstracts the Program Committee receives for review. More than any other professional SQL Server organization, we directly solicit and consider content presentations from fellow techs in the trenches as much as any established speaker. We spend countless hours reviewing the results of the previous years' speaker evaluations when considering what abstracts to approve for the summit. Unfortunately, the return rate on evaluations rivals the current prime lending rate. If we're (and I am speaking as a PASS member) expect to have quality speakers at all levels of expertise in the future, then we (the members) need to do our part by evaluating speakers and their sessions this year. The reason I got involved with the Program Committee was because I was not satisfied with the content of a summit. If you do not have the time to devote as a volunteer, at least have your say in the evaluation for a session. It only takes 1-2 minutes to complete.
I do like the idea of listing titles of the abstracts we've already received on the web site during the call for speakers. Believe me, I've been on three of the four tracks for the Program Committee in my last three years - reviewing the eighth abstract on the subject of RAID Configurations for High Performance will wear thin. My concern would be that we would limit the available number of abstracts for review in an attempt to expand the field. That eighth abstract might have been the best one, however it may not have ever been submitted because the author noted that the topic was already widely covered. He/She may choose to submit a different abstract, but they may choose to not submit at all and we would lose a chance at either presenting a very good session by a new or an established speaker.
We also need to get beyond the concept that PASS = DBA. This is not the case and never has been. However, it can not be argued that there are far more attendees in at the summit and members of PASS at large that are DBA-Centric than any of the other SQL factions. Membership drives the content as a result. We get more abstracts submitted for DBA content by almost a 3:1 margin. This year's summit for example was heavily leveraged on B.I. We, the Program Committee, strive to balance the content presented as best as we can. It is becoming even more challenging with the trend that SQL Server is taking towards expanding its feature set and complexity.
We've also had discussions amongst the volunteers and the board of directors concerning the summit locations and the hopscotching back to the Emerald City every other year. Microsoft, who provides quite a bit of content for us and access to much of the internal talent at the summits, are able to send that talent over across town for a full summit much easier (and willingly) than sending them across the country. Since the summit is also about access to the techs and professionals at Microsoft in addition to the track content, hands-on-labs, etc. we need to consider what is involved with getting those individuals to show up at the SQL Lounge in Orlando, versus the SQL Lounge in Seattle.
The case can be made that the best way to improve PASS is to get involved. I may be the biggest proponent of that concept because I've seen it work for me.
So I throw the gauntlet back to the members: if you want change be a part of that change.
At the minimum, vote. Read the bios and all other information presented about candidates and cast a vote. If you attend the conference then at the minimum evaluate the sessions you attend - all of them. Be critical too if it's warranted. You're not going to hurt feelings by being honest. By not voicing your opinion (good or bad) then you're not giving the Program Committee information it desperately needs to make an informed decision for next year's summit. If you can volunteer please do. We need you! We want you!
Andy, thank you for your ideas you presented.
:w00t:
October 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
Tim, thats an interesting point about possibly missing out on a 'better' session because someone possibly not as talented had already submitted. I think two ways you could mitigate that and still help speakers. One would be to just extend invitations up from to the most successful speakers. This used to be done with the Spotlight speakers, but doesn't seem to happen now. I would hate to see 90% of speakers grandfathered in, but there are certainly some speakers that provide consistent results and might make sense to add. Tricky, but some formula possible. The other way is that just because I see my friend Steve Jones has submitted a session on being the Voice of the DBA doesn't mean I can't submit one as well. I might do because I think I'm a better speaker, have more name recognitition (leading to big draw for the session), or just have a different take that might also be valuable. The value to the speaker is that if I really want to participate I can choose not to try to compete (or waste time submitting an abstract that will probably not be accepted), and instead just submit a different session.
I agree with you that certs are the hard target, but what a coup for PASS if it was made to happen! I think the truth is that many people see PASS as irrelevant because they are value driven and PASS provides no value. Conference = value (education/networking), PASS = ? But for all that I'd much prefer you address everything else on the list first, then get to certs, or some other equally compelling feature that would make PASS an easy value to explain and to sell to potential members.
We can't take a year to fix this stuff, we need it fixed now, in 30 days. PASS has a full time staff and if they need to, hire a board member or consultant for 30 days to just dig in deep and hard and get it done. Use volunteers for the thing that make sense - reviewing abstracts is a great one in my mind, you need someone with a good sense of the profession, the community, and the event to get a good mix. But sending out news to chapters, etc - thats grunt work that we should be paying someone for to just get it done.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the reply and hope to see the conversation continue, and not just with the me as the one squeaky wheel!
November 12, 2007 at 9:25 pm
These are great suggestions, Andy.
I've actually been planning to work on a certification program for PASS for some time now, once I step out of the role of president.
Look for an email from me asking for you to participate on the committee! 😀
Best regards,
-Kevin
November 14, 2007 at 1:19 pm
kkline (11/12/2007)
These are great suggestions, Andy.I've actually been planning to work on a certification program for PASS for some time now, once I step out of the role of president.
Look for an email from me asking for you to participate on the committee! 😀
Now ya did it, Andy! You got volunteered, military style. 😉
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 14, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Im not opposed to participating, but I do have a certain amount of skepticism regarding committee with more than 3 members or no power to implement decisions!
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply