Bill Graziano and Andy Warren have both put their thoughts out there on where to hold the PASS Summit in 2011 and beyond. I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter as well. Please take note that these are my thoughts and do not represent the position of the PASS Board of Directors in any official capacity.
Size Matters
Forget what you may have heard in the past. Size matters.
Our conference is at roughly 2,500 members, give or take. A conference of that size can only be held in a specific number of venues across North America. In other words, not every city can accommodate a conference of our size, as even fewer will be able to host our conference should it grow to say, 10,000 attendees (my lofty goal). When you start getting to be that big then you have to really start spreading yourselves out, or run sessions into the night (or both). One of the things that works well for us right now is that we are able to hold everything inside of one place. We would want to continue to find venues that allow for everyone to gather together when possible.
Location, Location, Location
The next thing to consider is the location. Not just the location of the Summit venue, but the locations of all our members. We are a global association. We have members fly in from all over the world. In order to alleviate some of the travel pains it is best to be located in a city that is either an international hub, or can be reached in one flight from an international hub. But being a hub itself is even better. Combine this factor with the size factor and the number of available cities drops.
As much as a pain as it can be for me to skip backwards three time zones I know and understand it is even more of an issue for those coming from farther away. So I try to keep my whining about such matters to myself although my family is never pleased with my return flight options from Seattle.
And let’s not forget any of the disasters, natural or otherwise, that have affected previous Summits. Location matters, as well as your timing. Having a major conference in Hurricane Alley during hurricane season may not be the wisest choice. Neither would having it in Detroit during…well…ever.
Variety is the Spice of Life
I enjoy new experiences, I think most people do. I also enjoy routines. I think it is wise for the Summit to be located in Seattle, but it would also be wise to have it rotate out. I like the idea of trying to time our Summit with the launch of a new version, but I am not certain how practical that may be given the amount of time involved. For example, we have to commit to the 2011 Summit soon, and Microsoft could say that is their target for a launch. But while our commitment would stand firm, their ship date may change by six months, meaning we are in Seattle and miss the launch we were expecting.
Is there enough demand for us to have a second Summit, perhaps in May? We already have a European Summit, usually in the Spring, so technically we would be having three events a year. If we had a second event in North America, how would people decide which one to attend? Given the current financial structure of putting on a Summit, we would take a large scale financial loss if we were to put on a Summit and no one came.
Talk To Me
So, how frequently do we rotate it out, if ever? I don’t know. That’s why I asked. And that is why it is important that we hear back from the community. We are here to serve you. Tell us what you want. Review the facts and give us your thoughts. We know we will never be able to please everyone, but unless we collect feedback then we really have no idea what it is that people want.
If you want to stay in Seattle forever, then tell us. If you want to visit a new city each year, then tell us. If you want us to go to a new city and stay there forever, instead of Seattle, then tell us.




