Re: Thoughts on KubeCon


Matt Farina
 


Quinton Hoole wrote:
> 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).

I want to echo what Quinton suggested. I’ve been a reviewer at a number of conferences and this is something some conferences do and I’ve had to do. I’ve been on the recieving end of this feedback and it’s been useful.

Alex Clemmer wrote:
>  IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the conference
> attendees.

Who are the types of people we want to be attendees and what is it they need and want? Have we collected this information anywhere?

Brian Grant wrote:
> 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.

What does this say about our community? Are there not enough end users? Are they there but not engaged enough?



-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.