THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web

Welcome to - The SQL Server blog spot on the web Sign in | |
in Search

Andy Leonard

Andy Leonard is an author and engineer who enjoys building and automating data integration solutions. Andy is co-host of the Data Driven podcast. Andy is no longer updating this blog. His current blog is

PASS Elections Review Committee Recommendations Announced

This blog has moved! You can find this content at the following new location:

Published Monday, July 4, 2011 8:00 AM by andyleonard

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS



AllenMWhite said:

Andy, I was a member of the ERC and thank you for your comments.  I personally think that a write-in candidate is generally bad for PASS.  If the committee had supported one I'd have joined in that support, but I think write-ins do more harm than good to the organization. They reflect 'popular' candidates whose agendas may not align with the good of the organization. The problems we faced last year were specifically addressed, and in addressing them I sincerely hope we eliminated the need for a write-in. Time will tell, and I hope others feel strongly enough about their PASSion to submit their candidacy when that opens later this summer.

July 4, 2011 1:53 PM

andyleonard said:

Hi Allen,

  Thanks for your response and for your efforts serving on the ERC.

  I'm a little confused: You don't feel the current process reflects popularity?


July 4, 2011 1:59 PM

AllenMWhite said:

To some extent all elections reflect popularity. With the benefit of the NomCom, the candidates' credentials and commitment are verified, and the interviews help determine the ability of the candidate to properly present their thoughts on issues important to PASS. Bypassing the NomCom via a write-in makes said candidate's entry based purely on popularity, and I don't think that helps build a strong organization.

July 4, 2011 2:55 PM

andyleonard said:

Hi Allen,

  I understand. I'm sure you understand this configuration makes for more slow and deliberate change - which is fine, if PASS wants things that way.


July 4, 2011 3:38 PM

Bill Graziano said:


Sorry I didn't catch this when you first published it.

The PASS Board was under no legal obligation to accept or reject the recommendations of the ERC.  The Board could do anything they wanted with the recommendations.

As far as influencing the ERC, there were two Board members on the ERC: me and Andy Warren.  Andy is probably closer to the way you want elections run and I'm probably closer to the way you don't want elections run.  We agreed on some things and disagreed on others.  I don't think were able to unduly influence the five other members of the committee in the cases where we did agree.  In fact, I was pretty focused on picking people to serve who would tell me to go jump in a lake if I tried to "unduly" influence them.  Other than that there was very little contact between the Board and the ERC.  The Board's instructions were that nothing was off the table.

In regard to whether we accepted the ERC recommendations, we published both documents at the link you have above.  Anyone can read the two and make that decision for themselves.

If you just want the short version, I wrote a blog post published on my site ( and the PASS Blog ( highlighting what I thought the key changes were.


July 11, 2011 9:08 PM

Leave a Comment


This Blog



My Latest Book:

Community Awards

Friend of Red Gate

Contact Me


Privacy Statement