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.

 

Thanks,

 

-Yuan

 

Principal Architect, Infrastructure

JD.com Silicon Valley R&D Center

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 7:50 PM
To: "alena@..." <alena@...>
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@...>, "skamille@..." <skamille@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

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:

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 https://www.cncf.io

+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

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