SQL Server, PASS, and other data mishaps
PASS 2011 Summit Abstract Submissions
This week we’ll be launching the call for abstracts for the 2011 PASS Summit.
I thought it would be good to go over the basics for this year especially since some things are changing from years past. Many of the changes are minor, some are behind the scenes so to speak, and a small amount are larger and more public facing.
A New Site
PASS HQ and the Program Committee team has been diligently working to bring the summit speaker/education management programming inhouse. With this effort comes a new site for abstract submissions. We hope this new site will make the abstract submission process easier and more relevant to collecting the info PASS needs in order to facilitate session selections.
A New Process
One of the largest changes on the backend process this year is going to be seperating the speaker review from the abstract review piece of the selection process. Essentially, this year we have two seperate teams to do each task. This came about from the comments of previous review team members as well as the need to offload some of the work the call generates for the larger teams. Im hopeful that this change will help bring a little more stability to the scores each team gives an abstract as well as cut some of the subjectiveness (likely only a tiny bit)
A New Session Type
I wrote previously about having 1/2 day sessions at the Summit and they are still planned. Now you know where to bring your best and brightest content! In case your thinking what it would be like to have your 1/2 day session recorded, Ive got great news. Ive got a tentative compromise devised. This year we will be distributing two seperate DVD sets, 1 for attendees of the Summit which will have every session. Another for non attendees that will have all of the regular sessions excluding the deep dive 1/2 day sessions.
Spotlight Sessions & Invitations
Thanks to some great feedback last year The formula that we used for spotlight selections was adjusted and looks like this: We will invite all speakers who recieved an overall evaluation of 4.5 or greater and had at least 15 attendees and 15 completed evaluations. We will be excluding Lightning talks, Chalk Talks, and Microsoft speakers. This year that leaves us with a whopping total of 27 people getting spotlight invites. These speakers are truly spectacular, and they deserve the extra recognition/time for their sessions. All abstracts submitted as spotlight will be considered not only for a spotlight slot but, will also be considered for a regular session if they dont get picked for a spotlight session.
Preconference Changes
I would be remiss to not mention this here but, some different things (changes!!) are planned for this year, as soon as I get a chance to finalize them a bit more I will write about it, hopefully in the next few days to a week.
Abstract Limits
We have decided to change the limits on abstract submissions a bit for this year. We will be encouraging you to submit up to 4 total : Regular, 1/2 day and Spotlight (if invited) Sessions. In addition if you meet the qualifications you can submit up to 2 Preconference sessions. On top of this each person can submit 1 panel (discussion type) session for consideration. In order to do this each speaker in your panel will need to have speaker details entered so we can rate the session properly. This in itself is a pretty good sized change so get creative and see what the selection teams think!
But when
I can hear you asking from here… “All of thats great but, when will the call for abstracts for the 2011 PASS Summit open?” I have great news.
The call will open this Wednesday! 4/13/2011
look for more info coming officially from PASS
| Print article | This entry was posted by Allen Kinsel on April 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm, and is filed under SQLPASS, Summit, Syndicated. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
Nice to see the MCMs mentioned in the pre-req’s for the 1/2 day conference (thanks for that), though it seems to me that it would be more fitting for MCM to be listed under #6 rather than #9. I think an MVP is closer to an MCM than an MCDBA, MCTS, or MCITP.
6. You are a Microsoft MVP or RD.
……
9. You have attained one or more Microsoft SQL Server certification: MCDBA, MCTS, MCITP, or MCM
about 2 years ago
Just to clarify, the 1/2 day sessions do not have any pre requisites for submission, the prerequistes are for preconference submissions.
I dont disagree with you that an MCM is probably closer to a MVP than a MCDBA, MCTS, MCITCP etc but, the difference is there is no education (knowledge) requirement for a MVP. In this case, I think the point was to seperate that out. (I didnt make the prerequsites, a different group of volunteers did and revises them yearly)
about 2 years ago
One question on the spotlight formula. The rating/attendee requirements, must that be made at last year’s summit, a summit in the last x years, something else?
about 2 years ago
It is based on last years summit, we used to have a different formula where it had a lookback to all the previous years spotlights but, based on feedback decided to scratch that.
about 2 years ago
about 2 years ago
Drat.
about 2 years ago
about 2 years ago
There’s clearly something wrong with the pre-con requirements— I actually meet them.
Thanks for the announcement about abstracts, Allen! This is really exciting.
about 2 years ago
haha, the requirements arent supposed to overly exclude, just provide a bit of guidance & structure.
You’re welcome, I hope that this years submissions raise the bar even further and make the selection teams jobs even harder!!
about 2 years ago
Hmm, so do I. That’s wrong.
I do have one serious objection.
“You have been a SQL Server DBA for at least five years.”
So I could be disqualified because I’m a SQL developer, not a DBA?
about 2 years ago
Gail, you make a great point. I’ll make sure to get that updated
about 2 years ago
>> there is no education (knowledge) requirement for a MVP
Some might argue the same about an MCITP.
If you had put the MCMs in #6 instead of #9, I’m sure I’d find a reason to complain about it (just kidding).
Maybe instead of “SQL Server DBA for at least five years,” it should be something like “SQL Server Professional for at least five years in the area of their topic”. Meaning a SQL Developer for 5 years could present on a development topic and a SQL DBA could present on a DBA topic or a Data Architect could present on a architecture topic. Obviously, many people would qualify for more than 1 of those, but it would preclude someone who has only worked as a DBA from doing a development topic or a SQL Dev from doing an administration topic.
After all, would we rather see Adam Machanic present on failover clustering and Allan Hirt present on StreamInsight or the other way around?
about 2 years ago
Since you asked the question.. actually I’d prefer Allan to do StreamInsight and Adam to do Clustering. Why? Because it gives a different perspective on the subject that would have been presented and for the speakers it would be valuable to them to get to learn or get better at new stuff (if they didn’t already know it) and I’m sure their enthusiasm for something new would make it more enjoyable to watch. Granted we probably wouldn’t be talking about a level 400 session for either, but if I want that on those subject there are lots of previous presentations already given by the usual candidates that can readily be accessed. Just an idea, and I seem to remember Allan recently mentioning to me that he’d like to present other things but obviously has the “Clustering” tag which makes it hard to move away from in submissions/ selection.