I'm going to share what I can from the interview, but I'm going to have to be a little less than 100% transparent because it wouldn't be fair to disclose the actual interview questions when they may still be interviewing candidates (or want to use them again next year).

On Friday afternoon I did my phone interview with the nominating committee:

After quick introductions we moved into questions, mainly formatted as behavioral questions. For example, tell us about a time when this situation occurred and how you handled it. Not my favorite style, but useful in some cases (or to me, as a portion of the questions). Clearly the interview was designed to make sure that candidates were viable (had some life experience, made decisions, SQL experience, etc), but also whether they would be a good fit on the board.

We ended up running about 30 minutes over, think my answers to some of the initial questions were too long, but that's one of the challenges of phone interviews, no facial cues to help you know to speed up or slow down. I had decided in advance not to pull any punches about my views on the current state of the organization (easy decision, just stick with being myself), and I suspect some of the answers I gave weren't entirely popular - and probably not the ones you give if you really really want to get the position. My reasoning is that it's better for them (and me) to know it wasn't going to work now, not at the first board meeting.

One question I will mention was "if you're not nominated for the board, what other involvement in PASS would you consider?" My answer was most likely none beyond my local user group, because unless I saw substantial changes in direction, I'd be playing for a team that I thought was going the wrong way. Not a politically correct answer I'm sure, and maybe not entirely fair...but entirely honest. I would expect to continue attending the Summit because it is a great event (unless something better came long).

Another question which I believe was specific to me was "do you think you'll be happy in an organization that doesn't move as fast as you're used to moving?". That's a really good question, and obviously I won't be happy if change doesn't start to happen. Not many solutions take years, better to do something in 90 days, assess, and then do something else. Does that make me the guy they shouldn't pick?

This Thursday they return their recommendations back to the full board which then votes on the final slate. As I was talking about portions of the interview here in the office one thing I'm not sure I agree with is the process. I get you want to screen candidates, you don't want an anti-SQL person running, or someone with no SQL experience, or no reasonable background of getting things done - something like that. Gray area, but visible. I can also see that you don't want to bring in someone that will be highly disruptive and/or isn't a team player, but I wonder if that latter part shouldn't be left up to the voters (whether I'm a candidate or not).

I didn't hear anything on the call that signaled them leaning one way or the other, which is as it should be. I could have done better on a couple questions in hindsight (eye infection didn't improve my mood or concentration!), but that's ok too. Now to wait and see.