Please remember that "vendors" are also in many cases the primary contributors to CNCF projects. 

I talked to one of the co-chairs. There are vastly more talks submitted by project contributors than by end users. Perhaps that should be an ask to our end-user community -- submit more talks.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others.  But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt some process to determine their best submissions) would probably help -- and would also help address the too-low acceptance rate...

        - Bryan

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:54 AM Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:

I would agree with double blind.  But a max of 1 talk per vendor might also go a long way. 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:47 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing.  My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:

  http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/10/03/should-kubecon-be-double-blind/

Something that I probably didn't highlight well enough in there is Kathryn McKinley's excellent piece on double-blind review:

  http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/blind.html

There are certainly lots of ways to attack this problem, but I view double-blind as an essential piece -- but probably not sufficient on its own.

         - Bryan