Re: Thoughts on KubeCon
Yuan Chen <yuan.chen@...>
I second that. As someone who has had a long history with CS academic conferences (as both a reviewer and author), I was really surprised by the fact that we only needed to write a very short abstract (up to 900 characters)! I was wondering how a reviewer could make a decision based on such limited information.
Also, as the effort required to write a proposal was not that much, there were a larger number of submissions. To me, the quality or outcome (those accepted proposals) should matter most, not the number of submissions.
Interestingly, we were asked to provide a lot of information about our background and experience. I couldn’t help thinking the reviewers care more about an author’s background and experience than the submission itself.
Would it be helpful to try something like an extended abstract, which can provide more information and technical content? We can use a template (e.g., problem statement, solution and results), maybe 1-2 pages.
Also, I would like to have received feedbacks on my submissions.
Principal Architect, Infrastructure
JD.com Silicon Valley R&D Center
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Since the number of submissions is really high, might be ok to require a more in-depth submission to provide enough context for the double-blind assessment. Fewer but better submissions seems like it would be a fine tradeoff.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote: