Browsing articles tagged with " Ethics"

Slide decks and PASS Summit: About Me Slides

May 25, 2016   //   by Karen Lopez   //   Blog, Events, Professional Development, Speaking, SQL Server, Training  //  10 Comments

Karen Lopez About Me Slide

I’ve been extremely lucky to have my sessions selected for speaking at PASS Summits for 4 of the last 5 years.  One year all my topics (data modeling and database design) were deemed to be “off-topic” for the Summit crowd. The good news I still got to speak because each of the two founding organizations (Microsoft and CA) let me use one of their slots or co-presented with me on the topics of database architectures and designs.

One of the outcomes of speakers using their community slots to do sales from the podium is that this event now has a rule that your slide deck can have only one mention of your name and our company.  Yes, because people were being overly focused on what they could get out of the crowd instead of sharing knowledge with attendees, the rest of the speakers and attendees have to feel pain.

Win-Win

I’m proposing that we allow speakers to put a form of their About Me slide at both the beginning and the end of a slide deck.  Yup. Just one more slide.

The first About Me slide is to establish a the speaker’s credibility on the subject, plus to disclose any potential conflicts of interest the speaker might have. Speaker works for a vendor? Check. Speaker wrote a book on this? Check. Speaker is a data architect and not a DBA? Check.

Note that having a potential conflict of interest on a topic isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  It’s just a disclosure, not a confession.  In the past, when InfoAdvisors partnered with vendors, that would be on my About Me slide for presentations about data modeling, because I had partner agreements with most of the data modeling tool vendors.  We don’t have partner agreement any longer, but we do work with data modeling tool vendors.

When I speak in vendor-hosted slots, I’m careful to explain to attendees that they are in a paid speaking session and I disclose why I’m there and whether or not I was compensated to be there.  In the Summit year I spoke in vendor slots, I wasn’t compensated other than to get a spot via means other than the program committee.

The second About Me slide, at the end of the deck, plays the role of "Okay, I just talked with you for an hour about something I’m passionate about. If you’d like to talk more about it, or if you have problems with my demos, or if you have a question you want to ask me, here’s how to reach me.

For me, this isn’t just the norm for all events, it’s etiquette as well. 

Some speakers in the community have said “but all the attendees know who we are”.  No, no they don’t.  Celebrity is a bit overrated here. 

Regulation is Born from Bad Behaviours

I think it’s odd our community has a rule that keeps us from doing the second slide. I know the rule came from speakers who were overly sales-y in their talks. That’s what makes me sad about the other discussions I blogged about yesterday. Bad behaviour by sales-focused speakers ruins the experience for attendees at the event and for years after.

Bad behaviour by sales-focused speakers ruins the experience for attendees at the event and for years after.

If we started collecting data from attendees about how promotional speakers were in their sessions, that would be a much better indicator of whether or not sales was happening from the podium.  At EDW for the last several years, the attendee survey asks people:

“Was the speaker too "commercial?"  i.e. did he/she seem to be selling their own product / services / book / etc.?”

It’s a simple Yes/No question.  The measure is reported back to the speaker and the event organizers.  The overall conference evaluation asks for the attendees to list the speakers who were overly sales focused during the event. I think that’s a great question to ask the community. This data is much more likely than the ban on mentioning your name more than once in an hour to indicate whether or not the speaker is there to sell you his or her stuff.

One of the reasons decks have to be submitted for review at Summit is so that dozens of volunteers can scour the slides for mentions of the speaker’s name or company.  That isn’t really a value add for attendees, yet we do it because people have been overly focused on selling their products or services instead of the community. We’ve incurred a huge cost (in volunteer hours) to enforce this and some other less important things AND added months to gap between slide preparations and presentation time. This leads to pain for both the speakers and the audience.

Speakers break this rule all the time.  Some get called out, some don’t. We basically have a rule that is unevenly enforced and silly. It’s time to change this rule. 

It has been five years I’ve been asking for our community to change this rule. I believe I’ve followed it every time I’ve presented at Summit. There may be a time when the last slide from having given the presentation before has stayed in the deck, but I really want to follow the rules. So now after 5 years of emails and chats, I’ve blogged about my idea for win-win solution in hopes that other community folks will say “yes, I think that’s a good idea”.

Make it Right

We should be asking attendees of sessions and in the overall conference evaluation if a speaker spent too much time selling his blog, his books, his services or his products. We should allow two slides about the speaker in a slide deck.  These two changes to our rules will benefit attendees and speakers. These changes are win-win.

Confusing Community with Sales

May 23, 2016   //   by Karen Lopez   //   Blog, Ethics, Events, Professional Development, Speaking, SQL Server, WTF  //  23 Comments

Litter Box Marketing

There have been some blog posts floating around about a new PASS Summit policy.  Most of the posts have been either misleading or ill-informed about why this new rule came about.  Last year there was a sh*tshow of bad marketing and sales practices:

  • Two vendors did a bulk drop of branded promotional items in the Community Zone.  They literally turned an area intended to be about chapters, networking, and #SQLFamily into a their own company litter box.
  • A vendor lefts stacks of promotional items on booths of sponsors in the exhibit areas.  Yes, a vendor who did not pay to sponsor the event used the booths that other vendors paid for to attempt to distribute their marketing materials.
  • I heard of other things happening from sponsors, but did not witness them.  They were right along the lines of those two things above.

So PASS has come out with a new rule about exchanging stuff at the PASS Summit.  They are now going to attempt to limit exchanges to business cards only.  I think this is way too specific of a rule definition, but unlike the other bloggers, instead of making this a post about how awful the board is, I’m going to offer up win-win-win alternatives below.

Some of the comments on these posts have been made in an attempt to soften the “guerrilla marketing” bad behaviours I mentioned.  They claim that the board wants to limit small, personal exchanges of gifts like ribbons and stickers, both very common conference exchanges.  In the space community, these also include mission patches and pins. I don’t believe the board wants that, but they have certainly put that in writing.

First, the rule right now only applies to speakers. I’m not sure if it applies to attendees, but I’d want any such rules to apply to everyone at the event.

Feral Cats and What’s That Smell?

The issue isn’t about personal exchanges of gifts. The issue, as all of us know here but are pretending we don’t, is the literal carpet bombing of commercial collateral, including promotional, branded swag in community areas, empty session rooms, empty tables, restrooms, hallways, charging areas, etc.  I do not support the claims that this type of feral-cat like spraying of vendor materials is “Community over Sponsors” behaviours. It’s about sales over members. Don’t kid yourself. Consultants are vendors. InfoAdvisors is a vendor. I’m a vendor at these events because I work for a vendor.

Consultants are vendors. InfoAdvisors is a vendor. I’m a vendor at these events because I work for a vendor.

All that spraying smells. It’s only community if your business belongs in a back alley. It’s only community if you think of attendees as “prospective invoices”.  It’s all litter box marketing.

That isn’t about gifts. It’s not about community.

And what has happened is that the “arms race” mentioned in one post has now become such an embarrassment to the community that our professional association has had to step in and make a rule.

Update: One vendors claims that the sponsors asked him to drop swag on their tables.  “it just looks like litter boxing” (paraphrased). The two events I witnessed involved the sponsors throwing the swag in the garbage and asking “WTH was that?”  I’m going to guess that “being invited to give out swag at the booths” is a giant misunderstanding.  Ha ha. : ).

The New Rule Isn’t Right

I agree that the limiting to business cards is a unacceptable way to draw the line on this “I don’t see you all as community but as potential invoices” behaviours. But the real fault is on the people who need to have the event as a “sell-first, avoid you later” event.

Saying they can’t afford to have a booth isn’t accurate. It’s affordable.   Many smaller vendors have booths at SQL Saturdays and at the big show.  It’s very affordable, especially if you share with other vendors.  Which is a great way to have a booth because who wants to man/woman/kitten a booth for the entire conference?

Should you have to have a booth to exchange stickers or ribbons? No.  But when sponsors get other people’s swag dropped on their booths, or when the community zone becomes a porta-potty for marketing materials, we’ve lost our path.  No matter what someone tells you, that’s not community. It’s seeing our event not as a Connect. Share. Learn. event. It’s about seeing our event as a Speak and Sell event.

Blame for the new rule goes 100% to the folks who did these things.  Okay, maybe I’ll blame the board 10% for coming with a new rule that isn’t quite a win-win-win solution.

This Ain’t the Tea Party

If you think telling sponsors “we’ll take your money, but others can turn the community zone into their own “rogue exhibit hall” is good conferences sales point, I suggest we just give away exhibit booths and charge everyone the real price it costs to put this on.   I’m guessing that registration will cost about the same as a 7-day cruise.  Or it will be like a local user group meeting, with fewer people.   Austerity might be your political stance.  Telling people to just change jobs if their employer won’t pay $7k for them to attend Summit is a nonstarter.

The fact of the matter is that community events the size of Summit (thousands) can’t happen without sponsors.  Ensuring that sponsors get what they pay for is not “putting sponsors over the needs of attendees”.  It’s about running an event that is affordable and sustainable.  Sure, it’s a balance.  But pretending that somehow non-sponsoring vendors should be allowed to use sponsor resources for their own needs is naïve at best.  At worst, it’s painting the situation as being something it is not.

Data.  Get Your Data Right.

It’s misleading to say that these rules happened because PASS wants to cater to sponsors over community. A few overly-greedy, it’s-all-about-money people have caused this. Focus your ammo on the right malicious “users” of PASS.

What I Want the Rule to Be

I’ve talked to board members and PASS staff.  This is what I want the rule to be.  I think it’s a win-win-win for attendees, consultant and sponsors.

 

Personal, one-on-one exchanges of low-cost items like the ones below should be allowed and even encouraged.

  • Stickers
  • business cards
  • patches
  • buttons & pins
  • temp tattoos
  • ribbons
  • candy
  • stamps
  • etc.

 

I don’t care if those things have your name, your favourite tagline, your picture, your cat-owner’s photo, or your logo.  They key here is one-on-one, personal exchanges of low-value, often fun, things.  I also don’t want to have a detailed list.  People love to have a check box set of rules, but that just leads to people finding loopholes.  Heck, I love sharing space swag at non-space events. Especially collectibles that are older than most of the attendees.

Update: What do I mean by exchanges?  I mean giving out these low-cost items in trade for the other person’s similar item or for some other value.  One year at EDW I asked people to tell me they “loved their data” to get a ribbon.  Hearing people say that was a small but important value to me. I may have done that at Summit one year as well.  The key is these are still one-on-one exchanges. And none of them happened from the podium.  Selling while presenting should be a paid session.

Ribbons, stickers, stamps are all part of the geek community and I want that to continue to be a part of Summit.

 

Bulk distributions of marketing materials, flyers, branded materials should require some sort of sponsorship level.  As should the distribution of more expensive swag, cars, real tattoos, kittens, and $20 bills.

Distribution of items on sponsor booths without their permission should not be allowed.  Bulk distribution on the exhibit floor without being a sponsor or in the Community Zone should not be allowed.

 

The Community Zone Should Be a Sales-free Zone

The Community Zone should be sales-free, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the violation of this rule that I think should cause people not to be invited back to the event.  Attendees should have one area where they aren’t treated like invoices.  Having to put this into a rule makes me sad. People should just understand this is how life works.

Maybe we need a $500 sponsorship level for those vendors whose business is doing so poorly they can’t afford a booth.  Or for independent consultants.  Again, this is for people and organizations that want to do mass distribution of marketing materials and collateral, not personal exchanges.

A professional association should indeed help all members be great at what they do.  Whether they are consultants, software vendors, contractors, full- or part-time employees, retired, whatever.  But that doesn’t mean that a professional association event must provide a sales opportunity in every part of the event.

This proposal is a win-win-win because attendees can keep doing what we’ve always done.  Vendors can still do their sales things, but appropriately.  Vendor sponsors can keep getting value out of their sponsorship dollars without some on other vendor being a feral cat and bragging how “sponsoring a booth is stupid when you can just do guerrilla marketing.”  Our sponsors are part of our community, too.  In fact, organizations can be members of PASS if the sign up.

Finally…

The world does have bigger problems.  But the posts that have been coming out have not been giving the full picture, nor have they offered up a balanced solution. I think it’s good that this year several people came forward to complain to the board that the stuff people have been doing has crossed a line.   It may not really be an “arms race”. But is has been escalating.  Houston, we’ve had a problem. It stinks. It’s time to fix it.  Let’s all work together to get it right, before the urine smell kills the whole event.  If you have other ideas, I’d love to hear them.

This is some of the feedback I got for speaking up.
I’ve never attended a SQL Saturday Ottawa yet (there’s always been a scheduling conflict). I was not in Ottawa that day. I was at a NASA Armstrong Teacher Educator event.

This is how nasty this whole discussion as become. A vendor took a bunch of my tweets over the last year, some about these behaviours, some about my dislike of the things that Mr. Trump says, and some about God knows what else and made a video saying I’m mean. Then this video became a facebook post on the vendor’s own Facebook wall.

.Never Been to Ottawa.

A few people spoke up and this commenter deleted his comment after a while. The vendor did not delete it. The commenter did.  Remember this when you are thinking about win-win-win solutions. This is what’s at stake. This why bad behaviour leads to more bad behaviour. I’ll still keep blogging about it. And people will still comment on ME instead of the issue.Its what is broken with our community. Talk about bad behaviours, not people.

Big Challenges in Data Modeling: Ethics & Data Modeling–24 April

Modeling with Graeme

I have a great topic and panel for this month’s Big Challenges in Data Modeling webinar on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 2:00 PM EDT. It’s free, but you have to register to get the log in information.

Ethical Issues in Data Modeling

We’ll be talking about the nature of ethics, data and data modeling.  I bet all of you have been placed in a tough situation before, either by other IT professionals or by business users who ask you to do something that you aren’t sure is ethical.  Maybe it’s legal, maybe it isn’t.  Maybe it’s about protecting data or data quality.

Some of the topics I hope we can discuss:

  • What is the nature of ethics?
  • How do ethics differ from morality? Legality?
  • Can ethics be taught?
  • Where does ego come into play here?
  • What about Codes of Ethics and Codes of Conduct?
  • Is there one right answer? Is there an always wrong answer?
  • What’s the difference between a whistleblower and a tattletale?
  • What tools do we have in making ethical decisions?
  • How should we deal with unethical co-workers? Management? Customers?
  • What does it all mean, anyway?

Ethical Situations in Data and Data Modeling

  • If the answer is always “it depends”, what does it depend on?
  • What if faster data means lesser data quality?
  • Have you ever been asked to falsify a status report?
  • Have you had to deal with someone else who provided incorrect information to a business user or management?
  • Have you ever been asked to look the other way when security policies are being broken?
  • Have you raised an issue of data protection that was ignored? Or minimalized?
  • What about using production data for testing and development?
  • What if the data is right, but the transformations or reporting is wrong?
  • What if it’s intentionally wrong or misleading?
  • Have you ever had to deal with someone else’s ego?
  • Have you escalated an ethical issue? What about a legal one? A moral one?
  • Do data modelers have distinct areas that we need to watch out for when it comes to ethics?
  • Have you ever left a job or project due to ethical reasons?

 

Panelists

Len Silverston (http://www.univdata.com/ | @lensilverston ), author of Universal Data Models I, II, III, speaker, coach, consultant, trainer.

 

 

Denny Cherry, (http://dcac.co/ | @mrdenny ) author of Basics of Digital Privacy, Securing SQL Server and other books, speaker, consultant and trainer.

 

 

Tamera M. ClarkTamera Clark (http://clarkcreations.net/blog/ | @tameraclark ) speaker, volunteer, Business Intelligence expert

 

Kerry Tyler, (http://www.airbornegeek.com/ | @airbornegeek ) speaker, volunteer, Business Intelligence Developer.

 

 

image

YOU! Our webinars consider attendees as panelists. You’ll have the opportunity to ask questions, chat with other attendees and tell your own stories. You can even arrive early and stay late for our pre-show and after-show discussions. 

 

 

Register now and bring your ethical questions and comments.

Ethics.Data.Gov – Where Open Data is Taking Us

Mar 15, 2012   //   by Karen Lopez   //   Blog, Data, Data Visualization, Open Data  //  No Comments

I came across this video via Twitter from my friend Jim Hendler (blog | @jahendler).  It’s a walkthrough by US Deputy Chief Technology Officer Chris Vein of http://ethics.data.gov

Walkthrough of Ethics.Data.Gov

 

This website brings together key open data sets such as White House visitors,lobbying, campaign donations, etc. As the URL shows, it’s a sub site of the over all US open data project, http://data.gov.  You can see in the image below the datasets that comprise the Ethics data site:

Ethics.data.gov datasets list

The data is available for download and the website offers some nifty ways of working with, visualizing, and embedding the data. For instance, I’ve embedded the White House Visitor data right here. Go ahead, do some searching or filtering, right here.

Powered by Socrata

 

You can change the column order by using the Manage button:

Show and hide columns

You can set up some fairly decent filters (is, contains, etc.) on the columns, too.  Here are the visitors named Karen Lopez:

Filter Columns

That’s not me.  (I seem to recall that I am mayor of the Lincoln Bedroom on Foursquare, though.) This is the problem with trying to use something like First Name and Last Name as a primary key.  My data does show up in the Federal Campaign donations list, though.  Only one donation…my other donation was returned to me because "Canadians can’t donate to US campaigns".  Unfortunately for that candidate, they assumed that I was Canadian based on my residency, not my citizenship.  They lost the money, but the other campaign got to keep my money.  The entire world is one big data modeling problem, I tell ya.  Get your semantics and your syntax right and you can take over the world.  Or at least the US.

The real power in open data is being able to find correlations.  As Deputy CTO Vein mentions, one could match up the data from the White House visitors, lobbyists and campaign donations to see if you find any matches.  That’s not bad, it’s just more information.  This is tough to pull off with any certainty, though, due to that dang primary key issue I mentioned above.  What might help this? URIs.  Or some other way of uniquely identifying people and organizations.

To cross match data, you’ll need to use one of the Export methods of using the API (Socrata ) or download the data to your own tools.

Data is available for download in these formats:

Download As

You can also discuss the datasets right on the site (registration required).  There are only 7 datasets that are part of this ethics website, but the data stewards are eager to find out what datasets you’d like to see added.  I’d also like to hear what data you think should be part of an ethics website focused on data. I’m thinking:

  • Expenditures that required extra approval/oversight
  • Travel data (who went where an why)

Some of the criticism that I’ve heard about data.gov is that there are too few datasets or that so much more could be provided.  I’ve even heard complaints about money being spent on this service.  As Tony Clement, Canadian MP and President of the Treasury Board (site | @tonyclementCPC ) said recently about the Canadian open data initiatives: open data is about transparency.  We can’t wait until we have all the data, in a perfect format, to share it.  He also mentioned that open data is saving the Canadian Government in significantly reduced costs for Freedom of Information Access requests.  Think about it.  What open data will become is self-serve FOIA.  No waiting around for someone to spend weeks or months to find some data, then thousands of dollars to prepare and provide it.

I’m also hoping that the move to open data will allow government data architects to influence good data management practices.  Exposing the data to sunshine is going to allow us, the people who fund the data collection and processing, to point out where the data is poor quality.  The usability and ability to integrate data sets is going to be key in making it useful.

I’m thinking that I’d like to use some of these sets and others from data.gov for some upcoming demos.

Subscribe via E-mail

Use the link below to receive posts via e-mail. Unsubscribe at any time. Subscribe to www.datamodel.com by Email


Recent Comments

Categories

Archive

UA-52726617-1