Commentary: PASS 2007 session "levels"

One comment for my session was that it wasn't really 300 level, it was 200 level. Another comment suggested it should have been classified as 400 level instead of 300 level. So on average, it was correct to classify it as a 300-level session :-)

I think the session number is supposed to indicate the experience level. Check other sessions, and you'll see for the most part level 3 sessions are numbered in the 300s, level 2 sessions are in the 200's. My session was listed as experience level 4 and got a 400 number, although one comment did say there was too much basic info in it and should NOT have been a 400 session.

I think PASS just screwed up with your session number, since it is clearly indicated experience level 2.

My biggest problem with my evals was that I was the first session Wednesday, and the keynote was running over time. I got notified by the PASS crew to start 15 minutes late to give people a chance to get there from the  keynote. About 6 evals really dinged me for that, and said I should keep better track of the time my session was supposed to start!

James, I listened to your session earlier today.  I thought it was good.  I did not really look at the session number by the way.  I liked the magnet story!  When I go through my evals, I get comments rannging from all over the spectrum.  BTW, at another conference that I spoke at, I was dinged on my eval for not being "Randy Dyess" as I filled in for him and presented a completely different topic.

It looks like we did get that one wrong.  We do use the session numbering to tell attendees what level a course is.  We normally use the level that a speaker chooses.  If we feel it should be a different level we work with the speaker to set the correct level.  In this case it looks like we made a mistake.  Sorry about that.  

I talked to Bill G. about this already, but there was certainly one 400 session I attended that should have been a 200 (or maybe a 300).

The sad thing was, 5 minutes into it, I realized I had regretted attending the same session at last year's PASS, and hadn't learned from my mistake because I had totally forgotten about it.  So, the mis-label actually burned me twice.  ;-)

Hello All,

I have been dba for 3 years.  I attended the PASS summit in Denver.  I think that it could have been better if the level of the sessions were little clear.  The sessions that I have attended that had 300 or 400 labels mostly 200 level.  It was really hard to know just by the label and know the level of the session and attend the one that I I was interested.

In my opinion, it's also difficult to classify levels - especially in the database professional field. I know database professionals who are outstanding in one area and weak to average in others. Heck, I'm that way too.

At the PASS Summit I attended a couple 300/400-level sessions that were introductory courses to me, but probably not to database administrators without a decade or two as application development under their belt.

Although I haven't helped organize an event the size of the PASS Summit, I have participated in organizing a few Code Camps. This is a common complaint and I would like to address it better. So far, I haven't found a good way.

Ideas, anyone?

:{> Andy

<quote>In fact I heard there was one person so irate outside the doors when they finally closed them that they almost had to call security :)</quote>

Wow James, you have some crazy fans out there. I used to be a celebrity bodyguard, let me know if you need help making it through the crowd at the next conference ;)