Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Justin Cappos

I agree with Alena that single blind may make the most sense for Kubecon.  Academic venues that use double blind usually do so (in part) to try to cut down on nepotism, etc.  The acknowledged loss is that sometimes knowing who the presenter is can add information about the value of the work.

I do think that single blind probably makes more sense in this case, because I'm presuming that it isn't that PC members from vendor A are accepting all vendor A talks.  (In academic conferences, this would be a conflict regardless so people at the same institution cannot review each others' submissions.)


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:36 PM Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:

I'm not sure going with double blind for Kubecon talk submissions is a good idea. In academic conferences, the paper itself is a good enough justification as it includes all the information needed to make a fair judgement. Kubecon submissions are short abstracts, and can't be judged the same way. Speaker's presentation skills, the projects he/she is involved in, the presentations given in the past should be taken into consideration. Unless we ask to include slides and transcript of the presentation as a part of the submission, there is not enough basis to do double blind voting.

A disclaimer: some of my talks were accepted to kubecon, some were rejected. As a speaker (and I don't consider myself to be a particularly good one) I'd really like to know the reasons behind both decisions.

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 5:29:27 PM
To: Camille Fournier
Cc: Brian Grant; Bryan Cantrell; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:14 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
What percentage of end user talks were accepted?

27.8% of talks are from end users.

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.