Re: Thoughts on KubeCon
Thanks for the insightful and thought-provoking blog post Bryan. I missed the call yesterday, but co-incidentally had been noodling with similar thoughts recently, as, anecdotally, I’m also not convinced that we have the best submission review outcomes today. I think that introducing the the partially double-blind review process would be a great step forward, and may well obviate the need for complicated per-vendor limits.
I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too much marketing pitch”, “not open source”, “previously presented”, “duplicated submission”, “off topic" etc) to help submitters to improve their chances in future (and perhaps also clarify any possible misperceptions by reviewers, as the submissions are by necessity brief). As just one illustrative data point, all 10 of my submissions to KubeCon China and US were rejected, and none of the rejections seem explainable by any of the “how to improve the odds” guidelines. So I have no idea what to do differently in future.
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:58
To: "anthony@..." <anthony@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon