What I’m doing to evolve the Program Committee next
Since I wrote about how we’ve been evolving the Program Committee in the past, I thought Id write about some of the ways we’re trying to change the Program Committee in the future.
But first, I want to clarify something that someone else pointed out to me. When I write about the Program Committee, I always say “We”. When working on something as complex as the program for the summit, it is necessary to work as a very cohesive team. This leadership team I am a part of is who makes all of the tactical decisions about the way we manage the education at the Summit. I always refer to “us” as “we” because I cannot (and will not) take all of the credit for putting the Summit education together. Without the team, the committee wouldn’t be half of what it is. While I have been the overarching member of this team (the 1 they cant seem to run off) , the others are always there when we have work to do. Well, except Jeremiah, He’s got this new gig where he’s a turtle hunter or something….
We’ve been working hard over the last 2 years to bring some exciting (well, exciting to me anyway) changes to the program committee. A couple of these changes you should start seeing official announcements about any day now but, I decided to be a tease…
- We’re going to be opening another limited call for speakers for a new session type
- There are 2 new session types coming (well, 1 is a bit old but, its new & shiney)
Some additional thoughts I have about evolving this process are in no particular order
- Expand the use of Community Choice Sessions to include pre/post conferences(1 or maybe more), Id love to even be able to give those who vote for the precon that is selected a discount code to use on that precon.
- have a separate speaker review team that will rate/rank speakers across all tracks and sessions, so we can cut down on the differing ratings per speaker.
- Allow that team to reject speakers without considering abstracts if they dont meet some predefined criteria (no exact ideas on those criteria yet)
- Have a Virtual Chapter sponsored session category. The initial idea is if a VC is active, (say has XX events a year) we allot them 1 speaker slot that they can then award to one of their best speakers (as they see fit within some reasonable framework).
- Use the session evaluation tool for all PASS events (local, chapter, sqlsat, summit, rally)
- Expand the feedback for speakers when we dont accept their presentation at the Summit. Allow the review teams to leave free form comments, as well as a standardized reasons we’re using now
If you believe in these changes and you like how I communicate them, consider voting for me. I’m running for the PASS Board of Directors, and I need your help to make a difference. Click here to read about why I’m running.
Comments are closed.